delete - page 41. | Bitcointalksearch.org

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 10:54:59 AM

For me a ban means no coins can transact, i.e. it is legal action that requires an unknown justification. Rather blacklisting would be a different legal action that has established justifications already in AML, KYC laws, etc.

Okay difference of terminology then. I have been referring to a "ban" as a ban on anonymity, and a ban on anonymity as being a effective ban on a coin that has as its primary merit anonymity. Sure there are unblacklisted coins being mined, by why would anyone even want them?

We agree that if a ban on anonymity is imposed and is actually effective, then there will be no anonymity. To me that is fairly obvious and uninteresting.

cornfeedhobo

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

Quote from: Spoetnik on October 04, 2014, 09:43:12 AM

Quote from: cornfeedhobo on October 04, 2014, 08:58:29 AM

Meanwhile, the exchanges are see large volumes at low prices.

If this isn't market manipulation, I don't know what is.

Look at BCX's post history https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bitcoinexpress-29445

He has never pulled off a TW attack. He has only made claims about them, but admits he "never got to wear the badge" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/delete-546338

Everything he has done has been FUD with no proof. Never has he demonstrated any coin killing capabilities.

Other notable failures:
Failed to attack namecoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.0
Failed to attack litecoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/deleted-94912

Someone has even gone so far as to create a petition to have him arrested https://www.change.org/p/bitcoinexpress-have-him-arrested

your a noob and know shit all obviously because i seen him kill coins before..
it may have been some time since it happened but it did happen LOL

Yet another post lacking in proof but claiming a lot. Proof or it didn't happen.

TheFascistMind

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 10:40:41 AM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 10:24:04 AM

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 09:27:41 AM

I only deny that they can effectively blacklist within this system short of a ban.

They can blacklist, because they can effectively force users to not use anonymity.

I disagree, unless you are saying that that by controlling mining they can refuse to include anonymous transactions. My opinion is that is effectively a ban. I would likewise make the same comment about forcing people to give up passwords and such.

Those sorts of draconian measures may work, or they may not, but I see little point in discussing them with no real information, or lacking a complete analysis of the relevant scenarios. Again this comes down to "there might be a flaw" (The Ban Flaw).

Quote

I have stated that several times. I feel like you are arguing disingenuously. I refuted your point about them needing to do it before coins have already been mixed, because:

1. There are always new coins from mining.

I don't see the relevance of new coins. How does that work?

For me a ban means no coins can transact, i.e. it is legal action that requires an unknown justification. Rather blacklisting would be a different legal action that has established justifications already in AML, KYC laws, etc.

New coins are not mixed with any rings and thus are not part of any blacklist cascade. They can be transacted.

A blacklist can be more effectively enforced at the miners than by a law that must be enforced other ways.

I really don't know what it is so difficult for you to unconflate banning an entire coin and blacklisting. Only coins in the blacklisted cascade wouldn't be allowed to transact.

Indeed controlling the miners is an effective way to incentivize people to give up passwords and such, as the blacklisted coins are dead.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: slapper on October 04, 2014, 10:13:37 AM

It would have overtaken Darkcoin by now on its own merit.

Probably not, given that there is still no working GUI, etc.

For the most part I think the cheerleaders, shills, manipulators, etc. (on all sides) are mostly wasting their time and the current result is about the same as it would be without them

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 10:42:21 AM

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 09:27:41 AM

(I'm not saying it isn't, just that you can't assume it.)

If it were my coin, I would think I should not assume it.

I assume nothing. I suggest that you can't assume that mitigation is required (which you suggested it was, unconditionally, in the previous message) if you want to take the analysis beyond "there might be a flaw."

Quote

I got the point. You guys have other priorities

True

Quote

and you wish everybody would STFU already unless they can do most of the work.

False.

I don't care whether anyone SsTFU but as I said if you want your message to be heard by anyone looking at things at a technical level it has to be presented with more precision and detail to rise above the normal noise level of worthless FUD. That is not "most of the work" it is simply presenting your ideas (which could well be valuable even if they represent only a small part of "the work") in the way that technically, scientifically, or mathematically competent people communicate.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 10:31:13 AM

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 09:27:41 AM

Oh, so you responded with a whitepaper. Really? Where is it?

I said I was writing one. I didn't say I completed it yet or that I have any reason to need to release it now.

I wasn't aware of that, but if you do write up something well thought out and well presented I would be interested in reading it.

TheFascistMind

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 09:27:41 AM

(I'm not saying it isn't, just that you can't assume it.)

If it were my coin, I would think I should not assume it.

I got the point. You guys have other priorities and you wish everybody would STFU already unless they can do most of the work.

No problem. I am not learning anything new by now and this is wasting time.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 10:24:04 AM

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 09:27:41 AM

I only deny that they can effectively blacklist within this system short of a ban.

They can blacklist, because they can effectively force users to not use anonymity.

I disagree, unless you are saying that that by controlling mining they can refuse to include anonymous transactions. My opinion is that is effectively a ban. I would likewise make the same comment about forcing people to give up passwords and such.

Those sorts of draconian measures may work, or they may not, but I see little point in discussing them with no real information, or lacking a complete analysis of the relevant scenarios. Again this comes down to "there might be a flaw" (The Ban Flaw).

Quote

I have stated that several times. I feel like you are arguing disingenuously. I refuted your point about them needing to do it before coins have already been mixed, because:

1. There are always new coins from mining.

I don't see the relevance of new coins. How does that work?

TheFascistMind

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 09:27:41 AM

Oh, so you responded with a whitepaper. Really? Where is it?

I said I was writing one. I didn't say I completed it yet or that I have any reason to need to release it now.

Hey it is fine with me if you all don't take BCX seriously.

Apparently there have not been many confirmed TW attacks, and I don't know if any actually killed a coin. Apparently BCX stopped the Auroracoin threat. It will be interesting to see how he backpedals on this current threat.

TheFascistMind

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 09:27:41 AM

I only deny that they can effectively blacklist within this system short of a ban.

They can blacklist, because they can effectively force users to not use anonymity. I have stated that several times. I feel like you are arguing disingenuously. I refuted your point about them needing to do it before coins have already been mixed, because:

1. There are always new coins from mining.

2. They could incentivize users to escape the blacklist gridlock for the mixed coins, if the user antes up their password. This can cascade into de-anonymization of others, etc...

TheFascistMind

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Other occasion that BCX offer to escrow a BTC bet:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/digitalcoin-dev-robbed-514689

Note BCX has stated he is not part of Operation Shitcoin Cleanout, but claims he did educate them on how to attack Scrypt coins (sounds like he is protecting his Litecoin investment?).

slapper

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1100

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 10:04:37 AM

I didn't recall his statement about Monero being his first coin, or perhaps subconsciously I didn't believe it, because I remember he mentioned Auroracoin to me at least twice, and I was surprised that he hadn't abandoned the idea from the first time that I told him my opinion that if you distribute it for free to n00bs, too many will be sellers driving the price down.

Thanks for clarifying that (and coming clean). Perhaps I should apologize about the "complicit" allusion, I may not have meant it that way.

Some of us never believed a word he promulgated trying to pump monero and still don't. You had to see him manipulating on Polonoiex real time (by verbiage and BTC) to see how bad things are.

The sad thing is, this was the best community effort on the most innovative new technology to come out in a very long time. It didn't need any of this manipulation and aggressive round the clock spamming/shilling. It would have overtaken Darkcoin by now on its own merit.

TheFascistMind

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Quote from: slapper on October 04, 2014, 09:59:06 AM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 08:31:36 AM

Quote from: smoothie on October 04, 2014, 08:25:50 AM

Quote from: slapper on October 03, 2014, 09:48:40 PM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 03, 2014, 09:13:14 PM

4. BCX killed Auroracoin (which btw rpietila invested in and asked my opinion about and I warned him it would be a pump and dump) and now he tells you what the vulnerabilities of XMR are, so these have to be taken as slightly more credible than if randomjoeblow said it.

So you were also complicit all along with the grand lie used to sucker in newbies for pumping XMR. Genuinely disappointed with the charades all around and you don't get a free pass either. Roll Eyes

Quote

MRO (Monero)
Okay, there was a reason why I wrote on alts. Cause I have just made my first altcoin investment ever! Monero has a trait which pretty much all other alts lack: slow and geometrically decreasing issuance. At present, only 5% of MRO is mined, and even after 4 years there will still be 20% left to be mined. There is no premine, and the community consists of several people Smiley Furthermore, it is at least currently a CPU coin, since the hashing algorithm is designed to make it difficult to implement for GPU let alone ASIC. These things make it "fair" so that there is no way to amass large stashes except by working for them in the competitive mining or buying in the open market.

tacotime, please rethink your strategy about developing for XMR. I hate to see someone of your stature in all this Sad

I was under the impression that rpietila only invested in XMR and BTC.

Can you link or post PMs that prove your claim?

smooth corrected me by quoting where rpietila posted that he had changed his mind and didn't invest in Auroracoin.

I was nearly certain he was going to invest and assumed his did. I was pretty strongly against investing in it.

smooth corrected you ? what/how could you presume it in the first place when in the rpietila altcoin observer thread, Risto had asserted that XMR was his first altcoin and you had been a very active participant in the thread as AnonyMint? Why the backtrack now taking smooth's question for a link as the final word?

Fuzzy math ..... Roll Eyes

I didn't recall his statement about Monero being his first coin, or perhaps subconsciously I didn't believe it, because I remember he mentioned Auroracoin to me at least twice, and I was surprised that he hadn't abandoned the idea from the first time that I told him my opinion that if you distribute it for free to n00bs, too many will be sellers driving the price down.

TheFascistMind

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

How BCX earned his stash:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6088400

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/my-god-ltc-is-getting-destroyed-564145

slapper

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1100

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 08:31:36 AM

Quote from: smoothie on October 04, 2014, 08:25:50 AM

Quote from: slapper on October 03, 2014, 09:48:40 PM

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 03, 2014, 09:13:14 PM

4. BCX killed Auroracoin (which btw rpietila invested in and asked my opinion about and I warned him it would be a pump and dump) and now he tells you what the vulnerabilities of XMR are, so these have to be taken as slightly more credible than if randomjoeblow said it.

So you were also complicit all along with the grand lie used to sucker in newbies for pumping XMR. Genuinely disappointed with the charades all around and you don't get a free pass either. Roll Eyes

Quote

MRO (Monero)
Okay, there was a reason why I wrote on alts. Cause I have just made my first altcoin investment ever! Monero has a trait which pretty much all other alts lack: slow and geometrically decreasing issuance. At present, only 5% of MRO is mined, and even after 4 years there will still be 20% left to be mined. There is no premine, and the community consists of several people Smiley Furthermore, it is at least currently a CPU coin, since the hashing algorithm is designed to make it difficult to implement for GPU let alone ASIC. These things make it "fair" so that there is no way to amass large stashes except by working for them in the competitive mining or buying in the open market.

tacotime, please rethink your strategy about developing for XMR. I hate to see someone of your stature in all this Sad

I was under the impression that rpietila only invested in XMR and BTC.

Can you link or post PMs that prove your claim?

smooth corrected me by quoting where rpietila posted that he had changed his mind and didn't invest in Auroracoin.

I was nearly certain he was going to invest and assumed his did. I was pretty strongly against investing in it.

smooth corrected you ? what/how could you presume it in the first place when in the rpietila altcoin observer thread, Risto had asserted that XMR was his first altcoin and you had been a very active participant in the thread as AnonyMint? Why the backtrack now taking smooth's question for a link as the final word?

Fuzzy math ..... Roll Eyes

TheFascistMind

newbie

Activity: 42

Merit: 0

Spoetnik

legendary

Activity: 1540

Merit: 1011

FUD Philanthropist™

Quote from: cornfeedhobo on October 04, 2014, 08:58:29 AM

Meanwhile, the exchanges are see large volumes at low prices.

If this isn't market manipulation, I don't know what is.

Look at BCX's post history https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/bitcoinexpress-29445

He has never pulled off a TW attack. He has only made claims about them, but admits he "never got to wear the badge" https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/delete-546338

Everything he has done has been FUD with no proof. Never has he demonstrated any coin killing capabilities.

Other notable failures:
Failed to attack namecoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/delete-43465
Failed to attack litecoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94912.0

Someone has even gone so far as to create a petition to have him arrested https://www.change.org/p/bitcoinexpress-have-him-arrested

your a noob and know shit all obviously because i seen him kill coins before..
it may have been some time since it happened but it did happen LOL

cornfeedhobo

newbie

Activity: 40

Merit: 0

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 09:07:04 AM

That post about the 51% attack is I think what happened after his TW attack had lowered the difficulty so much but had not yet reached the point where he could 51% attack?

You are mistaken. He didn't do anything with the hash rate. That was the person that forked it and then walked away with their hash power.

How can his TW "attack" lower difficulty when the hash power and difficulty were rising while he was "buliding up" his TW attack?

keep spinning circles. I can post as much as you. This is all fud and is easy to expose.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TheFascistMind on October 04, 2014, 09:04:38 AM

Quote

Each output is being mixed with an exponentially-declining share of an exponentially greater number outputs.

My bounty algorithm shows that old outputs will mix until they hit their trigger of maximum mixes then the sender is de-anonymized. Thus the exponentially growing supply of outputs is continually being pruned, either by a mitigation you will implement or by de-anonymization if you don't implement mitigation.

You snipped where I pointed out that this exponential spreading only occurs up to a limit that is close to the total supply of outputs. So there is no conflict here, at least not unless you are able to show a smaller cutoff based on saturation of untracability, which you haven't. So again, you are making this vague "there might be a flaw" claim.

Also, again, you haven't shown that active mitigation is even needed. (I'm not saying it isn't, just that you can't assume it.)

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 08:32:19 AM

Quote

If XMR had responded to BCX's points about the quick difficulty readjustment and 20% discard with a whitepaper about such issues and the Cryptonote solution, then I would be more impressed

We can't and won't respond with a whitepaper to every vague claim of "there might be a flaw" that is posted on bitcointalk whether that is from you or BCX or anyone else.

Thus that is a difference between XMR and my style. Different culture. I took BCX's points seriously and made some interesting discoveries from it.

Oh, so you responded with a whitepaper. Really? Where is it?

Quote from: smooth on October 04, 2014, 08:32:19 AM

And you continue to ignore my repeated point that if they control the mining, they can effectively ban.

I don't deny that authorities can ban (or launch nuclear wars), and maybe that ban will be effective and maybe not.

I only deny that they can effectively blacklist within this system short of a ban.

Topic: delete - page 41. (Read 165521 times)