Topic: delete - page 14. (Read 27672 times)

That's what I've been trying to explain for days but I'm afraid it's too complicated for most people that got no time to read all over the threads to decide between trolling and not. I can't blame them really. All they see is a bunch of XMR threads all over the place with aggressive shilling and offensive behaviors. It's very difficult to convince them that these threads are actually made by people that want to provoke and tarnish with reverse-psychology. If only we could ask the moderation to forbid any new monero-themed thread on this board, but It's probably out of reach.
I guess we just have to accept all that hate as a proof of disruption and move on. People will figure it out eventually.

You don't get it, and for a while BCX didn't get it, but eventually he figured it out.

There are no "XMR trolls."

Of course there are always a few unbalanced people who will act up on a forum at any opportunity (probably more than a few here), but I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about actual, active supporters of XMR. I know pretty much all of them. They are not going around trolling. We're too busy trying to develop a useful coin.

The people you are referring to are sock puppets who are being run by someone (we could get into who but that's a whole other discussion), using a variety of strategies to undermine Monero. One of those strategies is appearing to be pro-Monero, but doing it in such a loud, obnoxious and offensive way as to turn people against Monero.

This fake pro-Monero trolling started in June or July, and at the time it was new and obvious, but fairly limited and easy to identify. This has exploded in volume and scope. Probably this includes the trolls, copycats, and possibly other organized groups who now see Monero as a threat and see this reverse-psychology method as being effective.

It has nothing to do with the Monero project and there is nothing we can do to stop it except perhaps exactly what the trolls want, which is abandon the project. Though even then, if the current devs did abandon the project, and others took over, the trolls would likely continue their efforts.

So if anyone is being "pissed off" by the XMR trolls and takes action against Monero as a result, they are taking exactly the action these so-called Monero trolls are trying to encourage.

I'm done researching BCX's exploits.. I am tired. If someone wants to pick up where I left off that would be cool, I am interested in what he has done.. or allegedly done. I pretty much checked his posting history from pages 115 to 170.

I agree it is certainly possible to spend resources and get nothing for it, but I doubt the reverse.

You point to coins that have no resources behind them, and as things stand today you are correct, but as you will know if you are reading this thread, I believe these are virtually all if not all scamcoins headed for zero (some faster than others), restoring the balance. Of course, I may be proven wrong.

I'm still digging... there was a lot to go over and BCX has deleted a lot of his posts, most of which contain evidence I would assume.

Apparently he has also repeatedly used the time travel exploit. What kind of difficulty adjustment algo does Monero use??? As I think that is how the time travel exploit is utilized.

It is possible I guess someone tipped him off to an exploit in CN. It would be interesting checking other CN's Githubs for recent commits.. maybe in this case, the one that is in the know would have fixed the exploit recently.

That was a lot of good information.  So basically this guy has basically been the reaper for many a coin, but usually via raw power.  He hasn't said he was going to attack XMR (the exact opposite).  The worrisome thing is that he said he found an exploit in CN.  I am wondering if what he really means is "somebody showed him a fatal flaw".  The XMR trolls have pissed a lot of people off.  I can imagine another developer knows about a flaw and just hasn't done much but is considering it now.  Also, if somebody knew about a flaw and wanted to kill a coin but didn't have the resources themselves, then BCX is hands down the most obvious choice to contact.  He has destroyed so many coins; he apparently kind of likes it.  Even if I am wrong about this theory, I think there is something to what he is saying about flaws in the code.  He has a pretty bad ass reputation and apparently a high ego.  I am sure he would hate to get shamed and be wrong.   

It seems lot of people have invested too much in XMR and are now scared.

I'm refuting the notion that there exists some causal relationship between expenditure and value. That relationship is correlation in some cases, but not causation. Plenty of coins have been mined with great expenditure of resources yet are worthless now. The inverse is also true. Some coins have been mined quickly and without much expenditure, but are highly valued.

It seems BCX mostly did 51% attacks, with only 1 time travel exploit which was found by Artforz. Allegedly BCX got someone to edit the code for him, as BCX apparently can't code (his words, not mine). Seeing as though BCX can't code.. unless he learned in the past few years, I doubt he fund an exploit. It seems the only code exploit he did was found by someone else and coded for him to use, and he mainly used a large hash rate to attack alt coins.

Admitting he can't code:


Here is a summary of his early alleged attacks:


Then he attacked Solidcoin2 with a ddos of its insecure "trusted node", possibly performed other attacks against solidcoin2.. there is too much to go over and I'm getting tired: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.582404

Apparently he 51%ed Litecoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/delete-96186

Claimed he will 51% Digicoin, but didn't: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/delete-236630

Time travel exploit against Spots: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-spot-successful-fork-complete-on-coinpaymentsnetcryptsycoins-e-259764

You've basically supported the argument you were attempting to refute. If expenditure is required to ensure honesty then the expenditure is required to derive the value, because otherwise it will be cheated out of existence. You can't wish away the honesty part. Cheaters exist.

And what would keep them from creating a wallet that saved electricity by not mining? And how do you prevent someone from writing a malicious wallet when all the others have adopted the cheaper non-miner that they can run on their phones?

People are stuck on the question of value, and come to the conclusion that value is derived from expenditure of resources. But that's simply not the case. Value is derived from utility. In other words, the question of value is related to usefulness, not expenditure.

Expenditure is required to help ensure honesty. If a reward requires resources, but cheating jeopardizes the reward, then the incentive is to be honest when expending those resources. That's the PoW model. This model has absolutely nothing to do with imparting value on a commodity. The utility of the commodity takes care of the value.

I'd be interested in reading your explanation of the idea, as AM's posts are intentionally vague as to not give away the secret sauce.

I was also thinking another possible solution could be to somehow eliminate the need for pools altogether. This may be achievable with a multi-level GHOST PoW, where stale blocks could be mined at various difficulties with corresponding profitability.

BTW, I posted this idea earlier than the post I saw from AM that described it the way JM did. I don't know if AM got it from me, in reality he and I probably just think in similar directions so I won't claim plagiarism or anything of the sort. In fact he might have posted something earlier than mine, but I never read a lot of his posts so I can't say.

The problem is, this tells you the goal but not how to get there, and even more importantly stay there. Remember, Bitcoin started with a miner in a wallet. Eventually mining become professionalized and the wallet miner was ripped out because no one used it. Although a wallet miner is pretty pointless with ASICs, the miner was ripped out earlier, during the GPU era. Another option could have been to add GPU support to it.

I wonder if possibly the fact that Satoshi expected mining to become professionalized helped push things in this direction, in a sort of self-fulfilling way. The fact that we have seen how Bitcoin has become not only professionalized but highly centralized might be enough to nudge successor projects in a different direction. Centralization is certainly one of the things (besides anonymity) that does interest the Monero developers.

Interesting thoughts, I like your theory regarding Satoshi and it seems plausible. Anonymint is still around, although he may of dropped that idea.. I don't know. I do agree that is a good idea that needs more attention.. I haven't heard it before. I'm guessing it is hard to implement fairly and securely though, which would be the only thing holding it back. Yet, it could possibly be made to work.


I wouldn't go that far... but thanks.


I know BCX is rumored to have killed several coins before, but most of the ones he has killed were before my time and I'm not sure of the details. I think at least one of them was just a plain 51% attack, and not through a vulnerability.. possibly more. On the other hand, I am fairly certain he has made claims that coins are vulnerable before and nothing ever happened.

I'm going to do some digging around now and I'll get back to you, as I am interested in that myself.

@Coinhoarder.  You are apparently the voice of reason and common sense in this thread so I will direct this question at you.  You have been around longer than me so I figure you might know.   BCX apparently comes out with these statements against coins every so often and as you mentioned earlier in the thread sometimes backs it up with real facts, but sometimes seemingly keeps everything secret leaving people to doubt him.  But ultimately, has any coin ever been slandered by BCX and gone on to eventually be successful?  

Edit: I already know the Litecoin story and how things exploded there but eventually turned out for the good. 

I had always thought that there was an inherent flaw in PoW mining as it is in Bitcion and that Satoshi knew it from the get go, but buy making mining profitable the network would be sustained and the blockchain would live on and prove in theory that this whole blockchain decentralization thing is real and can solve a lot of problems.  I think he built a faulty system from the start knowing it was faulty but also knowing it would be a good test case and proof that it could work. 

Now that has been proven and I am waiting for something better.  I have been looking into PoS and maybe NEM PoI, but listening to AnonyMint's suggestion that also seems really interesting.  Basically, if lots and lots of uses were miners, that any time a wallet was open it was mining, then the network could be supported.  His solution makes a lot of sense. 

I always considered Anonymint kind of like a mad genius.  He is very rough with social skills but very tight with in depth and detailed knowledge.  I wanted to find more about this theory and I checked into it but couldn't find anything and apparently he has checked out and no longer logs in. 

Lol, since they moved them to the announcement subforum I can kind of block them out. I don't research coins anymore unless someone brings it to my attention or I see someone mention it being the new best thing. Even then half the time they are still scam coins haha!

Anyways.. I am glad we were able to come to somewhat of an understanding. You see, I am not such a bad guy.. I just care very deeply about this stuff and get worked up easily. I often speak/type without thinking and that leads to me saying things I probably shouldn't say.. but all of it is honest for the most part... as honest as humanly possible considering personal bias. Again I don't care about this stuff for monetary reasons, but for political reasons, the well being of humanity's financial future, and privacy etc.... I basically want to decentralize everything.

I guess we've derailed this thread enough.. I'll let BCX get back to his soap opera.

Cheers

I'm pretty sure the reason most alts launch as PoS (including PoW->PoS in that) is simply that it is much easier to monopolize more of the supply which means your return on investment of doing a pump-and-dump is much higher. With mined coins you can't really monopolize the mining and even when you do monopolize the early mining in some sort of instamine to get a lot of coins, it becomes much harder to pump the coin later because you have the natural sellers (miners) brining new coins onto the maket.

That itself says nothing about the merits of PoS though, and I won't engage in proof by association (i.e. it doesn't prove that PoS is bad just because many scam coins use PoS), it is just a comment about the state of the altcoin market.


One-a-day would likely be a vast reduction of the current rate of scamcoin production.

I also invite you to our PoW vs PoS/alternate consensus thread. It is ironic that my last post addressed exactly this. I believe PoS coins to come at the expense of GDP: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8869805

This sounds like a clever idea, and I think it could work if the logistics were figured out.

Good point that this is not an issue with PoW, but the implementation. Sadly though many PoW Alt cryptocurrencies have followed a similar path of implementation when it comes to emission curves. It is odd that this issue hasn't been thoroughly addressed in the Alt coin subforum and new coins haven't adopted their implementation. I guess everyone just hates inflation, which I can't really blame them.

That is all understandable, everyone has their own opinion on what innovations are more or less important. I try to look at all innovation as being equally important in the long run. Maybe this or that innovation may be somewhat gimmicky, but it can give someone a good idea for a future innovation that is not gimmicky, and give them a head start on the coding of it. I see any changes/experiments/innovation as being for the greater good of the future of cryptocurrencies. I know not everyone agrees on that, so we will agree to disagree.

I'm not budging on my point that you guys have caused some of the backlash yourselves though by creating so many Monero threads. I really do feel that is the reason the trolls decided to start their FUD campaign and reverse trolling against you guys. You were getting too much good press and exposure for their liking. Maybe tone it down a bit, or consolidate your threads into only a few. It will afterall give you more time to pick up more cheap Monero if you truly believe in its future.