Topic: delete - page 2. (Read 23955 times)
Yeah Slush is back under seige again. Interesting thing is this shifts balance towards smaller pools and solo miners. Ok I will stop derailing this thread now.
Not fair to accuse anyone unless you have evidence.
I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users?
The operator of BTC Guild think it is because he pissed a botnet off.
Oboy, someone else said, this may in fact last for a long period of time.
I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users?
The operator of BTC Guild think it is because he pissed a botnet off.
I don't think it is something you did. Slush indicates his pool is under attack and deep bit users are indcating connectivity issues.
I'm referring to the fact that this all happened a few minutes after I posted that I had submitted a giant list of IPs that I had been collecting from the botnet miners the last few days. Could very easily be the childish mentality of these "hackers": "Oh yeah, well I'm going to take my ball and go home, but first I'm going to pop your ball."
I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users?
all 4 of em?
I'm wondering if bitcoinexpress is involved with the ddos attacks or if this is retaliation against bitcoin pools from SC users?
Did the Jews say to Hitler: "our race is extermination-proof, go a head and try!"?
Nope. And neither did GG, IX, I0, or Bitparking. What is your point?
Quote
As for "support", which definition are you using?
Quote
sup·port (s-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: "His flaw'd heart . . . too weak the conflict to support" (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7.
a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: "At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult" (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: "His flaw'd heart . . . too weak the conflict to support" (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7.
a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: "At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult" (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).
I've seen 6, 7a, 7b, 8, and even some of 9 on here. Are you Bill Clinton? Depends on what the definition of "is" is?
Again, what is your point?
It *seems* that BCX's theory has so far proven itself: Block generation hasn't (meaningfully) adjusted, despite massive difficulty increases.
The argument from the SolidCoin camp is that this is due to a continuous increase in the number of legitimate users, as SolidCoin continues on its trajectory to replace Bitcoin!
It'll be much more fun to watch when the reality that people are only in it to mine and dump sets in on his delusions of grandeur. He'll probably be left with slightly less people on his bandwagon as he goes off to code SC 3.0, probably before opening the source to SC 2.0.
And we have validation of Godwin's law after 415 posts. Not exactly a record but nice confirmation!
Via the Corollary you automatically lose. Anyone who can't defend their position without hyperbolic references to Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust has already lost the argument.
Thank you for adding to the conversation. You are truly a visionary.
There seemed to be quite a few that were upset he was banned including me.
Has he been unbanned yet?
Has he been unbanned yet?
Is BitCoinEXpress banned?
Do we justify the actions of Hitler because his experimentation on Jews led to medical breakthroughs?
Did the Jews say to Hitler: "our race is extermination-proof, go a head and try!"?
As for "support", which definition are you using?
Quote
sup·port (s-pôrt, -prt)
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: "His flaw'd heart . . . too weak the conflict to support" (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7.
a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: "At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult" (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).
tr.v. sup·port·ed, sup·port·ing, sup·ports
1. To bear the weight of, especially from below.
2. To hold in position so as to keep from falling, sinking, or slipping.
3. To be capable of bearing; withstand: "His flaw'd heart . . . too weak the conflict to support" (Shakespeare).
4. To keep from weakening or failing; strengthen: The letter supported him in his grief.
5. To provide for or maintain, by supplying with money or necessities.
6. To furnish corroborating evidence for: New facts supported her story.
7.
a. To aid the cause, policy, or interests of: supported her in her election campaign.
b. To argue in favor of; advocate: supported lower taxes.
8. To endure; tolerate: "At supper there was such a conflux of company that I could scarcely support the tumult" (Samuel Johnson).
9. To act in a secondary or subordinate role to (a leading performer).
Do we justify the actions of Hitler because his experimentation on Jews led to medical breakthroughs?
And we have validation of Godwin's law after 415 posts. Not exactly a record but nice confirmation!
Via the Corollary you automatically lose. Anyone who can't defend their position without hyperbolic references to Hitler/Nazi/Holocaust has already lost the argument.
If the word wasn't important, why did you use it? You knew exactly what you were saying and implying.
In what way are we supporting him? I haven't given him any money. In fact I don't think I've even given him a compliment. I've merely sat back and enjoyed the show.
If you pay taxes, you support war more than I support BitcoinExpress.
In what way are we supporting him? I haven't given him any money. In fact I don't think I've even given him a compliment. I've merely sat back and enjoyed the show.
If you pay taxes, you support war more than I support BitcoinExpress.
Since when does support require money? Defending his actions is supporting him. I really have no idea whether you personally have or not as I'm not going to go review all of your posts. Hell, I don't know who I'm replying to with half of these because the second I said something negative about BCX people came out of the woodwork to defend his actions.
The word is as close to accurate as I could get to what he has done. But because it's a scary word, people got all worked up and made it all about the word. Short attention spans I guess. Yes, I know what I am saying. He's walking around with a big stick picking winners and losers, and for some odd reason most people here want to be his friend. Do we support and defend thieves because their actions have lead to better security systems? Do we justify the actions of Hitler because his experimentation on Jews led to medical breakthroughs? No! Feel free to acknowledge that the nefarious actions led to improvements, but those actions should at the same time be condemned. We should work towards fixing problems in a more mature and productive way.
You bring politics into this discussion? Why?
Ah, the internet. Lets ignore all the arguments and focus on one word. God forbid I should misspell something as well. Then the gloves would be off.
The point is you are supporting someone you shouldn't be supporting imo.
The point is you are supporting someone you shouldn't be supporting imo.
If the word wasn't important, why did you use it? You knew exactly what you were saying and implying.
In what way are we supporting him? I haven't given him any money. In fact I don't think I've even given him a compliment. I've merely sat back and enjoyed the show.
If you pay taxes, you support war more than I support BitcoinExpress.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Why is it everything is described as 'terrorism' these days? It's not terrorism if terror isn't involved. Not threats, not fear, actual real terror.
Just because a load of political parasites use that word to justify all sorts of evil doesn't mean you have to resort to the same nonsense.
Ah, the internet. Lets ignore all the arguments and focus on one word. God forbid I should misspell something as well. Then the gloves would be off.
The point is you are supporting someone you shouldn't be supporting imo.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Why is it everything is described as 'terrorism' these days? It's not terrorism if terror isn't involved. Not threats, not fear, actual real terror.
Just because a load of political parasites use that word to justify all sorts of evil doesn't mean you have to resort to the same nonsense.
SolidCoin is closed source too...
Ok. What does that have to do with BCX's tactics? That's what I'm talking about.
Quote
I think casually tossing around the world terrorism is more an act of terrorism than exploiting code.
Seriously? Terrorism? What the fuck.
Seriously? Terrorism? What the fuck.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
noun
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
Do you have a better word? Cyber Assault? Extortion? Cyber Bullying? It certainly isn't ethical hacking.
If you want proof of SC2 failure, simply look at the exchanges.
Tennebrix had an 1800 BTC market depth at point, SC2 peaked at 40 BTC (ROFL) and is less than 25BTC at the moment.
SC2 first 24 hour volume is less than 20,000 compared to IXcoin that 385,000 volume first 24 hours.
Yes Viperjbm FAILURE is the right word.
Tennebrix had an 1800 BTC market depth at point, SC2 peaked at 40 BTC (ROFL) and is less than 25BTC at the moment.
SC2 first 24 hour volume is less than 20,000 compared to IXcoin that 385,000 volume first 24 hours.
Yes Viperjbm FAILURE is the right word.
Buy orders:
BTC-E: SC2 total BTC: 294, TBX total BTC 238.
SC24: 230 BTC
It's the trend that counts.
Your analogy doesn't work because Microsoft's products are closed source. We have to rely on them to fix bugs. BTC is open source. We don't need a proof of concept attack, you can simply provide a fix to the code.
I agree good software will evolve, but I really don't think most of what BCX is doing contributes to that. BCX's methods are childish. The proof of concept was GG. Everything after has just been big kid on the block crap. DDOS attacks? These are not helpful to evolution of software. Taking bribes to not attack chains? Really? Terrorism is a scary word, but it effectively describes the methods. He attacks anyone who tries to improve on the current BTC code.
I agree good software will evolve, but I really don't think most of what BCX is doing contributes to that. BCX's methods are childish. The proof of concept was GG. Everything after has just been big kid on the block crap. DDOS attacks? These are not helpful to evolution of software. Taking bribes to not attack chains? Really? Terrorism is a scary word, but it effectively describes the methods. He attacks anyone who tries to improve on the current BTC code.
SolidCoin is closed source too...
I think casually tossing around the world terrorism is more an act of terrorism than exploiting code.
Seriously? Terrorism? What the fuck.
Cyber terrorism? ROFL.
There is no security through obscurity.
If the flaws exist now they will exist in the future when the end game involves hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions. An end game w/ end users who are far more easily spooked. If a currency can't stand up to relatively simple attacks involving a relatively cheap amount of resources then they simply have no reason for existing.
If he can "break" BTC then I would rather he do it now while BTC is in its infancy than someone else doing it in the future to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and destroy confidence in crypto-currency.
" he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. "
Whitehats have long since figured out nobody listens to exploits & problems until it is a problem. People use to point flaws out to Microsoft. Sometimes writing up long papers explaining the issue and ramifications. Microsoft promptly ignored them. Today they launch a proof of concept attack and issues get patched much faster.
Think of it as software evolution. Good software will evolve and become stronger by being constantly attacked. Weak software dies and it likely had no business existing to begin with.
There is no security through obscurity.
If the flaws exist now they will exist in the future when the end game involves hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions. An end game w/ end users who are far more easily spooked. If a currency can't stand up to relatively simple attacks involving a relatively cheap amount of resources then they simply have no reason for existing.
If he can "break" BTC then I would rather he do it now while BTC is in its infancy than someone else doing it in the future to steal hundreds of millions of dollars and destroy confidence in crypto-currency.
" he should be using his resources to fix the exploits and problems. "
Whitehats have long since figured out nobody listens to exploits & problems until it is a problem. People use to point flaws out to Microsoft. Sometimes writing up long papers explaining the issue and ramifications. Microsoft promptly ignored them. Today they launch a proof of concept attack and issues get patched much faster.
Think of it as software evolution. Good software will evolve and become stronger by being constantly attacked. Weak software dies and it likely had no business existing to begin with.
Your analogy doesn't work because Microsoft's products are closed source. We have to rely on them to fix bugs. BTC is open source. We don't need a proof of concept attack, you can simply provide a fix to the code.
I agree good software will evolve, but I really don't think most of what BCX is doing contributes to that. BCX's methods are childish. The proof of concept was GG. Everything after has just been big kid on the block crap. DDOS attacks? These are not helpful to evolution of software. Taking bribes to not attack chains? Really? Terrorism is a scary word, but it effectively describes the methods. He attacks anyone who tries to improve on the current BTC code.
Jump to: