Bitcoin Forum
July 28, 2017, 04:58:02 AM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 [1455] 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1940700 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2015, 12:14:08 AM
 #29081

At least one of them made out like a bandit tho...

assuming one of them actually did something wrong tho...

Well, the jury is still out on that imho. It seems calling 'shill' in this place is like yelling 'fire' at an apathy convention.  Undecided

Shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition.  Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary?

Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

Quote
to act as a spokesperson or promoter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster?  What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?   Cheesy

"Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition.

Connotation is not definition.

Webster's not good enough for ya?  Fine...

Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation.

QED you got rekt son.   Wink

Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals.

Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.   Smiley

You ought not get entrenched on this one.  Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson.   You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shill

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.html

http://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/

decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.)

You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
1501217882
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501217882

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501217882
Reply with quote  #2

1501217882
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1501217882
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501217882

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501217882
Reply with quote  #2

1501217882
Report to moderator
1501217882
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501217882

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501217882
Reply with quote  #2

1501217882
Report to moderator
1501217882
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1501217882

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1501217882
Reply with quote  #2

1501217882
Report to moderator
majamalu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652



View Profile WWW
July 21, 2015, 12:54:57 AM
 #29082


You ought not get entrenched on this one.  Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson.   You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shill

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.html

http://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/

decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.)

You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition.

How dare you challenge our beloved leader Kim Jong-iCE?

The only correct definition is the one he prefers. The same applies to block size.

http://elbitcoin.org - Bitcoin en español
http://mercadobitcoin.com - MercadoBitcoin
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2015, 01:02:34 AM
 #29083

Shill

A person engaged in covert advertising. The shill attempts to spread buzz by personally endorsing the product in public forums with the pretense of sincerity, when in fact he is being paid for his services.

The "covert" attribute is not in the normal definition.  Why didn't you give us a link to your dictionary?

Here the one to mine: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

Quote
to act as a spokesperson or promoter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Wikipedia/UrbanDictionary vs Merriam Webster?  What's next, KnowYourMeme vs Britannica?   Cheesy

"Shill" often connotes deceptive lack of disclosure, but only compensation to the endorser is required to meet the definition.

Connotation is not definition.

Webster's not good enough for ya?  Fine...

Try OED: "a megamillionaire who makes more money as a shill for corporate products than he does for playing basketball"

Obviously the shill in that example cannot be covert about his infamous corporate compensation.

QED you got rekt son.   Wink

Arguing with me about English is as silly and futile as arguing with gmax about Bitcoin internals.

Well maybe not futile, as both create a teachable moments.   Smiley

You ought not get entrenched on this one.  Its a living language, and I'd hazard a guess that it would be a minority of people that would associate "shill" with an honest spokesperson.   You may wish to maintain that shills are honest, but none of these do:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shill

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/shill

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O999-shill.html

http://dictionary.babylon.com/shill/

decoy, one who poses as a customer in order to lure other customers (in gambling houses, games of chance, etc.)

You may have found the only modern dictionary brief enough to not include such a definition.

I will get entrenched on this one.  Thanks for your concern, but I am in the right here and don't need you to lecture me on 'living languages.'

You missed my point here:

Quote
If you care to check OED and Webster, you'll find they subsume your "entire" Wiki entry by including the deceit-connotated definition along with the broader compensation-only one.

The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 21, 2015, 01:45:51 AM
 #29084

Gavin is already on the case with negating excessively cpu-intensive "bloat tx" which are a concern.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009494.html

Quote
Mitigate a potential CPU exhaustion denial-of-service attack by limiting
the maximum size of a transaction included in a block.

==Motivation==

Sergio Demian Lerner reported that a maliciously constructed block could
take several minutes to validate, due to the way signature hashes are
computed for OP_CHECKSIG/OP_CHECKMULTISIG ([[
https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=140078|CVE-2013-2292]]).
Each signature validation can require hashing most of the transaction's
bytes, resulting in O(s*b) scaling (where n is the number of signature
operations and m is the number of bytes in the transaction, excluding
signatures). If there are no limits on n or m the result is O(n^2) scaling.

This potential attack was mitigated by changing the default relay and
mining policies so transactions larger than 100,000 bytes were not
relayed across the network or included in blocks. However, a miner
not following the default policy could choose to include a
transaction that filled the entire one-megaybte block and took
a long time to validate.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2015, 02:30:47 AM
 #29085

The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.

OK.  Entrench away.  It is a weird place to plant a flag, and entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen.
In a broader social commentary, your expected future of the diminishing notion of deception attached to the word may have more to do with an increase in shamelessness.  As if the deception is always everywhere anyhow.
The pendulum may swing back the other way on that, and I'm rooting for this.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 21, 2015, 03:19:12 AM
 #29086

yep tvbcof and iCEBLOW have always been suckers.  they can't even get their facts straight:

The sad part is that gold always has been a sucker’s bet.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-gold-is-falling-and-wont-get-up-again-2015-07-20

Woah.  QED.  Cypherdoc, your labor is complete.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
July 21, 2015, 04:15:49 AM
 #29087

Gavin is already on the case with negating excessively cpu-intensive "bloat tx" which are a concern.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-July/009494.html

Quote
Mitigate a potential CPU exhaustion denial-of-service attack by limiting
the maximum size of a transaction included in a block.

==Motivation==

Sergio Demian Lerner reported that a maliciously constructed block could
take several minutes to validate, due to the way signature hashes are
computed for OP_CHECKSIG/OP_CHECKMULTISIG ([[
https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=140078|CVE-2013-2292]]).
Each signature validation can require hashing most of the transaction's
bytes, resulting in O(s*b) scaling (where n is the number of signature
operations and m is the number of bytes in the transaction, excluding
signatures). If there are no limits on n or m the result is O(n^2) scaling.

This potential attack was mitigated by changing the default relay and
mining policies so transactions larger than 100,000 bytes were not
relayed across the network or included in blocks. However, a miner
not following the default policy could choose to include a
transaction that filled the entire one-megaybte block and took
a long time to validate.
How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 21, 2015, 04:35:16 AM
 #29088

How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.

Isn't that the point? To introduce extra validation that eventually all the nodes will use (once super-majority threshold reached).

sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
July 21, 2015, 04:47:02 AM
 #29089

How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.

Isn't that the point? To introduce extra validation that eventually all the nodes will use (once super-majority threshold reached).
Why cant they simply be discarded because they are too big? No sig checks.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2015, 06:26:40 AM
 #29090

The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.

OK.  Entrench away.  It is a weird place to plant a flag, and entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen.
In a broader social commentary, your expected future of the diminishing notion of deception attached to the word may have more to do with an increase in shamelessness.  As if the deception is always everywhere anyhow.
The pendulum may swing back the other way on that, and I'm rooting for this.


The success of my entrenchment is not "entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen."

The locus of common usage of "shill" has moved from describing a carny's trick, to a paid endorser, and now is heading towards endorsers who are probably not even be paid (secretly or otherwise).

EG, I'm called a Monero shill for my advocacy, even though nobody seriously thinks the CEO of Monero pays me.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
July 21, 2015, 08:28:25 AM
 #29091

Tribal people don't have private property rules because they don't want it and because they don't need it. They live within an egalitarian community. Nobody there produces beyond consumption needs. Private property rules are always guaranteed by organized violence of the state mafia. It is a thing of the society, which is collectivism, which is the perversion of the community .

Spare us the anti-industrialist New Left's romanticized version of primitivism.


Spare me your collectivist BS, thanks.

Ayn Rand is a collectivist?  I don't even how you would think that.   Huh

Have you been smoking monerijuana again?   Grin

Is she an anarchist? Libertarians are not anarchists. They are aristocratic collectivists who need and call the state to defend their property.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


View Profile
July 21, 2015, 08:51:09 AM
 #29092

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

citation needed?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8737736#msg8737736


thanks for the link.

I have to main points about it, firstly I don't know how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself.

Secondly, even if we get some way to say that a particular ranks distribution means a general approval for the thread among hero/legendary users, going from this to say that "Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto" is quite a big jump, isn't it?

Your request for citation was reasonable.

Gainsaying and nit-picking at the requested citation, upon it it being graciously provided, is not reasonable.

Nobody is stopping you from investigating "how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself."

RTFA.  Stop moving the goal posts because you don't like the fact my assertion has a reasonable basis, demonstrated with empirical data.

I'll save you the trouble.  The Hero/Legendary posts in the XMR thread are positive and supportive, while the ones in the other threads are significantly less so.

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

Sorry but posts frequency don't say anything about the opinions of thread's participants.

TheKoziTwo's chosen the right word: gravitate.

Mind you even JorgeStolfi gravitates a lot towards Btctalk "Speculation" section with more than 4K posts, but this does not mean that he's a bull... on the contrary.

I'm not moving the goal posts I'm just saying that posts frequency by hero/legendary members can't say anything about the contents of such posts.

As you already acknowledged to estimate if those hero/legendary users support the thread you need to perform a qualitative analysis, I.e. you have to read those posts.

That said if you're interested in my opinion I wouldn't touch DRK with a ten foot pole, and as I've already said, a mix of due diligence and gut feeling, ascribe myself among the group of people that have a quantity > O of XMR in their crypto currencies portfolio.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2015, 09:24:54 AM
 #29093

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

citation needed?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8737736#msg8737736


thanks for the link.

I have to main points about it, firstly I don't know how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself.

Secondly, even if we get some way to say that a particular ranks distribution means a general approval for the thread among hero/legendary users, going from this to say that "Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto" is quite a big jump, isn't it?

Your request for citation was reasonable.

Gainsaying and nit-picking at the requested citation, upon it it being graciously provided, is not reasonable.

Nobody is stopping you from investigating "how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself."

RTFA.  Stop moving the goal posts because you don't like the fact my assertion has a reasonable basis, demonstrated with empirical data.

I'll save you the trouble.  The Hero/Legendary posts in the XMR thread are positive and supportive, while the ones in the other threads are significantly less so.

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

Sorry but posts frequency don't say anything about the opinions of thread's participants.

TheKoziTwo's chosen the right word: gravitate.

Mind you even JorgeStolfi gravitates a lot towards Btctalk "Speculation" section with more than 4K posts, but this does not mean that he's a bull... on the contrary.

I'm not moving the goal posts I'm just saying that posts frequency by hero/legendary members can't say anything about the contents of such posts.

As you already acknowledged to estimate if those hero/legendary users support the thread you need to perform a qualitative analysis, I.e. you have to read those posts.

That said if you're interested in my opinion I wouldn't touch DRK with a ten foot pole, and as I've already said, a mix of due diligence and gut feeling, ascribe myself among the group of people that have a quantity > O of XMR in their crypto currencies portfolio.

I've read the posts, and so can you.  I also wrote many of them, as I was participating in the thread.

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2015, 10:29:57 AM
 #29094

The evolution of "shill" etymology is going in the directing of deprecating the old 'deceitful carny' connotation, in favor of the more modern 'paid spokesperson' although preserving the negative aspect by substituting a 'sell-out' implication for the 'fraud' of yore.

OK.  Entrench away.  It is a weird place to plant a flag, and entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen.
In a broader social commentary, your expected future of the diminishing notion of deception attached to the word may have more to do with an increase in shamelessness.  As if the deception is always everywhere anyhow.
The pendulum may swing back the other way on that, and I'm rooting for this.


The success of my entrenchment is not "entirely dependent on the future yet to be seen."

The locus of common usage of "shill" has moved from describing a carny's trick, to a paid endorser, and now is heading towards endorsers who are probably not even be paid (secretly or otherwise).

EG, I'm called a Monero shill for my advocacy, even though nobody seriously thinks the CEO of Monero pays me.

Maybe you should correct them on their improper use of the word?

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 21, 2015, 10:35:13 AM
 #29095

How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.

Isn't that the point? To introduce extra validation that eventually all the nodes will use (once super-majority threshold reached).
Why cant they simply be discarded because they are too big? No sig checks.

The threat block is not "too big", it gets validated.

We are discussing one of the implications of an increased block size, and noticing one of the issues that may be compounded by the prospects of larger blocks being valid.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
July 21, 2015, 12:10:02 PM
 #29096

de-dollarization continues

Brics countries launch new development bank in Shanghai

http://www.bbc.com/news/33605230
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


View Profile
July 21, 2015, 12:15:01 PM
 #29097

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

citation needed?


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8737736#msg8737736


thanks for the link.

I have to main points about it, firstly I don't know how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself.

Secondly, even if we get some way to say that a particular ranks distribution means a general approval for the thread among hero/legendary users, going from this to say that "Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto" is quite a big jump, isn't it?

Your request for citation was reasonable.

Gainsaying and nit-picking at the requested citation, upon it it being graciously provided, is not reasonable.

Nobody is stopping you from investigating "how thread ranks distribution is correlated to users opinion about the thread itself."

RTFA.  Stop moving the goal posts because you don't like the fact my assertion has a reasonable basis, demonstrated with empirical data.

I'll save you the trouble.  The Hero/Legendary posts in the XMR thread are positive and supportive, while the ones in the other threads are significantly less so.

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

Sorry but posts frequency don't say anything about the opinions of thread's participants.

TheKoziTwo's chosen the right word: gravitate.

Mind you even JorgeStolfi gravitates a lot towards Btctalk "Speculation" section with more than 4K posts, but this does not mean that he's a bull... on the contrary.

I'm not moving the goal posts I'm just saying that posts frequency by hero/legendary members can't say anything about the contents of such posts.

As you already acknowledged to estimate if those hero/legendary users support the thread you need to perform a qualitative analysis, I.e. you have to read those posts.

That said if you're interested in my opinion I wouldn't touch DRK with a ten foot pole, and as I've already said, a mix of due diligence and gut feeling, ascribe myself among the group of people that have a quantity > O of XMR in their crypto currencies portfolio.

I've read the posts, and so can you.  I also wrote many of them, as I was participating in the thread.

Yes, Monero is considered by many legendary/hero members to be the next step in crypto.  No other coin even comes close.

so we agree on the fact that posts freq are useless to validate the affirmation at hand, whilst a qualitative measures (i.e. read the posts) is needed. fair.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 21, 2015, 03:16:56 PM
 #29098

$DJI continuing the process of catching down to the $DJT:

sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
July 21, 2015, 03:32:55 PM
 #29099

How would the block be accepted by nodes and other miners if the block was validated using different policies than the attacking miner? IE the size policy would invalidate that block on the rest of the nodes.

Isn't that the point? To introduce extra validation that eventually all the nodes will use (once super-majority threshold reached).
Why cant they simply be discarded because they are too big? No sig checks.

The threat block is not "too big", it gets validated.

We are discussing one of the implications of an increased block size, and noticing one of the issues that may be compounded by the prospects of larger blocks being valid.
Ahh I see makes sense in that case.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 21, 2015, 03:37:37 PM
 #29100

ah, iCE coming to his senses.  thank you.

tvbcof, otoh, still a flaming idiot troll little dog:

https://people.xiph.org/~greg/cypherdoc_fraud_hearing_1.mp3

Primary sources are our friends; gossip is not.   Smiley

Guess im not trained enough in hearing english in order to understand this really. Maybe some other reader can write what the file is about? Its long too.  Roll Eyes

But maybe you can tell why you think that payment is justified. You are the only one yet, i read of, that thinks he could deliver anything near or over 3000Bitcoins worth.

Best I can tell, iCEBREAKER is saying that cypherdoc helped scam people fair and square, and attempts to use 'violence' to clawback the ill-begotten 'nobly achieved' gains from him are improper.

This seems to be the standard party line from the hard-core Libertarian wing throughout the history of Bitcoin (or at least since I've been involved.)  I've actually come around to this viewpoint somewhat relative to my initial stance.  That said, I don't really believe that calling attention to cypherdoc's malfeasance are 'violence' in the standard form (such as use/mis-use of the state sponsored judicial system.)  Cypherdoc made a big thing of all the due dilligence he did before pumping Hashfast (and nothing at all of the money he was making shilling for them which, in fact, he tried to hide to the extent that he would flat-out lie to Maxwell about it.)

Cypherdoc can keep his money as far as I'm concerned (which is easy for me to say as someone who didn't even bother to know what-the-fuck Hashfast was much less send them (and cypherdoc) a bunch of my BTC.)  What comes around goes around.  In the mean time, informing people of his reliability in terms research and suggestions and the like should offend no one.  Not even uber-Libertarians.

Don't believe tvbcof's malicious, defamatory gossip.  His distorted version of events is not supported by the primary source.

It's not about what *I'm* saying, it's about what the Judge is saying.

Clue for clueless tvbcof: the Judge didn't mention "the standard party line from the hard-core Libertarian wing throughout the history of Bitcoin."

We know you hate Ayn Rand with the fiery intolerance of a supervolcano, but please don't flat-out lie to SebastianJu about what was said and decided at the hearing.

All that happened was that cypherdoc got a 10% sales commission for helping HF fund their ASIC.

Unfortunately BTC's price and difficulty shot up faster than HF could build their machines.  But cypherdoc had nothing to do with that.

That's why the judge ruled the lawyers, having destroyed the company itself and now desperately looking for a way to pay themselves, could not take his coins (at this time).
Pages: « 1 ... 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 [1455] 1456 1457 1458 1459 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!