Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[NewLiberty]

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.

[1713424200]

1713424200

[1713424200]

1713424200

[1713424200]

1713424200

[thezerg]

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]

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

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.

[solex]

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]

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

[Zarathustra]

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.   

Have you been smoking monerijuana again?   

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

[sickpig]

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

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.

[NewLiberty]

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?

[NewLiberty]

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.

[lunarboy]

de-dollarization continues

Brics countries launch new development bank in Shanghai

http://www.bbc.com/news/33605230

[sickpig]

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.

[cypherdoc]

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

[sidhujag]

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.

[cypherdoc]

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.  

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.  

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).

[cypherdoc]

you realize i can't even bother to read the content of what you write any more; it's so bad.  all i can do is think of these images of you and little iCEBLOW:

I'm pretty happy to be a little dog if the alternative would entail ripping people off by participating in a mining gear scam involving none-existent and never-to-be-existent hardware.  At least you could have been original and teamed up with Josh and Sonny at BFL.  You probably would have done much better.

Excuse me?

Hashfast User's Thread

yeah, not a hint of apology, not a hint of remorse from tvbcof for latching on to any suggestion of anti-cypherdoc sentiment (ala gmax's version of his negative rating) to post outright lies and slander.  this is what you get from him; unfounded bullshit and innuendo.  what a shameful, illiterate, irresponsible, little dog tvbcof:

[cypherdoc]

wow, i am really impressed.  thank you iCE:

My comment about cypherdoc being a lieing piece of shit had nothing to do with the court system.  It had everything to do with him whining and crying to Maxwell about being a loser who lost money in order to get him to retract his negative rating when in reality he was sitting on a cool 3000 BTC which used to be in Hashfast victims wallets.

As for the court, I guess I am more of a Libertarian than you at this point.  I have close to zero confidence in them and by-n-large don't give a shit about what these corrupt asswipes say.

It is the case that I fund the justice system through my taxes and I would not shed a tear if they make cypherdoc squeal.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend sometimes.  Same goes for other Libertarian scammers who didn't pay attention to the old adage "If you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen."

I happen to agree with the court that it is inappropriate for what's left of Hashfast to attach cypherdoc's 3000 BTC at the present time.  Again, if they rightly or wrongly do him much greater 'violence' in the future, well, golly gee wilikers...couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Cypherdoc made no allowance for his being a clueless jackoff when he was shilling hard for Hashfast.  Yes, those who didn't do their own due diligence on the guy (and the company and Bitcoin itself) and lost money (edit: or lost something) and they are primarily to blame, but I'm certainly not going to shed any tears if cypherdoc takes a hit for his own (very optional) role in the smoking crater that the endeavor very predictably became.

So you prefer to believe gmax's gossip rather than consult primary sources and form your own opinion?  Good luck with that!

This isn't the first time we've seen someone hypocritically selectively declare how little they care for courts' and judges' opinions, just because the court/judge in question failed to confirm their preexisting prejudgments.  When you lose on the facts, pound the table and attack the venue, right?  

Plenty of people (including myself and presumably gmax) did their due diligence before ordering from HF.  But that is no guarantee of success when objective business conditions later become unfavorable to an insurmountable degree.

You are certainly not "more of a Libertarian" than I.  A real Libertarian would not ignore court proceedings/findings/rulings simply because, and only after, they failed to reinforced his preferred narrative.  You seem to think that Libertarians are anarchists, who despise courts and judges.  Big mistake, you amateur.

Libertarians don't believe simply doing your own due diligence guarantees you won't lose money on a venture (especially an ultra-high-risk gamble involving a brand new, very ambitious BTC ASIC start-up).  That's another big amateur mistake.

The broad problem of Deep Capture does not necessarily mean everything done by the courts (or police, etc.) is automatically wrong.  EG, in the narrow example of Frap.doc's coins we saw the court reject its Capturer's (Katten Muchen Rosenman) demand to jam their blood funnel into the nearest thing that smells like money.  

That's your third big amateur mistake.  I suggest you read Anarcy, State, and Utopia and get a clue about what "libertarian" actually means.

"very predictably became?"

Please, point out where you (psychically?) predicted HF would become a "smoking crater" or STFU about your asinine 20/20 hindsight and egregious Monday Morning Quarterbacking.  You don't get to say 'I told you so' when you did not, in fact, tell us so.

If the bankruptcy was so very predictable, why did gmax and dozens of others of old time and expert Bitcoiners fail to notice?

I swear to God...you people...with your retroactive, after-the-fact, so-called predictions...  

[cypherdoc]

From my admittedly tangential read, there is a hypothesis floated in legal circles that cypherdoc's involvement is somewhat more complex than simple shilling.  That is, his wallet acts as a protected buffer and his shilling fees exist as an excuse and to escape future legal 'violence'.  Whether I like or trust the legal system or not, I'd rather see the funds I put in to support it (my taxes) used to tug at this string than to help resolve disputes between other faceless corporate giants which is where most of the money goes.  That's only because I happen to be into Bitcoin though.  Ideally the court system and government generally would studiously ignore Bitcoin, but that ship has already sailed.

At least you admit repeating gossip and narrative, rather than primary sources.   

Cypherdoc's involvement as a paid endorser, who took on the role of a proxy for the community by visiting HF in person, started and stopped long before anyone knew business conditions for 3rd gen ASIC companies was about to take a turn for the worse.

[cypherdoc]

Funny how correcting you on the facts (commission != equity) made absolutely no difference to your conclusion...

Have no dog in this fight, but did cypher really get commission?  As in "for the miners he personally sold"?  Or did he get 10% of total sales?  10% commission seems reasonable.  Paying out 10% of (total) sales is not, strictly speaking,  a commission, and paying 10% of gross sales (did HF sell much of anything other than BJs?) to some nobody posting on a forum?

He was paid commission in the form of 10% of Batch 1 Baby Jets sold.  Not total sales.

We've seen the actual '10% of Batch 1 Baby Jets' commission mutate into unfounded rumors of 10% of total sales and even 10% of equity.

That is ridiculous.  Am I the only one here capable of reading legalese?

https://cases.processgeneral.com/cases/document/case/5/hashfast-technologies-llc/120867/