Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 15. (Read 46564 times)

Are you available for parties?

Yes, the meaning of word "shill" has changed, the dictionaries don't keep up with the evolution of the English language. Shill has mostly lost its negative connotation and isn't going to be an effective insult anymore.

By the way, it wasn't "authorities" who demanded disclosure, the "investors" demanded it.

At the turn of century "shill" may have still been a negative word, e.g. Sony officially called their shills "street marketing teams" or "street marketing representatives". "Shill" is nowadays just another occupation, like a "salesman". Except that nowadays "salesman" sort-of became a nasty word, "salesmen" and "saleswomen" are now "account executives".

This is a controversy only for the schoolmarms amongst the physicists. The saner ones have no problems with the world "implosion" because the well-controlled demolition aims to contain the debris within the narrowest possible perimeter.

Anyway, I don't want this to became a language discussion. I much rather stick to the legal definitions of the word "shill", thus my reference to NGCB instead of a dictionary. My guess is that people who continue to think that "shill" is kind of an insult are English monolinguals. But this website is aiming at a global audience.

I see your words, but all I can find from other sources is that casinos used to hire shills in the correct sense of the word, but that the authorities now demand full disclosure.

That doesn't change the meaning of the word. It creates an industry specific term which is not applicable in other contexts.

In demolition there is a term which makes physicists tear their hair out. It's called a "Building Implosion". Demolition engineers like to explain to people that when they blow up buildings they don't actually explode, they implode. But the fact is that there is no implosion occurring. A "Building Implosion" is a series of timed explosions which causes the building to fall in on itself. The word "implosion" walks away unschated.

Jeez, dude, read all the way to the end, would ya?


Do I need to enlarge the font in the last sentence? Or maybe change color?

Subjective List of Potatos
•Red, CuntChocula
•Mazda
•Horseradish
•The act of standing still
•6 or more people gathered around a small fire

We are not talking about card game shilling.

The dictionary definition is out of date with respect to the "without disclosing close relationship" clause.
The modern legally standing definition of shill is something like:
I quote NGCB because their definitions and rulings are considered authoritative even far away from Nevada, practically everywhere with common law legal system.

Shilling (both openly and surreptitiously) is widely used in the various branches of the entertainment industry. Not only gaming (also called gambling) but also e.g. sales of equipment to musicians or filmmakers.

Again the issue with modern shilling is that one can do shilling in the open: with the disclosure of close relationship.

Could anyone kindly quote this entire reply for posterity? Thanks.

The double spend problem has already been solved. It is called Bitcoin, and it was invented more then six years ago. I think all of this pessimistic talk about Bitcoin is wrong, this pessimistic view of Bitcoin is being promoted by Core as well. That we need to give up on all of these features and attributes of Bitcoin, so that we can replace it with third parties build on top of a unnecessarily crippled Bitcoin. I respectfully disagree.

If it's not a problem for you, then it's clearly not a problem. Because anecdotal evidence of something not being compramised is what security is all about
Well yeah, "... apparently [payment processors] rather foolishly signed contracts w/ merchants guaranteeing zeroconf payments."
Thanks for not exploiting the exploitable. BitPay, security pros that they are, already got owned pretty hard.

For a final solution to the double spend problem, there is only one answer. Sadly it is centralization.

This is the reason why the Bitcoin exists in the first place.

Well, I accept zero confirmation at the retail store that I am involved with running, this is not a problem for me. I buy most of my food using zero confirmation as well through BitPay. I am familiar with Peter Todd's criticisms of zero confirmation but I do respectfully disagree with his assessment of this feature of Bitcoin.

Apparently, that doesn't work well either. ... For instance from a few sources I've been told that  has lost tens of thousands from double-spends, but kept quiet for fear of inviting more attacks. (apparently they rather foolishly signed contracts w/ merchants guaranteeing zeroconf payments) shapeshift.io has apparently lost enough that they've mostly turned off zeroconf. I've also known about numerous attacks on unattended ATMs. (often solved with cameras and/or AML/KYC) --Peter Todd
 

I suppose that is what I think yes. It might be more accurate to say that I do not think that the majority of the hashpower will go against the economic majority. I think that the game theory of Bitcoin is designed in such a way, that it ensures the continued decentralization and freedom of the protocol. In the case of a fifty one percent attack, I think the miners are definitely disincentivized to carry out such an attack, it would be irrational while requiring collective effort from separate entities, this I think is very unlikely, especially also considering the lessons learned over the past few years. Of course we could dream up of scenarios where this could happen, however it is very unlikely. Like many things in Bitcoin it is more about having a high probability of certainty as opposed to actually having absolute certainty. This works well enough, just like zero confirmation does in most retail situations.

^Not sure what you're saying here. You don't believe there are scenarios in which interests of >51% of hashpower are at odds with those of the hodlers?

I suppose this is where we disagree. I do not think the incentive mechanism of Bitcoin requires any radical fixes, and I said that Bitcoin will have failed only if the presumption of miners being incentivized towards the good of the network is wrong. Which I do not think is the case, I also do not think it would be that easy to fix even if that was the case. It would be better to start from scratch, especially considering that many people still believe in this original vision of Bitcoin, and because of how the incentive mechanism works it might not even be possible to change Bitcoin this radically, whether you consider it to have failed or not.

Not necessarily failed, there are clear attempts to address the [possible] conflict of interests (e.g. non-mining nodes, wallet software), but not sure if effective.

Agreed, it is not a direct relationship, and there are stumbling blocks. I still think that if this premise is not true then Bitcoin has already failed. Obviously I do not think that is the case, but it certainly is food for thought.

Dictionary definition: Appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Interpretation of "shill" is highly personal and subjective.

I think Bitcoin is free, is instant using zero confirmation and is sufficiently decentralized, it can and further on will also handle micro transactions. Just like Satoshi always said it would. These things will no longer be true if we do not increase the blocksize, which is in part why I want to see the blocksize to be increased. But I suppose you think that increasing the blocksize to two megabytes is not possible or would destroy Bitcoin? Unless Core where the ones to increase the blocksize through their leadership, not sure if you would consider that an exception?

As far as I understand it, the blocksize can be increased and we do not need to sacrifice all of these things you listed on the alter of Core's vision for Bitcoin. There are many prominent engineers who think that increasing the blocksize is perfectly safe, like Gavin Andresen and the theZerg. This is why I think that we should increase the blocksize considering that the cost of not increasing it will be far greater in terms of the original vision. I think that that the choice you are presenting is not a real choice at all, Bitcoin can do all of these things and more.

We do not need to limit and restrict Bitcoin, we just need to allow it to be free. Our own minds need to be free, if we want Bitcoin to be free, because we are all Bitcoin.

Agree, although to me it is on the hands of the antonopoulos bitcoin jeesus gavineries derps, too busy talking their books, lying to everyone whilst making hearing with the regulators et al... standing in the starlight to better hide their inabilities.