Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[sickpig]

The PSA that marcus_of_agustus did in looking into the pseudo-fork of XT a while ago was quite interesting to someone who is technical and familiar with constructing software and I, for one, thank him for the effort.

It would be good to have a pointer to this work, I'm very interested in.   

[1713952493]

1713952493

[1713952493]

1713952493

[tvbcof]

The PSA that marcus_of_agustus did in looking into the pseudo-fork of XT a while ago was quite interesting to someone who is technical and familiar with constructing software and I, for one, thank him for the effort.

It would be good to have a pointer to this work, I'm very interested in.  

I did a quick manual scan of his posts and ran across this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1081412.msg11546556#msg11546556

Normally one is pretty careful to fork in a particular way in a revision control system as they tend to have methods for analyzing 3-way diffs and such.  Typically that is what one wants in order to understand the code more easily.  The converse is true as well.

I think MofA did a post on this thread also and mentioned that one of the bug fixe roll-backs was the re-addition of pkg.m4 or some such.  m4 is a fairly powerful macro package widely used in software construction tools.  (autoconf uses m4 macros to construct a portable shell script normally named 'configure'.)  This one apperently influence how code under construction finds libraries for inclusion or use.  Typically when code is compiled, much of it tends to come from external libraries.  This can be done with various kinds of linking.  Unless one is paying close attention, it is possible to be linking against libraries that one doesn't even know exist on a system.  In a general sense this is a very common cause of some of the worst security failures over the years.  One of the most pernicious aspects of such a failure is that the source code can be entirely clean and innocent but compiled in might be some bad code that one didn't even know existed.  The danger is, presumably, why pkg.m4 was removed from core.

[sickpig]

The PSA that marcus_of_agustus did in looking into the pseudo-fork of XT a while ago was quite interesting to someone who is technical and familiar with constructing software and I, for one, thank him for the effort.

It would be good to have a pointer to this work, I'm very interested in.  

I did a quick manual scan of his posts and ran across this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1081412.msg11546556#msg11546556

Normally one is pretty careful to fork in a particular way in a revision control system as they tend to have methods for analyzing 3-way diffs and such.  Typically that is what one wants in order to understand the code more easily.  The converse is true as well.

I think MofA did a post on this thread also and mentioned that one of the bug fixe roll-backs was the re-addition of pkg.m4 or some such.  m4 is a fairly powerful macro package widely used in software construction tools.  (autoconf uses m4 macros to construct a portable shell script normally named 'configure'.)  This one apperently influence how code under construction finds libraries for inclusion or use.  Typically when code is compiled, much of it tends to come from external libraries.  This can be done with various kinds of linking.  Unless one is paying close attention, it is possible to be linking against libraries that one doesn't even know exist on a system.  In a general sense this is a very common cause of some of the worst security failures over the years.  One of the most pernicious aspects of such a failure is that the source code can be entirely clean and innocent but compiled in might be some bad code that one didn't even know existed.  The danger is, presumably, why pkg.m4 was removed from core.

thanks for the link and the analysis.

I was aware that XT wasn't a proper fork and even of the m4 re-addition (*).  

I was hoping for something more detailed, though.

Especially because XT is not a git fork and so it's not so easy to track changes.

(*) About the latter I have always wondered how they are able to produce
reproducible builds when you they have to link binary to external dyn libraries

[cypherdoc]

for anyone with any respect left for marcus_of_augustus, take a look at this:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bpbqv/woohoo_check_out_the_size_of_block_363270/csofmu6

[–]marcus_of_augustus 2 points 7 hours ago
 
Do they still give gold stars for 5 year olds?
You should be very careful with all those cold wallets, things could go very badly if family and friends are centralising trust in one questionable opsec practise.

permalinkembedsaveparentreportgive goldreply

I used to, but his tone has changed over the last 4 years. I'm not even convinced it's the same person on the other end. Certainly a lot more bitter and hostile.

marcus_of_augustus seems to me like more or less the same careful, knowledgeable, and competent person I've seen all along.  I have a recollection of his viewpoint on something (don't remember exactly what) being somewhat disappointing to me a year or so ago.  Lately I've been very pleasantly surprised that he is totally 'getting it' so-to-speak.

I also notice that marcus_of_agustus isn't taking cypherdoc abuse laying down and is doing the community a service in the process.  I have no interest and no clue about the Hashfast thing, but it seems to be pretty ugly and a lot of people seem to have gotten taken to the cleaners while certain others (cough, cough) seem to have done very well indeed.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1105722.0

I'll be interested to hear cypherdoc's side of the story...unless he is to busy with certain other 'projects' of course.

The PSA that marcus_of_agustus did in looking into the pseudo-fork of XT a while ago was quite interesting to someone who is technical and familiar with constructing software and I, for one, thank him for the effort.

i found this amusing.  why is it that ppl like you always see negatives everywhere you look?:

For some reason nobody seems to want to believe that cypherdoc anything but a well meaning rube.  I have that impulse myself for reasons I don't fully understand, though I've entertained alternate hypothesis now and then.  I have at times wondered aloud why cypherdoc seems to take a hiatus in times of stress then come back strong seemingly newly armed with fresh talking points and angles to attack a problem.  Relatively recently I pondered if he had vanished to some war-room meeting to see who was going to eat the main losses in some endeavor as I recall, but I don't remember the details (and am to lazy to go through my posts.)  I'm pretty sure it was associated with someone who would lose out if sidechains or LN went live since that is the focus of my interest lately and it could damage the hell out of a range of other alternate solutions to Bitcoin's problems.

perhaps it's b/c after posting here for so long i decide to take a break for a day or so due to a social event or work?  no, there has to be a conspiracy!

in the meantime, gold going off the cliff:

[tvbcof]

Actually quite in character for MOA I'm afraid to say and that everyone is getting to see.. As well for  you to take his wild one sided accusations and run with them. It should be apparent this has alot to do with my position on the block size debate.

All I have to say is that the allegations are without merit and i expect to win.

HolyFuckinShit!  If I nailed it on this post my head will truly explode in awe of my surpreme analytical abilities.

Edit:  Looking more carefully, I have to admit that Anonymint deserves the credit, though I did muse about the existence and motivations of shills as stated prior to his post.

[tvbcof]

...
in the meantime, gold going off the cliff:
...

If one can correctly deduce that there is manipulation going on it can open up possibilities.  Did I happen to mention getting some of my BTC sales in in the 4-figure range?

As for gold, I may be in the buyer's market again for unrelated reasons.  Price is falling?  Bring it on (as long as it reflects in the phyzzz and isn't some pure paper-market bs.)

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

What is this spinoff controversy? That reminds me that Gmax posted here a while back when I was off doing social things. Worth replying to? I'm not sure how to find his comments without looking through perhaps 100 pages by hand.


--

Meanwhile, relevant to the thread title: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bsfw3/barry_silbert_the_gold_vs_bitcoin_battle_is_going/

thanks for the link, it's very reasonable article

[cypherdoc]

look out:

[TPTB_need_war]

Actually quite in character for MOA I'm afraid to say and that everyone is getting to see.. As well for  you to take his wild one sided accusations and run with them. It should be apparent this has alot to do with my position on the block size debate.

All I have to say is that the allegations are without merit and i expect to win.

HolyFuckinShit!  If I nailed it on this post my head will truly explode in awe of my surpreme analytical abilities.

Edit:  Looking more carefully, I have to admit that Anonymint deserves the credit, though I did muse about the existence and motivations of shills as stated prior to his post.

All I know is I can't get cypherdoc's google ads to disappear. They follow me on every computer I open. He must have some powerful friends, if I can't figure out how they are tracking me every where I go and displaying his ad just to make me paranoid.

Did I mention I am losing my sanity?

Or am I leading you where I want you to go.

Seriously though Cypherdoc is either one really bored eyedoc, or he's shilling and not chillin'. I've grown fond of the chap (his Sesame Street BOOs and all in a Stockholm Syndrome), and hoping he can work his way out of the mess (as long as it includes reasonable justice without punitive, spiteful injustice).

[cypherdoc]

CVX continuing to go off the cliff:

[cypherdoc]

Actually quite in character for MOA I'm afraid to say and that everyone is getting to see.. As well for  you to take his wild one sided accusations and run with them. It should be apparent this has alot to do with my position on the block size debate.

All I have to say is that the allegations are without merit and i expect to win.

HolyFuckinShit!  If I nailed it on this post my head will truly explode in awe of my surpreme analytical abilities.

Edit:  Looking more carefully, I have to admit that Anonymint deserves the credit, though I did muse about the existence and motivations of shills as stated prior to his post.

All I know is I can't get cypherdoc's google ads to disappear. They follow me on every computer I open. He must have some powerful friends, if I can't figure out how they are tracking me every where I go and displaying his ad just to make me paranoid.

Did I mention I am losing my sanity?

Or am I leading you where I want you to go.

Seriously though Cypherdoc is either one really bored eyedoc, or he's shilling and not chillin'. I've grown fond of the chap (his Sesame Street BOOs and all in a Stockholm Syndrome), and hoping he can work his way out of the mess (as long as it includes reasonable justice without punitive, spiteful injustice).

i'm following YOU!

BOO!!!



no, seriously man, c'mon up sometime & i'll see what i can do for that blind eye of yours.

[Patel]

Starting to believe more and more that September will be SHTF month.

[cypherdoc]

Starting to believe more and more that September will be SHTF month.

yeah, usually it goes "sell in May and go away", then SHTF in the Fall.  most ppl think October is the worst month but it's really September.  right around the corner.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/septworstmonth.asp

[uvwvj]

Starting to believe more and more that September will be SHTF month.

yeah, usually it goes "sell in May and go away", then SHTF in the Fall.  most ppl think October is the worst month but it's really September.  right around the corner.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/septworstmonth.asp

7 year collapse in Sept 2015?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DP4499Bbhw&safe=active

[Patel]

Starting to believe more and more that September will be SHTF month.

yeah, usually it goes "sell in May and go away", then SHTF in the Fall.  most ppl think October is the worst month but it's really September.  right around the corner.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/septworstmonth.asp

7 year collapse in Sept 2015?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DP4499Bbhw&safe=active

Something like that. I don't necessarily believe the Shemitah theory, but I think the end of this year we will start seeing the economic bubble pop.

Personally, I want to see how a stock market/economic crises affects Bitcoin price. I can care less about the stock markets because I have nothing invested in it.

[cypherdoc]

Starting to believe more and more that September will be SHTF month.

yeah, usually it goes "sell in May and go away", then SHTF in the Fall.  most ppl think October is the worst month but it's really September.  right around the corner.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/septworstmonth.asp

7 year collapse in Sept 2015?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DP4499Bbhw&safe=active

Something like that. I don't necessarily believe the Shemitah theory, but I think the end of this year we will start seeing the economic bubble pop.

Personally, I want to see how a stock market/economic crises affects Bitcoin price. I can care less about the stock markets because I have nothing invested in it.

yep, me too. 

that's what James Rickards has been going on about for years now.  personally, from what price action we've had along with the alignment of the cycles, i expect Bitcoin to do quite well.

we just need to get past this block size issue to let it run.

[practicaldreamer]

...
P.S. I am fairly certain Cypherdoc is a mouthpiece for TPTB. I posit he was purposely compromised by the HashFast offer to maintain his allegiance. This is their usual modus operandi. This is evident by his public role and other factors such as his denial of the fact that Bitcoin core is heading towards a centralized end game.

I keep weighing this as the most solid explanation for certain of cypherdoc's behaviors, but then I think back to the early days and various aspects of his person and back off.

The other day I ran across a very amusing situation where a shill was stone-cold busted due to a defect in Windows clipboard.  I allow for the possibility that the whole thing is a fabrication but I've seen no efforts put toward debunking it.  We have, however, known with high probability that multi-personna shill software has been around for some time and has been purchased by the U.S. govt among others.

Yes - multi persona shill software. If it isn't here already, and being used by TPTB (as in USG etc) then I would be very surprised.

I have to say that I've followed this thread for a while. I find it, in turns, funny (tvbcof's bull baiting of cypherdoc etc) and quite interesting. The technicals of the protocol are over my head I'm afraid, though I do believe I'm getting the gist.


Anyhow, back to the shilling business. It seems to me that the multi persona/account copying and pasting shill shenanigans could well and truly be ascribed, in the context of Bitcointalk.org, not to cypherdoc, but to TPTB/Anonymint, surely.

He has exhibited all of the characteristics and tools that, to my mind, a successful shill would have at his disposal :-  he has , for example, just enough knowledge in the field to hoodwink those among us who are suggestible and naive (but not enough knowledge to clearly and concisely contribute anything meaningful)  ;   he has multiple accounts (which are fairly easily recognisable) with which to endorse and give legitimacy to his own views    ; he promises an alternative, a better alternative, a nirvana, a Shangri-la - but never delivers;    but, most of all, his mission seems to be to implant doubt and create confusion.

A kind of crypto nihilist Pontius Pilate.

 And, in truth, ultra conservative and reactionary. He has aptly named himself in his latest incarnation, TPTB. He, and they (the real TPTB that is) don't want a decentralised democratic store and mechanism by which to transfer value - they require a means by which they are able to stop the masses accessing their illegitimately horded stashes via taxation. They don't give a monkeys toss about the ordinary Jo being "his own banker" - for that is a privilege that the ordinary Jo (the "sheeple") just hasn't earned.

      Anyhow, in the end I guess we all know that you judge a tree by its fruit - and in the context in which we are all operating this might best be ascertained by the strength of the argument. I mean, the strongest argument should carry the day - and who are we to judge wether that be put forward by someone with vested interests or not (ie. a shill) - would it, indeed, matter anyway ?

FWIW it seems to me that at present btc isn't seen as a threat precisely because of the limit on transactions - lift that limit and it becomes a serious player. I can see (I think) the arguments against lifting the block limit (centralisation), and the arguments for sc's etc - but I remain to be convinced.

[Ivanhoe]

Starting to believe more and more that September will be SHTF month.

yeah, usually it goes "sell in May and go away", then SHTF in the Fall.  most ppl think October is the worst month but it's really September.  right around the corner.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/06/septworstmonth.asp

7 year collapse in Sept 2015?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DP4499Bbhw&safe=active

Something like that. I don't necessarily believe the Shemitah theory, but I think the end of this year we will start seeing the economic bubble pop.

Personally, I want to see how a stock market/economic crises affects Bitcoin price. I can care less about the stock markets because I have nothing invested in it.

yep, me too. 

that's what James Rickards has been going on about for years now.  personally, from what price action we've had along with the alignment of the cycles, i expect Bitcoin to do quite well.

we just need to get past this block size issue to let it run.

Divide et impera, something i see much in the community lately compared to earlier years.

[cypherdoc]

Anyhow, back to the shilling business. It seems to me that the multi persona/account copying and pasting shill shenanigans could well and truly be ascribed, in the context of Bitcointalk.org, not to cypherdoc, but to TPTB/Anonymint, surely.

He has exhibited all of the characteristics that, to my mind, a successful shill would have at his disposal :-  he has , for example, just enough knowledge in the field to hoodwink those among us who are suggestible and naive (but not enough knowledge to clearly and concisely contribute anything meaningful)  ;   he has multiple accounts (which are fairly easily recognisable) with which to endorse and give legitimacy to his own views    ; he promises an alternative, a better alternative, a nirvana, a shangri la - but never delivers;    but, most of all, his mission seems to be to implant doubt and create confusion.

A kind of crypto nihilist Pontius Pilate.

 And, in truth, ultra conservative and reactionary. He has aptly named himself in his latest incarnation, TPTB. He, and they (the real TPTB that is) don't want a decentralised democratic store and mechanism by which to transfer value - they require a means by which they are able to stop the masses accessing their illegitemately horded stashes via taxation. They don't give a monkeys toss about the ordinary Jo being "his own banker" - for that is a privilege that the ordinary Jo (the "sheeple")hasn't earned.

      Anthow, in the end I guess we all know that you judge a tree by its fruit - and in the context in which we are all operating this might best be ascertained by the strength of the argument. I mean, the strongest argument should carry the day - and who are we to judge wether that be put forward by someone with vested interests or not (ie. a shill) - would it, indeed, matter anyway ?

FWIW it seems to me that at present btc isn't seen as a threat precisely because of the limit on transactions - lift that limit and it becomes a serious player. I can see (I think) the arguments against lifting the block limit (centralisation), and the arguments for sc's etc - but I remain to be convinced.

thank you, thank you, thank you.

and i might add, he insults all of us in turn trying to create doubt in each and every one of us; w/o ever producing the promised coin.

notice the vision keeps changing too.  at first it was Bitcoin will become the NWO currency which upon that achievement would then be used to rape us all in the doomsday scenario.  then it morphed to "Monero might be a thing".  then, while at first being dismissive of Blockstream and SC's, he is now saying SC's will enable his perfect coin and Bitcoin is doomed here in the present.  also, his repeated claims to leave the thread to code.  must be a bored coder.  but of course tvbcof would latch on to him as his buddy.  they're both doom and gloomer socialist types.

finally, the consistent message is that we're all doomed and nothing we do can stop that.  except his coin that never shows up.

[justusranvier]

Full nodes can detect invalid blocks produced by miners because they have a full history of transactions, so if a miner tries to mine a transaction that spends coins that don't exist the full node will detect this.

A miner can't spend coins that don't exist if it's being checked by full nodes - it actually has to pay enough proof of work cost to rewrite the history of the blockchain retroactively make the coins exist.

This is very expensive, even for a miner with a majority hash power.

An SPV client can only verify proof of work - it doesn't have the transaction history to verify that inputs are valid. A miner with majority hash power can spend coins that don't exist, and SPV clients will accept their chain as valid, and there currently exists no proof which an honest full node can supply to the SPV clients to convince them that the chain containing the highest proof of work is actually invalid.

You can try to fix this with committed UTXO sets, but it doesn't really change anything - SPV clients can't validate the UTXO sets any more than they can verify blocks, so a miner with majority hash power can just commit an invalid UTXO set without needing to pay the proof of work cost to retroactively rewrite the blockchain.

Maybe instead of a UTXO set, the protocol should be changed to require miners to commit a tree of existence proofs for all the inputs referenced in the block.

This way honest full nodes can produce fraud proofs which SPV clients can verify, so now the cost of producing fake blocks which SPV clients will accept is the same as the cost of producing fake blocks which full nodes will accept.