If possible, let's move this to another thread if someone still wants to continue.
Nah, you've said more than I ever could. Terviseks!
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 154. (Read 2032248 times)
Nah, you've said more than I ever could. Terviseks!
Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)[/b]
First, gravity confounding levitation schemes on youtube, now, Lamb of God fueled anti-semitism? You know... at a certain point, you start working as an advocate against the positions you take, and the opinions you espouse.
Funny how I never read that in the Bible. Maybe it is the the lost Hitler Bible meant to replace the King James version
John 8:44 (KJV):
"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Paraphrasing added "banksters", because it is logically not true that ALL jews are such hateful murderers and liars. I know jews who don't follow evil (and whites and blacks who do). Murderers was changed to liars, which was included because of context. The whole burst was because there are rules in banking, and old ladies put their money in expecting the rules to be followed.
I have been advised to delete the original post because "it does not reflect well on me". It is too late anyway, it is been discussed and quoted, and 8:44 did not reflect Jesus well either, up to the point that it is believed to be a Hitler addition!
John 8:45-47:
45 And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
46 Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.
And naturally it ended up with the jews trying to kill Jesus, just as they do these days to people who acknowledge them as who they are (again: only the bankster jews and goyim who lick their boots are targeted here, any of my jew-friends are not included, and I don't mean that jews are exempt of chastisement, I will tell to face if a jew I know is a hateful liar, and have told, as well as every man)
59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself - -
There is no known mechanism how being an experimental natural scientist in the field of gravity could make these words become untrue, perhaps the critic should examine if his logic has other voids as glaring as this...
If possible, let's move this to another thread if someone still wants to continue.
This doesn't sound good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/
The fork is now resolved. Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool. Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!
since BIP66 has been activated only after 95% of the last 2k blocks was v3 blocks, it means f2pool already has produced BIP66 blocks before the incident, in fact last time I checked f2pool had ~20% of the total hashing power.
so by definition f2pool was BIP66 compliant before the fork.
the problem is that a lot of miners are "SPV mining", among them: f2pool and antpool
Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!
Maybe it's a good time to start talking about enabling fraud proofs that would allow SPV clients to reject invalid blocks.This.
The problem is that miners, or at least a large part of them, SPV mining i.e. they mine on top of previous block without performing full validation on it.
In this case even if you were mining along with the lastest version of Bitcoin core you would have been vulnerable.
Sun Tzu 孫子兵法.
generalizethis et al, I submit to your criticism is valid on the asymmetry of my sharing (w.r.t. your area of specific concern, not my liberal sharing of my general economics insights).
Blasts from the past...
I'm not convinced it can work nor that it can't.
Thanks. That would be my same opinion about Monero. Fair.
It is not me. It is you all are that good but you don't know how to organize yourselves except to be corralled by the banksters (even you don't know it). The only way to accomplish that is get a lot of capital focused on solving these problems. Right now all your capital is going to the utility and hardware companies. It is not being focused where it can actually form an ecosystem. The Bitcoin ecosystem is dominated by bankster whoreshipping venture capital (and your individual capital gets siphoned off by PoW and the shitcoins).
This is the reason you would buy my coin, because there will be an ecosystem that as a geek you will be damn proud of. And it will be your ecosystem, not mine. I am just here as the seed (who needs to as quickly as possibly set things on an open-source auto-pilot and get out of the way), and will hopefully be rewarded for my efforts so I can retire comfortably.
Somebody has to be crazy enough to try. Then the others will follow once they see it working.
To demonstrate that I am trying to be objective and not biased against CN, note that afaik in public documents that neither CT nor CCT can do on chain (i.e. autonomous, end-to-end principle compliant) hiding of input address as CN does, thus at least w.r.t. on chain anonymity are not untraceable and thus don't guard against breakage of fungibility (i.e. they don't make it impossible to do blacklisting, whitelisting, Hearn's redlisting, etc). Both CT and CCT can apparently do off chain (non-autonomous, not end-to-end principle compliant, suffer from simultaneity requirement, can be DoS jammed[1] as I first pointed out in Gmaxwell's CoinJoin thread) address hiding such as CoinJoin:
Perhaps you've not caught on that this makes coinjoins and coinswaps tremendously more private and useful; since joining with anyone at any time improves your privacy, with no need to coordinate values.
You can think of it in these terms: CoinJoin and CoinSwap are efficient metadata privacy protection systems, but their effectiveness is undermined by the content not being private. CT is a content privacy system. The two compose very nicely. (And the RPCs in elements should be all setup to integrate with external coinjoin.).
[1] Unless you allow a trusted masternode such as in DRK's design, but this another form of threat to anonymity.
P.S. If you notice this thread getting shorter, it is because I am deleting some of my past posts which I feel were not important and/or referred too strongly to vaporware. I am cleaning house and am on page 10 of my post history, so hurry if you want to quote any older post that I might delete in the next minutes.
generalizethis et al, I submit to your criticism is valid on the asymmetry of my sharing (w.r.t. your area of specific concern, not my liberal sharing of my general economics insights).
Blasts from the past...
My goals are much wider in scope and I don't want to get bogged down in politics over which coin will win.
I am just stating that competition will bring out the best.
And I am saying that the anonymous coin and chain that has a wide distribution paradigm is not only more likely to win, but also more likely to be resilient (but I don't mean giving coins away that users dump for fiat).
I am just stating that competition will bring out the best.
And I am saying that the anonymous coin and chain that has a wide distribution paradigm is not only more likely to win, but also more likely to be resilient (but I don't mean giving coins away that users dump for fiat).
Smooth is apparently being facetious as he is not convinced my idea can work.
I'm not convinced it can work nor that it can't.
Thanks. That would be my same opinion about Monero. Fair.
...I believe the only way to build an innovative ecosystem for ALL OF US (remember I want to put anonymity and remove the master-servant model on the entire internet, not just cryptocoins) that won't just be subsumed into Bitcoin's venture capital model, is to get a jumpstart in ecosystem momentum. I don't believe that jumpstart can be accomplished by giving your ideas away for free such that either venture capitalists can fund an Inverse Commons of open source to have the ideas implemented in their Bitcoin ecosystem or the capital interested in your design gets squandered on copycoin pumps that waste the capital and don't build out a competitive, innovative ecosystem.
In other words, I think open source Inverse Commons works very well, but it also falls prey at the start to the chicken-or-egg dilemma when trying to compete with an ecosystem that has turned us geeks into dogs who chase our own tail (working for the enemy to enslave us).
...
Edit: give away half-baked designs, those which are incomplete in terms of what the market will buy, or those which require more resources than you can bear to bring to market. To give away the golden egg is to assert the golden goose is dead. I am not dead yet.
Edit#2: as in all things one must weigh the probabilities. Thus it is also possible someone like myself might sell such a design, choosing to take the least risky route to compensation. Taking into account the factors that I am 50 and sick with a severe progressive illness (Multiple Sclerosis), and have nearly no assets to retire on. And am entirely unwilling to return to any Western country to work.
Edit#3: implicit in what I wrote above is the assumption that some percent of us are not happy about the future of the internet, Bitcoin, and the world on its current trajectory. Some of us want a decentralized internet, and not one owned by a few large fascist corporations. Some of us don't believe that Bitcoin won't end up with the same fate that the internet has. In short, some percent of us do believe a slide into an NWO is underway and we need a different trajectory. Additionally some of us think a micropayments coin could accumulate network effects exponentially faster Bitcoin and afaik the Lightning Networks (LN) on Bitcoin proposal won't enable the same N^2 network effects because it is not a decentralized model.
In other words, I think open source Inverse Commons works very well, but it also falls prey at the start to the chicken-or-egg dilemma when trying to compete with an ecosystem that has turned us geeks into dogs who chase our own tail (working for the enemy to enslave us).
...
Edit: give away half-baked designs, those which are incomplete in terms of what the market will buy, or those which require more resources than you can bear to bring to market. To give away the golden egg is to assert the golden goose is dead. I am not dead yet.
Edit#2: as in all things one must weigh the probabilities. Thus it is also possible someone like myself might sell such a design, choosing to take the least risky route to compensation. Taking into account the factors that I am 50 and sick with a severe progressive illness (Multiple Sclerosis), and have nearly no assets to retire on. And am entirely unwilling to return to any Western country to work.
Edit#3: implicit in what I wrote above is the assumption that some percent of us are not happy about the future of the internet, Bitcoin, and the world on its current trajectory. Some of us want a decentralized internet, and not one owned by a few large fascist corporations. Some of us don't believe that Bitcoin won't end up with the same fate that the internet has. In short, some percent of us do believe a slide into an NWO is underway and we need a different trajectory. Additionally some of us think a micropayments coin could accumulate network effects exponentially faster Bitcoin and afaik the Lightning Networks (LN) on Bitcoin proposal won't enable the same N^2 network effects because it is not a decentralized model.
He's that good.
It is not me. It is you all are that good but you don't know how to organize yourselves except to be corralled by the banksters (even you don't know it). The only way to accomplish that is get a lot of capital focused on solving these problems. Right now all your capital is going to the utility and hardware companies. It is not being focused where it can actually form an ecosystem. The Bitcoin ecosystem is dominated by bankster whoreshipping venture capital (and your individual capital gets siphoned off by PoW and the shitcoins).
This is the reason you would buy my coin, because there will be an ecosystem that as a geek you will be damn proud of. And it will be your ecosystem, not mine. I am just here as the seed (who needs to as quickly as possibly set things on an open-source auto-pilot and get out of the way), and will hopefully be rewarded for my efforts so I can retire comfortably.
Somebody has to be crazy enough to try. Then the others will follow once they see it working.
Well then take solace in that I am working for you then because I (as AnonyMint) have been pushing for greater anonymity since 2013. And I am pushing for it not just in cryptocoins but also on the entire internet and my plans are much broader in scope than just cryptocoins.
To demonstrate that I am trying to be objective and not biased against CN, note that afaik in public documents that neither CT nor CCT can do on chain (i.e. autonomous, end-to-end principle compliant) hiding of input address as CN does, thus at least w.r.t. on chain anonymity are not untraceable and thus don't guard against breakage of fungibility (i.e. they don't make it impossible to do blacklisting, whitelisting, Hearn's redlisting, etc). Both CT and CCT can apparently do off chain (non-autonomous, not end-to-end principle compliant, suffer from simultaneity requirement, can be DoS jammed[1] as I first pointed out in Gmaxwell's CoinJoin thread) address hiding such as CoinJoin:
Most importantly, this scheme is compatible with pruning and does not make the verification state for Bitcoin grow forever. It is also compatible with CoinJoin and CoinSwap, allowing for transaction graph privacy as well while simultaneously fixing the most severe limitation of these approaches to privacy (that transaction amounts compromise their privacy).
Taint tracking is inherently against the fungibility property of money.
Aside, as TierNolan pointed out-- this composes perfectly with coinjoin and coinswap, and the interface is setup to facilitate coinjoin already; in coinjoin the participants need not learn each others values. And in the case of coinswaps the swap transactions can be made indistinguishable from ordinary payments to a single key due to the switch to schnorr signatures.
Perhaps you've not caught on that this makes coinjoins and coinswaps tremendously more private and useful; since joining with anyone at any time improves your privacy, with no need to coordinate values.
You can think of it in these terms: CoinJoin and CoinSwap are efficient metadata privacy protection systems, but their effectiveness is undermined by the content not being private. CT is a content privacy system. The two compose very nicely. (And the RPCs in elements should be all setup to integrate with external coinjoin.).
Aside, as TierNolan pointed out-- this composes perfectly with coinjoin and coinswap, and the interface is setup to facilitate coinjoin already; in coinjoin the participants need not learn each others values. And in the case of coinswaps the swap transactions can be made indistinguishable from ordinary payments to a single key due to the switch to schnorr signatures.
[1] Unless you allow a trusted masternode such as in DRK's design, but this another form of threat to anonymity.
P.S. If you notice this thread getting shorter, it is because I am deleting some of my past posts which I feel were not important and/or referred too strongly to vaporware. I am cleaning house and am on page 10 of my post history, so hurry if you want to quote any older post that I might delete in the next minutes.
Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!
Maybe it's a good time to start talking about enabling fraud proofs that would allow SPV clients to reject invalid blocks. 
This doesn't sound good: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cfd/psa_f2pool_is_mining_invalid_blocks/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c2cnj/f2pool_is_not_properly_validating_blocks_their/
The fork is now resolved. Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool. Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!
Well I can guarantee you that someone who has posted on this thread within the last two pages, is aware of the mathematical proof of such. It isn't rocket science, and I am sure you could think of it, if you contemplated for a while how you would do it.
Note, I will probably in the near future be deleting many of my posts such as this one which are just noise.
Note, I will probably in the near future be deleting many of my posts such as this one which are just noise.
Really? It's pretty obvious that you are fine with publicly scrutinizing other's ideas, but when it comes to your own work, feel that it is beneath him to deign to the criticisms of mere mortals. You're like a movie critic who fixes the flaws of others with his supreme powers of refinement, taste and technical prowess, but only lets his friends and family see select outtakes from his magnum opus.
No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual
)..
not this again...
The thing is he has some good ideas from time to time and I'm sure if he joined an good open source project he might actually be able to contribute something meaningful instead of all this innuendo.
No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual
)..
not this again...
Hopefully he's at least revealing these things to his psychiatrist.
No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual
)..
not this again...
No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual
)..
not this again...
insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins
There is a way to mathematically prove the controlling group can't have more than a % of the total coins even if they used this mechanism.
I doubt it. There can always be shill buyers.
Not unless you assume the controlling group can print money out-of-thin air after the size of the premine has been locked into stone.
If you are saying the controlling group can't have more than 100% of the premine, sure I agree, but don't consider that very interesting.
Quote
My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT.
You are still assuming that the failure is a cryptographic assumption and not an implementation flaw (cryptographic or otherwise). In the latter case the greater transparency of aggregate coin flows on the blockchain will prevent some failures from being undetectable.
How is greater aggregate value flow versus greater transactions flow going to impact that? Not likely.
Rather I will buy an argument that says Cryptonote implementations are more mature (and Monero apparently heavily refined with many eyeballs) than for example CT implementations which is only in alpha afaik. And the cryptographic code may be much less complex in CN than CT.
insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins
There is a way to mathematically prove the controlling group can't have more than a % of the total coins even if they used this mechanism.
I doubt it. There can always be shill buyers.
So does that mean you all won't disparage a coin launched with an ICO that also has perpetual debasement.
I have no issue with ICOs in theory. In practice I don't believe anonymous coin ICOs can ever be done in a manner that avoids the appearance of potential manipulation (insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins). In traditional finance, and possibly a tiny number of above-board coin ICOs, there is transparency as to the identity of the investors and disclosure of ownership on later rounds (of course there are exceptions and frauds), which prevents, or at least discourages, this type of self-dealing.
I'd rather see an actual premine at least honestly disclosed as such. I might not buy into such a coin, but I won't call it fraudulent at least, as I would and do various deceptive and/or fraudulent (or fraud-prone) schemes such as hidden premines and most or all altcoin ICOs in practice.
Quote
My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT.
You are still assuming that the failure is a cryptographic assumption and not an implementation flaw (cryptographic or otherwise). In the latter case the greater transparency of aggregate coin flows on the blockchain will prevent some failures from being undetectable.
You are assuming a cryptographic break, I'm not, which is why I mentioned the cryptographic issue with key images.
Yes but my point was and is to compare relative risk of such in CN and CCT.
There is also the case of an implementation flaw that would (or at least could) be more readily apparent in a system that maintains visibility on sum(in) <= sum(out).
My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT. There is no way to distinguish in CN if a ring has been double-spent until the same set of addresses in the ring have been spent as many times are in the ring ("saturated"), but before then the double-spend was done and not seen. Thus the clever attacker could use large rings and only double-spend that particular ring once. For as long as Monero doesn't implement my suggestion to force ring groups, then not only it is (unquantified level of, perhaps unlikely) vulnerable to combinatorial unmasking of anonymity, it is also more vulnerable to double-spending being undetected in the unlikely event of a cryptographic break.
In practice failures of mature cryptographic assumptions occur much less frequently implementation flaws. Bitcoin has had the latter (overflow bug) but not the former. Likewise Zerocash (if it existed) would have recently failed due to the latter (libsnark bug).
I am not arguing against that, just whether the underlying cryptographic assumptions that protect against double-spending are not different in CN vs. CCT for example.
Anyway, a few different approaches comparable to CT in effect and performance are being looked at for Monero. One I believe does not require any protocol changes.
I am aware of the proposed one that mixes all the transactions in the block. But afaics, that violates the end-to-end principle (autonomy) of one-time ring sigs.
Also, TPTB, I disagree with your assertion that some benefit was obtained from a "front loaded" curve in Monero. In practice what happened is that the difficulty simply skyrocketed as the coin became popular. There was still no real opportunity for developers or other early adopters to vacuum up cheap coins, after the first few weeks (or more like one week, during which it wasn't even clear there was going to be an organized and effective project) at least. If the rewards had been lower the difficulty would have just been lower too.
I am not arguing "a benefit per se" (people invest hopefully to benefit themselves), rather just comparing how it is not much different than an ICO (disparagingly referred to as a "premine"), except for the differences and ramifications thereof I enumerated.
Also, with the perpetual debasement it is debatable whether you can call the curve front-loaded, at least compared to say Bitcoin
So does that mean you all won't disparage a coin launched with an ICO that also has perpetual debasement.
My point is I'd prefer we stay focused on the features and development effort on a coin.
The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…
According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;
if a bank is in trouble,
- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders
Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!
Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)
First, gravity confounding levitation schemes on youtube, now, Lamb of God fueled anti-semitism? You know... at a certain point, you start working as an advocate against the positions you take, and the opinions you espouse.
A dash of poo always spoils a thoughtfully prepared meal.
Funny how I never read that in the Bible. Maybe it is the the lost Hitler Bible meant to replace the King James version after the Reich (successfully) goosestepped past the Volga-- But what book? The Gospel according to Himmler? The Gospel according to Goering? Maybe Eva Braun could play the part of Mary Magdalene and one of Goebel's experiments could have raised Lazarus from the dead. Because with National Socialism, we're all Jesus re-purposed as an Aryan descendant of the lost civilization of Atlantis and the line of David is replaced with Caesars and Pontiffs and Fuhers, Oh mY!
Risto, are you really citing a Jewish God/S.O.G./Prophet as the go-to critic of all things Hebrew, but failing to see most of the revisionism is Christians/TPTB/Romanized-slave-traditionalist trying to usurp (hardfork or c-section? Hmmmm) the Bible from its obvious pre-Nero birth--does every race need to have a persecution complex?
We can't become transhuman fast enough, because these old guard allegiances based on race make the best of us sound like a chimp in a tree throwing shit and trying to make us see the light of the you-wasp/me-wasp/we-good brand of primal politics.
I'm gonna go meditate and forget how memes (especially horrible ones) sometimes make us more than we make them. Or i could go grab the biggest stick i can find and add to the shit-tossing madness....
The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…
According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;
if a bank is in trouble,
- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders
Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!
Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)
the entirety of the 2008 bailout here in the US was to make sure bondholders got bailed out. in a system based off fractional reserve, that is how it has to be to continue the ponzi. that's how it's always been; savings and loan crisis, Mexico, subprime, even the Euro situation. if confidence in debt is ever shaken, the entire system blows up.
this is the basis of my thinking that during the next crisis here in the US, which may have already arrived btw, the USD takes a beating while they bid the prices of UST's back up. we'll see how it plays out.
Jump to: