Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 178. (Read 2032248 times)

To any mining pool operators out there reading,

next year July your mining pool income will be cut in half by the block halving.  you must supplement that income by onboarding as many tx paying fees into the main Bitcoin blockchain if you want to survive long term.  offboarding those tx paying fees into centralized services like Coinbase or Bitpay will not help you.  what this means is that you indirectly need to grow the userbase that generates these tx paying fees.

you have no choice but to increase block size limits, and soon, otherwise unconfirmed tx's and unaffordable tx fees will drive new and even existing users away and you will forever be dependent on a small community of geeks and developers for business profits.  not a sustainable situation.

yes, Monday is going to be ugly:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-28/ecb-says-greek-bank-holiday-now-necessary

go here, register, then read my Declaration and Responses if you want:  https://www.pacer.gov/

I do not know :-), but maybe in case that ECDSA is broken we can split transacion into 2 part.
 1. broadcast transaction without public key (I do not know how to prevent from spaming)
 2. and then confirm transaction by broadcasting public key few blocks later.

I suggest a slight variation that rather by making their blocks larger than the smaller full nodes can mine without delegating to a pool (which could then censor on KYC or whatever as need be[1]), larger nodes get more revenue per block thus they can drive difficulty so relatively high that smaller full nodes become a shrinking percent of the hashrate.

Remember with control of 51% of the hashrate, any block can be filtered out of the longest chain. I already obliterated rocks' illogic on his claim of the ability to prove such an attack is underway.

[1] I am aware of the newer pool protocols that allow miners to insert transactions (which not all pools support), but if oblivious shares (hard fork) was implemented then pools could ignore these since they miner could not send their winning block directly to the P2P network. One way to probably force the implementation of oblivious shares is with a significant hashrate to do the share withholding attack on pools that don't support it.

So why did he allegedly (court deposition I read, and he refused to provide a link to his rebuttal deposition) take 10% of every HashFast vaporware sold (whether he promoted that referral or not) and promote it here on the forum? How can that company be sure he is doing all the referrals if it was not obviously intended to be vaporware. Obviously they all knew what they were doing.

How could someone with good character swindle people?

He says he can't comment on the case, but he could I assume provided a link to his public deposition so we can hear his side of the case. I don't like people prying into my private life, which why I would not try to use my reputation to sell something (including an altcoin). I don't understand why a successful eye doctor would jeopardize his privacy.

He missed important technical and economic arguments, but that is okay because I doubt he would understand them any way.

Disgruntled Bitards-to-the-moon since we've obliterated their illogic in their own thread, lol.

One of the problems with making the amounts public in Cryptonote is that it makes transactions and wallets more complex (and consume more bandwidth) because mixing is done on equal denominations (of a power-of-10 in Monero case).

The value hiding protocols also require smallness and non-negativity proofs on the transaction outputs in order to restrain the printing of money out-of-thin-air, and these might have vulnerabilities in addition to the hardness of the discrete logarithm assumption of ECDSA. Today I introduced an idea for eliminating those extra assumptions at the cost of revealing the relative values but not the magnitudes.

That is fine for as long as you don't revert to conflating 'entity' with 'node' as you've attempted to with your past simpleton arguments.

Blockstream (i.e. the Core devs) are planning to unleash the freedom for anyone to innovate on BTC pegged value, which is precisely what you are clamoring for.

I don't. I have a strong desire to create technology that maintains free markets by eliminating power vacuums that suck society into dependence.

I presume you got where you are by depending on the debt bubble and the government student loans, etc.. In other words, you want to make sure the party keeps rolling for others as it did for you, so you will have enough customers willing to overpay for what a robot will be able to do for 1/1000 of the cost in another decade or so.


And with the dumb blunders you are pulling here, you could harm billions of people more than you helped (although I think/hope your efficacy will be highly squelched by those who are coding and not talking).

Many of us helped a lot of people.

I am not criticizing your humanitarianism nor the importance and appreciation of your vocation. Rather I am just saying that it has nothing to do with the harm you are potentially doing by slobbering all over a technology and economics that you don't understand as we software engineers do.


Then why would you get involved with the HashFast scam. Doesn't make sense that you would risk a stable professional practice.


We are coding. You can not stop the technological freight train coming.

If you were smart, you would have long ago started figuring out how you can board early.

I am apolitical, thus I believeknow what is shall be.

Power vacuums have been in control. This can only be changed with technological advancement. I'd rather let my code do the talking.

I picture you originally as lower-middle class half-Asian (or hispanic or are you native american?). I (European descent with just a tinge of native american) grew up so fucking poor that my sister and I were the only white kids in the all negro elementary school in Baton Rouge. The black kids had never touched fine hair, so my hair constantly greasy from hands coming from behind. In Middle school had to take 3 transfers on the public bus (not school bus) meaning I was standing out in the cold (in winter) and my pants only came down to above my ankles because we couldn't afford new ones. We lived in squalor. I ate peanut butter and crackers for meals sometimes (which is probably another reason I have Multiple Sclerosis now because peanuts are a toxin) and red beans with rice often (legumes even after soaking & cooking are a toxin).

Hitler grew up not wealthy too, justified his action with idealism about helping the world, and determined the best way to do that was winner-take-all, eliminating the inferior diversity. That is exactly your analogous attitude about Bitcoin. You'd centralize at any cost, just as Hilter did and it was his undoing as it will be yours.

Edit: the point is idealism and empathy says nothing about correct conceptualization. When these bleeding hearts go political, it is very often a sign of madness (or the Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds).

Time is tight and I prefer to spend it on the makers rather than the breakers. And I'll go with whatever blocksize maintains the value of my coins.

You must be meta-trolling to complain about trolling in a thread intended to troll goldbugs.   

Or, less exotically, you subscribe to the idea that anyone who disagrees with you (especially about the blocksize) is a troll.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:




True Bitcoiners understand this is a revolution, not a way to tip your barista for that mocha.

This.

bingo. I stopped watching this thread as closely because he engages the trolls. Makes the ignore button worthless =(

i thank you for this iCE.  deep down we are still brothers with a similar vision.  we just vehemently disagree who to follow to get there.

i still think i'm right.

I figured he may be vlad from the days of yore.  If that was before your time, the guy was a fairly big-time miner.  Also one of the first people to talk seriously about ASICs, but supposedly he gave up on the pursuit.  Possibly unfortunately.  In any event, he was a person of much better than average ability.

Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

It's perfectly possible to construct schemes for private values which are unconditionally sound; meaning that there is no cryptographic assumption behind their inflation resistance, and a cryptographic break would only result in a loss of privacy.  I had previously thought that it was necessarily the case that any such scheme would have to be less efficient; but I have since realized my original reasoning for that was incorrect; though I do not (yet) know of a way to construct an unconditionally sound scheme which is anywhere near as efficient as CT;  but finding one is on my TODO list (though it falls below other improvements for CT privacy and network security that I'm working on).