Topic: Cornell researchers detail why I'm correct about the Global ID and Central Auth (Read 1935 times)

I think he's basically saying that the BTC price has been artificially elevated by the concentration of power by certain miners, and now the reason it's currently tanking is because other miners are entering the scene. He's repeating some ridiculous ideas he's come across which might prop up the price. He's basically laughing at you...

Where's you sense of humour?  

Short reply: OP you're a blind fool.

The more people have you on ignore the better. The solution to the issue, that a mining pool would get 51%?
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool
Now tell me why are you trying to spread FUD? It's not like your voice matters, you can post everywhere as much as you want.

Let me get this straight.
- You sent a one-way text message
- limited to 140 characters
- therefore devoid of meaningful content
- to someone who until recently was one of the bigger nay-sayers of Bitcoin,
- he has not responded,
- so you don't even know whether or not he read it
And we are supposed to believe that this is proof of the validity of your scheme?

You are right about one thing though - you are like a cancer, in that you are a continual irritant that is hard to expunge.

CliveK:  Great post.  Thanks.

Quarkcoins marketcap $12million down to $1.7million in 180 days.

24h Volume...... $2000 ......


http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/quark/

LOL what?

Suck to be a bag holder, OP.


EDIT: actually i'm wrong, OP is the founder ..... Even a scammer calling you out OP

I'm surprised the OP didnt kill himself yet..... after jumping on Quark scam coin.....

Hows that working out for you retard?

I thought I would comment on this, purely from a constructive perspective, with the goal of keeping the Bitcoin protocol, as it was proposed by Nakamoto in the original paper.


With regards to the web article you posted (http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/06/16/how-a-mining-monopoly-can-attack-bitcoin/)

Note the article is written by Eyal, I. and Sirer, E., the authors of the paper Majority is not Enough: Bitcoin Mining is Vulnerable (2013). Available from: http://fc14.ifca.ai/papers/fc14_submission_82.pdf

Selfish miner attack is not really an attack on the Bitcoin Protocol, more a means to attract more people to a specific mining pool and perhaps increase earnings. I would perhaps agree that this could be seen as an attack on Bitcoin mining pools in general as a way to manipulate miners into joining the pool after manipulating pool shares making that pool appear more attractive from a revenue perspective.

I am not sure if you read the proposed solution by Eyal and Sirer for the selfish miner problem, you would see the solution is not move to a central authority, but rather a backward compatible solution that does not impact how Bitcoin operates, or how pool mining operates.

There are other ways to manipulate miners to join a pool, namely with lower fees, incentives (like block discovery as suggested by Nakamoto), cooler dashboards, etc.


With regards to double-spending, surely this is only feasible with "Fast Payments," like described by Karame, Androulaki and Capkun in their paper Two Bitcoins at the Price of One? Double-Spending Attacks on Fast Payments in Bitcoin (2012)?

So worst case you could theoretically double spend if the merchant allows fast payments, like any corner shop where you would buy coffee. I am very intrigued by Nakamoto's suggestion to solve this issue:

"I believe it'll be possible for a payment processing company to provide as a service the rapid distribution of transactions with good-enough checking in something like 10 seconds or less.

The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate.  When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first.  If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes."

I believe that these are already in place.


With regards to the 51% attack, you are suggesting moving to a central authority to resolve.  This central authority would then be the trust authority, to verify no tampering with the transactions, etc.  The Conclusion of the Bitcoin paper starts with:

We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust.

Surely a far simpler solution from you, if you are concerned about the selfish miner and the 51% attack, would be to propose an end to pool mining? Pool mining could be viewed as some form of attack vehicle on the Bitcoin protocol because it makes both 51% attack, selfish miner a possibility, and potentially the double-spend GHash.IO is accused of.  With regards the GHash.IO double spend, I have not researched that yet, but it is on my list of things to research for my thesis.


Bitcoin is also still under development, there will be issues, and as they present themselves the developers will resolve them. If anyone chose to invest in a BETA program they can expect bugs. I would propose technical solutions to technical problems, not regulation which goes against the principle/spirit of what Bitcoin is.  Just my 2 cents.

It comes across that your interest in Bitcoin is purely financial (whereas mine is purely academic).  I apologise if I have the incorrect perspective.



I just want to point out to the original paper, in the introduction on page 1, when Nakamoto is referring to the currently used trust based systems and reversible transactions:

With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.

Bitcoin is meant to solve this isn't it so I don't see this a solution at all, but rather detracting of what Bitcoin is.

@franky1

also to add to your points -

There is a window of opportunity while the price is still valued highly, the central authority if it can eliminate the market elements that are driving the price revaluation, and causing the stagnation.

if it can remedy these key points, then that is the most viable solution for Bitcoin. 

this would just mean that there is a perhaps a cap change, which many others have gotten away with (Dark etc) , also as net education of decentralized economics and fundamentals is still low.

so a Cap change "Centralized ledger" would seal the deal for market forces and allow for the continued confidence of key business sectors .

they "Global ID" i.e trust verification would just secure the ledger similar to Visa etc.

i can add:

this opens up opportunity for key consumer protections, i.e  the system isn't just a "all or nothing" but insurance and "verification" encourages consumer safety.

i was up 5000% and 10,000%

now I'm up about 500%.~ 1000%

can't see how that is relevant, all it suggests is that i understand the market,  that's all.

depending on where you purchased Bitcoin will shape your opinion on this proposal i suggest.

That is because that is how our civilization or the body organize itself. You need a central authority/brain to coordinate all your body parts to acquire energy/food.

Faaarrrrk y does this guy bother.. just leave if u dont like the way bitcoin is no one wants to hear the shit, too many ppl want it this way.. your just getting annoying saying why this should be like this and why this like that bla bla get over it. If you dont like how btc is leave then no one cares. This is not the only negative post you have posted about btc. My question is why bother, you dont like it leaveeeee then or is there some underlining grudge you have?? Either way, build a bridge and walk dont waste your time no one caressssss thats y ppl block u

How long have you owned this account?  Why did you buy it?

I don't see large problems here, if "people" have enough incentive they will do it, incentive can come from  a lot of different places, people line up at TSA lines to get onto a plane.

they have an "incentive" to do that , because if they don't they don't fly.

there are numerous other examples.

I tweeted it to Alex Jones. of the info wars network?

please name a "key peer" in the Bitcoin industry who believes in your scheme?

Re-arranging deck chairs?

do me a favor - quote my whole Op so those that have me on ignore can see it - its too big of an issue to ignore, people are going to lose money.

bitcoin doesnt do double spends..

sorry but bitcoin is double spend protected by default.
now if a mining pool was to do a 51% to mess with the code to attempt to inject new coins. then those coins would be rejected by our nodes as the miners rules dont match our nodes rules.

secondly if it was to try a double spend of existing coins only the merchant receiving the coin would be at risk and not the entire bitcoin circulation. thus businesses would choose if they wanted their customers real life details or not. there is no need for a world ID. its much more simpler for a bitcoin business to ask for someones passport number or social security/national insurance number.

in short someones already existing id details.

by introducing a world ID would do 2 negative things
1) barrier to entry of bitcoin if people are forced to need an registered ID just to use bitcoin
2) businesses would need to be linked to this registry database to verify, which is a form of regulation that is centralized rather then self managed.

no one should/would choose a forced registry system, after all not everyone wants to register to vote for national elections, not everyone wants to fill in a census and not everyone even wants to vote on elections. this is not about hiding anything bad, but simply choosing not to do it as one of their freedoms. yet the only way to force a census 100% completion is to fine people if they do not fill it in.

again a forced ID service would only work by fining people for not filling it in. so lets bring back the negatives to an ID system:

1) barrier to entry of bitcoin if people are forced to need an registered ID just to use bitcoin
2) businesses would need to be linked to this registry database to verify, which is a form of regulation that is centralized rather then self
3) threads if 'fines' or criminals actions by not signing up

next part to think about is the security and auditing of the data, the computer equipment, staff etc isnt free so this ID service will inevitably charge businesses a membership fee and users a registration fee. so bringing back the negative reasons for an ID system:

1) barrier to entry of bitcoin if people are forced to need an registered ID just to use bitcoin
2) businesses would need to be linked to this registry database to verify, which is a form of regulation that is centralized rather then self
3) threats of 'fines' or criminals actions by not signing up
4) consumer registration fees
5) business member/partner fee's

so even before mention 'privacy' there are 5 reasons people will CHOOSE not to use a ID system

Come up with a decentralized system and the first thing people want to do is centralize it  

Edit: aren't you the guy that exchanged all his BTC for Quark coin? How's that working out for you?

don't stick your head in the sand - this has been posted in Twitter , Reddit and to many key Peers in the Bitcoin community.

putting me on ignore doesn't work.

its like ignoring Cancer it doesn't go away.