Topic: Amateur hour (Read 8301 times)

+1 OP ignore for obvious trolling on cruise control

OP's ignore link is getting pretty yellow.  I just added to that.  Goodnight sweet prince.

Not as enterprisey as this one https://github.com/Herzult/SimplePHPEasyPlus

I think the NSA alerts him when his name pops up.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I keeed! I keeeed!

Would definately buy you a beer whenever I get to the states. Do you have a program searching for your name on the forum since you seem always to pop in at the right times ?

I didn't notice any particular conspiracy theories that got much traction.  I'm about as prone to conspiracy theories (or hypotheses) as anyone and I saw nothing necessarily nefarious or extraordinary by your visit.

I do think that you and Hearn in particular seem, outwardly at least, a little to prone to write off corp/gov class threats to the Bitcoin solution as it exists today.  But I see nothing to be lost by giving the presentation you described and have always admired the way you handled it vis-a-vis communications with the Bitcoin community.

No, that is not true.

The only condition of my visit to the CIA was that I not use the fact that I visited there in any type of advertising.

Well, that and to abide by their normal security while I was there:  no cell phone or other electronic devices allowed, no trying to wander off by myself unescorted.

I am completely free to talk about what happened, and if you buy me a beer sometime I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.  Just not here, too many trolls and I've already spent too much time before and after the trip trying (and failing) to keep the conspiracy theories in check.

I'm not saying they did. But we can't rule out the possibility either.

Many thinks the USD is a failing currency. Bitcoin is growing, and it's growing fast. How do we know that at one point, some datacenter on US soil will not have a majority of the hashing power, and that rules will be enforced upon the Bitcoin network ? Gavin already gave his talk to the CIA, and he agreed to not talk about what happened there, and I understand that's usual procedure. I don't know what the penality would be for not complying with that.

I don't even know if this was a demand from them in the first place, but surely if Gavin values personal freedom he should never again visit any governmental agency and agree to contracts where full disclosure is not allowed.

I do trust Gavin, but at the same time we learned that Gavin bows to authority pressure. What about the other devs, what are their connections, and how would they react if governmental officials brought them in for questioning, asking them to cooperate. These people have lives, they have wifes and kids, they would probably want the least amount of trouble.

Now that Coinbase is taking over a lot of the business of MtGox, there's even more juicy targets on US soil.

The truth is that we don't know.

But one thing is for certain - having monetary power and control is something nation states want to have, so it's only a question of time before big players jumps in, and the bigger bitcoin grows, the juicer target it becomes.

Too far fetched ?

Both the Internet itself and TOR was created by the US govt.

By using bitcoin and local exchanges, it would be simple for us agents to aquire cash behind 'enemy lines' as well. And large amounts of money can be moved anywhere there's internet connection, which is another plus.

Not saying anything conclusively either way, but we should not rule out the possibility of something of this being possible.


I probably went off topic anyway.

*insert gif of dude sliding tinfoil hat on*

We don't.

How do we know that NSA or any other 3-letter agency did not create bitcoin ?

One last thing, Blinken. You're obviously intelligent, very much so it seems, but Bitcoin has attracted many intelligent people to it. So around here your published IQ is probably in good company. It doesn't do well to challenge such a group and not expect to get checked, hard. I think you could offer the project/effort much of value, but you might re-think your approach to introducing your ideas. More flies with honey than vinegar and all that.

I just read that line. +1

That's not always the case, of course (Blinken certainly appears to know what he is doing) but earning a good salary for programming certainly isn't always a measure of superiority over programmers that don't. BTW, Blinken what I do consider a great measurement of intelligence mixed with programming ability are things like Google's Code Jam and the Netflix Prize. Those are tests not winnable by simply learning by rote.

The qualification round for Google's 10th Code Jam actually starts April 12, 2013. If you compete and make it anywhere near the finals then you'll have my respect. Considering the prize is $15,000 (plus a likely Google job offer) for what amounts to about 1 day worth of coding the pay scale isn't likely beneath many.

LOL 

Which ideas were those again, exactly?

Why I'm the Best Programmer in the World

I can only imagine how burned out Gavin et al must feel reading this shit.

Also, the "Satoshi is Dead" thread. Of course he's not dead... he just didn't want to put up with this ineffectual whining. 50M bitcoins vs giving your life to being attacked by inane idiots.

I have my own small open source community project, and experience the same e=penis waving constantly -- people downloading and using something for free and bitching about it being "low quality", without actually providing any objective analysis, let alone help. (Help I do get tends to involve people shoehorning in features they need then doing a runner).

It's ridiculous. Furthermore, IME, most "professional" coding efforts are an order of magnitude more horrible than "amateur" work.

Bitcoin is a fantastic and amazingly prescient software vision. Someone had the foresight to make it a reality, and people have the tenacity to keep it stable and running -- and there is a market confidence of nearly half a billion US dollars behind them. The OP did not and could not do any of these things.

IMO, most of the drama in this thread stems from OP's failure to deliver his initial message objectively and professionally without letting subjective views and value judgements creep in, and subsequent failure to support his views without acting defensive and taking things personally. Running a large scale software project isn't only a matter of technical skills, and also requires great communication skills and maturity.

Beside, reading OP's initial message, I don't feel that he operates at the right level of distance conceptually. While technical issues raised are valid, they are not new and have been discussed many times. And proposed solutions are focused on technical aspects and ignore the strategic reality that Bitcoin was designed to create and maintain a stable consensus between all involved parties whereby defending the current status quo is always the most profitable outcome. The only way to get any change done from within the protocol is to manage to tilt the equilibrium point to another neighbouring spot not too far that has the same or better perceived outcome for all parties, and hope you don't let too many people behind (that's exactly what happened when the dev team organized a rollback to 0.7). More than technical skills, this requires a lot of wisdom, and the ability to see the problem from multiple opposing point of views. In this respect the current dev team has proven very effective. AFAIK, that's the only way things are going to change ever for Bitcoin: minute and careful small steps, with major communication campains and full backing of the community.

The most effective way to work around this feature / limitation is to go the external route: create a alt-chain. If it survives until the point where it is traded for Bitcoin with a high liquidity, Bitcoin will inherit the new properties by equivalence through the exchange rate. This is why you always got and will always get replies like "create your alt-coin or stfu" when you propose to move Bitcoin to a state that is simply not reachable. That's the only known valid answer, and it has been made quite a few times to OP in this thread with varying degrees of tactfulness.

Now if OP is going to take all his ideas, organize them into a coherent framework, and create a new thread in the alt-coin section, we can have a constructive discussion.

To me, the observations /assertions themselves were so banal, so already well know, so that is what everyone has been saying all along, that it did not even occur to me that they required any response from me.

-MarkM-

I thought it worked like this. Make it better, provide the developers a look, if it is truly revolutionary it will be added or it will be implemented to fix a bug(s).

Not - Hey amateurs, neat thing you have hear, I respect you and all but your wrong. Bye......

* This is for a generic 32-bit machine, so 64-bit instructions do not apply. Also, I can only hand write a small set of core instructions. I haven't learned the encodings for system or extended instructions.

* I used no assembler to write the machine code. I wrote the encodings directly.

* EDX has to be updated at the end because it maintains a pointer to the text stream; if the string bytes are successfully converted to a value, then EDX must be incremented

* The goal in this code snippet was to minimize code size and use a simple, easy-to-understand algorithm

* It is true I could have combined the subtraction and comparison to save an instruction.

* To your allegation that this code "underperforms" compiler-generated/library atoi(), I would answer that just the source code alone of a typical library atoi is about 300 lines of C code, equating to about 1000+ bytes (probably more) of machine code. My code has 136 bytes. As far as speed is concerned, I would expect a runtime library's type checking and procedure call setup/teardown alone to have a longer runtime than my code, never mind the actual conversion.

* I am not trying to "prove" anything. I posted the code in answer to a previous post that asked me to post *ANY* code that I had written, so I answered that by posting both machine code and source code that I had written.

@Blinken:  ty for the BC.

@all:  Do people actually disagree with the 4 paragraphs written above, or do you just disagree with the person who made the comments? 

It's sad that the vast majority of posts on these forums are attacking the person, rather than critiquing the message.  And it's not just this message, its virtually every posting to every topic on this board.  And I suspect that is part of the reason there is an insufficiency of developers.  [Name any successful open source project where those who offer constructive criticism are attacked like this.]

While I may be guilty, too, in my handful of posts, I have tried to object to the action or the process or the result, rather than the person.  Earlier in this thread, I referred to "Blinken's Bloatware".  Fact is, given the algorithm he was using, it was good.  But compared to a different algorithm, it was bloatware.  Blinken manned up and acknowledged with cold hard bitcash.

I happen to think SD is spamming the blockchain, and I happen to think their traffic should be blocked.  But I also know anybody else can spam the blockchain in a similar way.  [Blinken:  just clone SD *and* provide your customers with a highly customizable bot to place their bets.  Several forms of Martingale.  Charts and stats on recent numbers chosen by your Oracle.  And a single "spin" button or "auto" button to start things rolling.  Etc.  When you are rich, send me some more BC.    ] Blocking SD is just a way of buying some time, while the development team works out a solution.  I know it isn't a permanent fix.  My longer-term idea is to have the client analyze the blockchain in a crude attempt to determine common ownership.  [It is very hard to maintain anonymity for a regular user.  It's even harder for a commercial enterprise who must advertise their address(es) to receive business.]  The first few transactions between any pair of users is free or cheap.  But if A and B keep exchanging coins, that becomes spam, and the price should go up.  [More precisely, if there's a cycle that rotates coins, that's spam.]  This lets Sister Theresa's charities receive their tiny donations.  This lets commercial clearinghouses exchange BC with their 10000 customers per day.  But mainly, this makes SD hire a programmer to rework their model, and the rework might as well be something that's easy on the blockchain.  I'm not going to suggest this, because I know what kind of attacks will come my way.

If Bitcoin is going to be a currency of the future, many problems need to be addressed.  Blinken's ideas are generally sound.

If Goldman Sachs, D B Shaw, and others are paying their "quants" upwards of $10M per year, how much should the Bitcoin community be paying its best thinkers and developers, eh?

It is very difficult to understand the nuances of the BC protocol, because it is poorly documented.  "The code is the standard."  Despite this, the Bitcoin community has been given at least two scholarly papers (one from a University and one from Microsoft).  High-quality research.  Free.  But little action.  When someone does make a reasonable suggestion, the response is often "That's coin protocol XXX.  That's not Bitcoin.  Go invent your own protocol."  Those kinds of responses are completely unproductive.

About 2.5 days ago, the blockchain forked.  A few centralized miners were able to put Bitcoin back on track.  But they left an orphan chain *25 blocks long*.  Let me repeat:  "A handful of miners orphaned a chain of 25 blocks."  If a few miners can do this, what do you think the NSA could do?  Or any other major corporation or government?  If Bitcoin becomes a real global currency, and if some nefarious outfit starts to manipulate the blockchain, I can easily see the US Government joining in the mining "to stabilize" the currency.  But, I can just as easily see the US Government determining Bitcoin addresses used by the Taliban or WikiLeaks, and saying "no spend transactions from those addresses".  If someone mines a block that includes such a transaction, Uncle Sam mines two blocks that make the first one an orphan.  If anybody doesn't think this could happen you have *no idea* of the NSA's capabilities.  They could do this tomorrow.  I don't know how to solve this problem.  It may be the fatal flaw in Bitcoin.

The heroic action 2.5 days ago was not in the best short-term interests of the miners who switched, but I reckon they were both benevolent and they thought it was in their best long-term interests.  Next time, they might not be so heroic.  Or next time, the centralized mining pool operators might decide their self-interest overrides the interest of the community.  Centralized mining may be a fatal flaw in Bitcoin.

+1