delete

[arielbit]

hey, i'm bcx too   

[1715493578]

1715493578

[1715493578]

1715493578

[1715493578]

1715493578

[1715493578]

1715493578

[rangedriver]

^pure gold. i think the "we" is a continuation of BCX = AnonyMint 

It's obvious they are the same person.

TFM is the side of BCX that wants to be taken seriously. Moral, constructive, helpful, intelligent etc.

The BCX handle has become too much of a liability for him. Even he has now started to self-despise under the weight of anti-BCX public sentiment. TFM is a way he can escape his own cuntishness.

[black_jesus]

I never agreed with making DDoS a crime. It is fair play within the protocol of the internet. But most people don't want to be sovereign, they'd rather be owned by a King. You don't understand the following.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Pa

DDoS is an aggressive act against another's property.  How does the fact that its within the protocol of the internet change that?

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

One is a pseudointellectual in his fifities, with programming success on his resume (CoolPage), the other is a selfprofessed non-coding alchoholic low-level manager in his early thirties who stepped into a pile of $2 bitcoins just before the crypto universe underwent chaotic inflation.

They're the same person the way Rush Limbaugh and Charlie Sheen are the same person.

[AnnoyMint]

^pure gold. i think the "we" is a continuation of BCX = AnonyMint  

BCX does = Anonymint.

Think I am kidding ?


~BCX~

You are not even capable of kidding within 4.2 magnitudes of my ability to kid, josh, or trick.  In fact years ago I was able to create a nearly foolproof comedy algorithm, the early versions of which were actually stolen by the producers of Candid Camera in the 80s.  But they did not understand how to use it, and admittedly it was not quite perfected at the time.  Dom DeLuise's career was never the same after he tinkered with my unfinished opus.

But that is a story for another time when I am not as busy as I am now.

I am currently working on experiments of forced genetic recombination of the Ebola virus.  But I am less versed in RNA than I am in DNA therefore I need to take the time to study before trying any new combinations.

I hope to save Dallas from the wrath of God if I am able in time.

I would prefer not to be interrupted again.

     ~AnOY~

[iCEBREAKER]

You are not even capable of kidding within 4.2 magnitudes of my ability to kid, josh, or trick.  In fact years ago I was able to create a nearly foolproof comedy algorithm, the early versions of which were actually stolen by the producers of Candid Camera in the 80s.  But they did not understand how to use it, and admittedly it was not quite perfected at the time.  Dom DeLuise's career was never the same after he tinkered with my unfinished opus.

But that is a story for another time when I am not as busy as I am now.

I am currently working on experiments of forced genetic recombination of the Ebola virus.  But I am less versed in RNA than I am in DNA therefore I need to take the time to study before trying any new combinations.

I hope to save Dallas from the wrath of God if I am able in time.

I would prefer not to be interrupted again.

     ~AnOY~

Oh hai Annoy (or should I say...BCX)!  

Next to MM88, yu ar muh favrote troll.  

But don't talk smack about Dom.  He was in Cannonball Run, which makes his career a smashing success NO MATTAR WHUT.  

[ButtcoinEXpress]

^pure gold. i think the "we" is a continuation of BCX = AnonyMint  

BCX does = Anonymint.

Think I am kidding ?


~BCX~

You are not even capable of kidding within 4.2 magnitudes of my ability to kid, josh, or trick.  In fact years ago I was able to create a nearly foolproof comedy algorithm, the early versions of which were actually stolen by the producers of Candid Camera in the 80s.  But they did not understand how to use it, and admittedly it was not quite perfected at the time.  Dom DeLuise's career was never the same after he tinkered with my unfinished opus.

But that is a story for another time when I am not as busy as I am now.

I am currently working on experiments of forced genetic recombination of the Ebola virus.  But I am less versed in RNA than I am in DNA therefore I need to take the time to study before trying any new combinations.

I hope to save Dallas from the wrath of God if I am able in time.

I would prefer not to be interrupted again.

     ~AnOY~

BTW - Annoymint = ButtcoinEXpress

~bcx

[TheFascistMind]

I never agreed with making DDoS a crime. It is fair play within the protocol of the internet. But most people don't want to be sovereign, they'd rather be owned by a King. You don't understand the following.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, November 11, 1755.—The Pa

DDoS is an aggressive act against another's property.  How does the fact that its within the protocol of the internet change that?

Whose fault it is that a house is built of paper, the hurricane or the builder?

Would it be economic to encourage everyone to lay their cash in their front lawns at night, and hire an elaborate policing force (i.e. centralized authority) to insure the safety of the cash?

Opportunity cost is a bitch and it is nature, because the Second Law of Thermo insures every inefficient barrier to maximum entropy will not stand forever.

Entropy is the operative word, and make sure you understand its maximization requires decentralization (e.g. of responsibility).

Thus I have just proven mathematically that self-responsibility is a prerequisite of (degrees-of-)freedom.

Q.E.D.

Pseudointellectual are you sure?

[smoothie]

sigh

Honestly, there are too many people trying to read too much into BCX's semi-cryptic words.  I'm going to save y'all some trouble by digging out a couple of quotes.  I'm not doing this to call bullshit on anything he has written or try to point out contradictions.  I'm doing it because:
1)  I'm sure others remember the same quotes and would eventually link them, and
2)  An insignificant exchange we had about NEOS helped me to understand that it is easy to read into his words things that are not really there.  

BitcoinEXpress: My 72 hour clock starts now, I am gong dark till such time either the devs post a fix before the deadline or I kill it

as we probably need the 72 hours to analyze this fully.

You have your 72 hours, I keep my word.

At that point in time I launch,

If you are cured, you're good to go.

If not, your dead.

Forced evolution is a beautiful thing.

~BCX~


PS
The why is here. Posted by another user but is dead on the money as far as my philosophy.

I promise you, I dont need the BTC.

Still shooting shots of Stoli Elite

Love this shit.


http://youtu.be/HqcbgSpHMFs?t=25s

This is my speculation as to why BCX predict the price would decline or did he say go to 0? I forgot what he implied.

We said Decline.

~BCX~

Can we all just agree that, yes, he said "I kill it" and "your [sic] dead" and now he says "Decline", and can we just stop with the over-analysis of every syllable looking for contradictions?  

The only thing I find confusing about the last post is the "We".  Maybe somebody's got a mouse in his pocket.  

Gawd, I can't believe I just posted on this thread again.  Why?

He has definitely eluded to the fact that 72 hours was the deadline or he "kills" it. Yet now he wants to back pedal and say that it will take him 22 days because he made a post months ago but never referencing it until just a few days ago when the implication was 3 days not 22 days.

@BCX it is "You're" not "Your"  

[JorgeStolfi]

You also didn't see the point of complexity theory.

For some 20 years of my life I thought of myself as a theoretical computer scientist.  I plead guilty of having told many students the things you are trying to tell me now: that complexity theory is extremely relevant to computer programming, that O(n log n) is better than O(n^2), that NP is probably more difficult than P, that polynomial is more efficient than exponential, etc. 

But all of that is false; and, moreover, it is trivially false, it follows directly from the definitions.

I stand by what I wrote: neither complexity analysis (P, NP, and all that) nor big-O analysis have anything to say about the hardness of SHA-256.  Those concepts apply only to problems where the input size n is unbounded, they only tell you what happens as n goes to infnity -- and that has no relation to what happens for any specific finite n.

I could go on, but I need some sleep.  Will continue tomorrow.  But, anyway, I stress that this issue has no impact whatsoever on your work, on the security of SHA256, or any actual application.  It just takes away one argument that some people may have thought they had.  Fortunately the robustness of SHA256 was not proved with theory, but with many years of experimental tests. 

[TheFascistMind]

Computing the probability of a certain complicated pattern occurring, after seeing it occur, is a tricky business.  The chance of my mother marrying my father was one in two billions or so; that does not mean that my mere existence is a sign that something fishy is going one with the universe...

You said you read the upthread discussion, yet you continue the strawman. My point was..

The probability that any specific mother marries any specific father is in most cases quite rare, i.e. the independent trials are somewhat more uniformly distributed (they are all mostly rare, not some rare and others probable), thus the frequently repeated occurrence of these roughly equivalently rare birth events is not rare.

You ignored my point that each independent coin toss trial outcome is uniformly distributed whereas the Poisson distribution is exponentially distributed.

That is why I asserted that your and xulescu's analogies are inapplicable. Rare trial outcomes in a Poisson distribution occur less often then less rare ones (look at the area under the distribution curve at the tails). Whereas all trial outcomes in a coin toss occur at the same probability.

[TheFascistMind]

He has definitely eluded to the fact that 72 hours was the deadline or he "kills" it. Yet now he wants to back pedal and say that it will take him 22 days because he made a post months ago but never referencing it until just a few days ago when the implication was 3 days not 22 days.

I doubt he only wrote that months ago, because I hadn't heard of BCX before late September, and I had read that 22 days post in late September before it was mentioned recently.

I agree someone is back pedaling.

[TheFascistMind]

You also didn't see the point of complexity theory.

For some 20 years of my life I thought of myself as a theoretical computer scientist.  I plead guilty of having told many students the things you are trying to tell me now: that complexity theory is extremely relevant to computer programming, that O(n log n) is better than O(n^2), that NP is probably more difficult than P, that polynomial is more efficient than exponential, etc. 

But all of that is false; and, moreover, it is trivially false, it follows directly from the definitions.

I stand by what I wrote: neither complexity analysis (P, NP, and all that) nor big-O analysis have anything to say about the hardness of SHA-256.  Those concepts apply only to problems where the input size n is unbounded, they only tell you what happens as n goes to infnity -- and that has no relation to what happens for any specific finite n.

I could go on, but I need some sleep.  Will continue tomorrow.  But, anyway, I stress that this issue has no impact whatsoever on your work, on the security of SHA256, or any actual application.  It just takes away one argument that some people may have thought they had.  Fortunately the robustness of SHA256 was not proved with theory, but with many years of experimental tests. 

You are conflating the hardness of discovering a lower complexity class with the categorization of the a priori known complexity class.

I stated to you upthread that for finite n = 1000, the difference between O(n^k) and O(n log n) was molasses and zippy for the objects window of a million times downloaded application which I created.

[xulescu]

You ignored my point that each independent coin toss trial outcome is uniformly distributed whereas the Poisson distribution is exponentially distributed.

That is why I asserted that your and xulescu's analogies are inapplicable. Rare trial outcomes in a Poisson distribution occur less often then less rare ones (look at the area under the distribution curve at the tails). Whereas all trial outcomes in a coin toss occur at the same probability.

Ah *snooze*.

Do you really think we're idiots? The analogy was for an error in your modelling that you yourself accepted as valid, not for the numbers. To my models it makes no difference whatsoever if they're coin tosses, loaded D20's or, indeed, exponentials or Poisson.

To address your point directly, a uniform distribution CANNOT have a tail by definition. You must be meaning the distribution of complex events, AKA counts. You continue to ignore permutations and epsilon-variants even if they show up in your model as well. In terms of counts, both Poisson and binary distributions have normal tails.

Both also completely fail because they assume complete independence between the samples.

In the meanwhile you keep wasting your time on this triviality. THIS IS NOT THE MOST PRODUCTIVE USE OF YOUR TIME. Please let this one thing go and focus. We appreciate your help, but all this energy expended on a model, we all agree is not predictive, only accelerates the heat death of this thread. Your objection was clearly noted, but not accepted. Other suggestions you had in the recent past were more fruitful. I suggest we shake out of this local minimum because it seems we're stuck.

[Come-In-Behind]

He has definitely eluded to the fact that 72 hours was the deadline or he "kills" it. Yet now he wants to back pedal and say that it will take him 22 days because he made a post months ago but never referencing it until just a few days ago when the implication was 3 days not 22 days.

I doubt he only wrote that months ago, because I hadn't heard of BCX before late September, and I had read that 22 days post in late September before it was mentioned recently.

I agree someone is back pedaling.

No one is back peddling, I said 72 hours and I would kill it, not kill it instantly.

Decline was in reference to a post I made about price.

I realize you Mangos are mostly illeterate but from now on I will type slowly as I know you don not read too fast.  


~BCX~

Why don't you try and destroy Bitcoin as well, maybe Peercoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin in for added measure? This whole destroying coins with absolutely no valid reasons behind it is beyond stupid and now, more than a few days in, the whole thing is pretty damn fucking lame.

[rdnkjdi]

Why don't you try and destroy Bitcoin as well, maybe Peercoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin in for added measure? This whole destroying coins with absolutely no valid reasons behind it is beyond stupid and now, more than a few days in, the whole thing is pretty damn fucking lame.

Because he finds Monero more interesting in the interesting / cost to destroy ratio.  Should be taken as a compliment

[sickpig]

Why don't you try and destroy Bitcoin as well, maybe Peercoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin in for added measure? This whole destroying coins with absolutely no valid reasons behind it is beyond stupid and now, more than a few days in, the whole thing is pretty damn fucking lame.

Bitcoin and LTC for several reasons but mainly due to the fact I hold a lot of each.

Out of curiosity what is the probability you think you've to successfully destroy Bitcoin network? sorry can't resist.

[Oscilson]

I don't think anything but a coin with perhaps better technology will kill BTC.

~BCX~

I think so too. But BTC will evolve.

[NewLiberty]

Why don't you try and destroy Bitcoin as well, maybe Peercoin, Litecoin, and Dogecoin in for added measure? This whole destroying coins with absolutely no valid reasons behind it is beyond stupid and now, more than a few days in, the whole thing is pretty damn fucking lame.

Bitcoin and LTC for several reasons but mainly due to the fact I hold a lot of each.

Out of curiosity what is the probability you think you've to successfully destroy Bitcoin network? sorry can't resist.

I have no idea since it is something I have no interest in.

While theoretically possible, any attack on Bitcoin that would require brute hash strength is near impossible.

Perhaps some unknown technical exploit but nonetheless, it would just be fixed.

I don't think anything but a coin with perhaps better technology will kill BTC.


~BCX~

At last we learn the reason you go after the CN leader, Monero.
You managed to create a buying opportunity on your rep alone.
Might as well hedge your bets and get some, it might catch on.

[nakaone]

what is your interest in "killing" a cryptonote, like monero?

I took your post back in july quite seriously, but I do not get your ratio specifically regarding monero.

forced evolution is a strange argument, because it only counts if you are seriously interested in the currency/ technology. you were ask to help if you knew a flaw in the technology

following your posts you seem to have enough money to buy or mine a decent amount of coins, so financial aspects also cannot be the reasons

protecting your other investments also does not make sense because you are smart enough to understand that you tilt against windmills.

maybe you can explain