Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 187. (Read 2032248 times)
for those of you that actually understand this stuff, unlike TPTB, take a look at how some miner appears to be defending himself from a series of maxed out blocks with a 1 tx mined block:
hey look, engineer TPTB! all those pools are the same aggregate pool colluding and inserting spam into their own blocks!
Where is the correlated transaction fee data?
Orthogonally, where is the proof that 51% (weighted by hashrate) of pools are not controlled by the same monopoly?
hey, i'm just mocking your dumbass "orthogonal impossibilities". if you don't know where to get the data before making outrageous claims, why should i help you?
If you present incomplete data, then you are not making any valid claim.
Where am I supposed to find the proof that 51% of the pools (weighted by hashrate) are not secretly controlled by the same monopoly?
hey look, engineer TPTB! all those pools are the same aggregate pool colluding and inserting spam into their own blocks!
Where is the correlated transaction fee data?
Orthogonally, where is the proof that 51% (weighted by hashrate) of pools are not controlled by the same monopoly?
hey, i'm just mocking your dumbass "orthogonal impossibilities". if you don't know where to get the data before making outrageous claims, why should i help you?
hey look, engineer TPTB! all those pools are the same aggregate pool colluding and inserting spam into their own blocks!
Where is the correlated transaction fee data?
Orthogonally, where is the proof that 51% (weighted by hashrate) of pools are not controlled by the same monopoly?
The only thing of substance that you said there is
You refuse to acknowledge the Logic of Collective Action. Thus you refuse to acknowledge reality. How much more disingenuous can it be.
Quote
However, the nature of the attack that is most disconcerning is where the monopoly is censoring transactions. This will be impossible for any minority node to prove with evidence.
1) Censoring attacks do not work unless you have 100% of the miners. It only takes a single pool/miner not colluding the break the censor and include the transactions.
Holly sister of ignoramus, you don't understand how a 51% attack works. Please go back to Bitcoin 101 training wheels school.
2) Yes it is easy to verify and communicate censor attacks (if they even are pulled off) by an honest node. That node would have the valid transactions, with fees, that are never added to blocks. It doesn't take long to start to ask why there is a pool of transactions not confirming or are only in blocks that are being orphaned from the MC.
How do you prove they were sent to the network and not just some scammer trying to take over the network with false evidence? DUH. DUH. DUH! You are a fucking idiot. (you fail to appreciate that is why we needed PoW consensus in the first place)
And (orthogonally) if these are rare and only for targeting dissidents amongst the billions of KYC compliant masses?
And (orthogonally) if these transactions don't have KYC and the masses have agreed that KYC is good (as they have!).
Again, you simply do not understand anything about Bitcoin or the dynamics of how it works. These are 101 concepts you can't seem to grasp.
You are talking to the mirror dude. Cripes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.
hey look, engineer TPTB! all those pools are the same aggregate pool colluding and inserting spam into their own blocks!
This is why Bitcoin has already
You'd be wise to reread my quoted post. I inserted a very important edit (not the one shown above).
got it, it's this appeal to authority that made me more wise:
Go stick your broomstick up your ### again Smartypants. You seem to be quite proficient at ####### yourself.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unless you correlate it with transaction fees paid, that is meaningless data because we don't know how much is spam.
Also if the owner of the coinbase for the block is the one inserting the spam, then the data would be meaningless even with transaction fees correlated (because the spam could be paying itself).
Non-engineers pontificate.
engineers, pfft!
what kinda "engineer" would even pontificate that the miner is inserting spam into his own blocks when the blocks are coming from different pools and he can't possibly be producing so many consecutive blocks on his own?
dude, you're just a sham.
Did you not see the word "also". If even 1 of those could be a miner inserting spam into his own blocks, then my statement was not in error.
I presented multiple orthogonal statements. This seems to confuse your pea brain.
Also in the event the monopoly has GHash.io's 51% of the hashrate (probably greater than 51% by now, hidden behind Sybil attack pools), then yes indeed the monopoly could have consecutive blocks.
Go stick your broomstick up your ass again Smartypants. You seem to be quite proficient at fucking yourself.
no, dipshit.
for you, as a supposed engineer which i doubt, to even consider a possibility that is not possible shows that you aren't worth a damn in terms of Bitcoin technical understanding.
He really is a fool isn't he.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unbelievable! It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them.
We need 20MB++ blocks ASAP, because God forbid it costs more than a penny to use Bitcoin's seemingly magical, unprecedentedly powerful settlement system (which is based on the most secure and well distributed database in history).
Why should any of the exorbitant expense of running nodes and miners be passed on to consumers? After all, growth at all costs is more important than closing loops and weaning the network off block rewards.
Bitcoin is like a shark; it must keep moving or die. As with Uber, it must stay two steps ahead of the regulators.
Oh, wait: http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/17/uber-drivers-deemed-employees-by-california-labor-commission/
Nevermind: http://www.coindesk.com/ny-bitcoin-business-45-days-bitlicense/
Maybe because cypherdoc made a fortune as early adopter and now is trying to privatize bitcoin. He is one of them who can run 8 GB block-size node.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unless you correlate it with transaction fees paid, that is meaningless data because we don't know how much is spam.
Also if the owner of the coinbase for the block is the one inserting the spam, then the data would be meaningless even with transaction fees correlated (because the spam could be paying itself).
Non-engineers pontificate.
engineers, pfft!
what kinda "engineer" would even pontificate that the miner is inserting spam into his own blocks when the blocks are coming from different pools and he can't possibly be producing so many consecutive blocks on his own?
dude, you're just a sham.
Did you not see the word "also". If even 1 of those could be a miner inserting spam into his own blocks, then my statement was not in error.
I presented multiple orthogonal statements. This seems to confuse your pea brain.
Also in the event the monopoly has GHash.io's 51% of the hashrate (probably greater than 51% by now, hidden behind Sybil attack pools), then yes indeed the monopoly could have consecutive blocks.
Go stick your broomstick up your ass again Smartypants. You seem to be quite proficient at fucking yourself.
haha. digging yourself deeper and deeper with BS.
look at the chart i posted above; 6 out of 8 consecutive blocks is 75%. so acc to you, it's possible we have a pool collusion attack going on now involving 75% of miners with each block coming from a different pool's address? lol, you are a dumbass.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unless you correlate it with transaction fees paid, that is meaningless data because we don't know how much is spam.
Also if the owner of the coinbase for the block is the one inserting the spam, then the data would be meaningless even with transaction fees correlated (because the spam could be paying itself).
Non-engineers pontificate.
engineers, pfft!
what kinda "engineer" would even pontificate that the miner is inserting spam into his own blocks when the blocks are coming from different pools and he can't possibly be producing so many consecutive blocks on his own?
dude, you're just a sham.
Did you not see the word "also". If even 1 of those could be a miner inserting spam into his own blocks, then my statement was not in error.
I presented multiple orthogonal statements. This seems to confuse your pea brain.
Also in the event the monopoly has GHash.io's 51% of the hashrate (probably greater than 51% by now, hidden behind Sybil attack pools), then yes indeed the monopoly could have consecutive blocks.
Go stick your broomstick up your ass again Smartypants. You seem to be quite proficient at fucking yourself.
no, dipshit.
for you, as a supposed engineer which i doubt, to even consider a possibility that is not possible shows that you aren't worth a damn in terms of Bitcoin technical understanding.
Okay readers can surely see how dumb you are with that response.
Orthogonal is in the dictionary. Engineers naturally think in orthogonal vectors, because it is necessary for doing our job correctly. You go back to your profession with eyes, if you want to stop making a total fool of yourself here in our area of specialization.
However as long as there remains one honest full node (let's say an MIT independently funded node, or a libertarian party funded node), that single honest full node would be able to easily generate concrete evidence of the corrupt transactions and easily present that evidence to the world for everyone to verify for themselves. Since this honest node monitors the network in real time, it could easily flag corruption in real time.
The masses will ignore such evidence. They won't switch from their existing systems, e.g. Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, 21 Inc, etc..
How many times have I tried to explain the Logic of Collective Action upthread, but if you are determined to ignore reality, I can not force you to comprehend.
Politics is inherently centralizing. Duh! Look out the window and observe society now.
How smug are you now Smartypants.
So from your response it seems you acknowledge that yes my statement that it only takes a single honest full node to identify and communicate any corruption in the system to the world, is in fact correct and you were grossly incorrect.
So you then fall back and say "but no one will care and thus you're wrong". First that is a different argument, second that position itself is absurd for numerous and obvious reasons.
God you really are a fucking child aren't you. Back to ignore.
BTW in the example I laid out Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc are not full node operators but light client users, they will want to work with honest systems because their users will expect them to work with honest system.
Real engineers don't piecemeal analysis in order to delude themselves. Now you've just demonstrated for all astute readers that you are disingenuous (and have an agenda which defies the logic of decentralization).
If there is an incentive to collude, then those establishment vulture capital oligarchs (e.g. Peter Thiel, Larry Summers, etc) who've been funding Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc will be involved in the collusion with those permanently sited full nodes of the establishment that you proposed. This is the way the corruption of politics works. Duh.
The fact that 2/3 of the voters here are so easily deluded by your political obfuscation of the logic, shows that for sure the people can not react correctly to evidence. They can be fooled and moved on to Sybil attacked pools for example (how many times per day do you think people will play Whack-A-Mole before exhaustion sets in Smartypants).
This is why Bitcoin has already failed, because it has fallen to political control.
Edit: also you assume that the nature of an attack on the network would be "corrupt transactions" which are easy to prove. However, the nature of the attack that is most disconcerning is where the monopoly is censoring transactions. This will be impossible for any minority node to prove with evidence.
Go stick your broomstick up your ass again Smartypants. You seem to be quite proficient at fucking yourself.
The only thing of substance that you said there is
Quote
However, the nature of the attack that is most disconcerning is where the monopoly is censoring transactions. This will be impossible for any minority node to prove with evidence.
1) Censoring attacks do not work unless you have 100% of the miners. It only takes a single pool/miner not colluding the break the censor and include the transactions.
2) Yes it is easy to verify and communicate censor attacks (if they even are pulled off) by an honest node. That node would have the valid transactions, with fees, that are never added to blocks. It doesn't take long to start to ask why there is a pool of transactions not confirming or are only in blocks that are being orphaned from the MC.
Again, you simply do not understand anything about Bitcoin or the dynamics of how it works. These are 101 concepts you can't seem to grasp. Your only replies are attacks without saying anything of substance (and the little you do say is easy to show as wrong) or constant changes to your position on what matters.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unless you correlate it with transaction fees paid, that is meaningless data because we don't know how much is spam.
Also if the owner of the coinbase for the block is the one inserting the spam, then the data would be meaningless even with transaction fees correlated (because the spam could be paying itself).
Non-engineers pontificate.
engineers, pfft!
what kinda "engineer" would even pontificate that the miner is inserting spam into his own blocks when the blocks are coming from different pools and he can't possibly be producing so many consecutive blocks on his own?
dude, you're just a sham.
Did you not see the word "also". If even 1 of those could be a miner inserting spam into his own blocks, then my statement was not in error.
I presented multiple orthogonal statements. This seems to confuse your pea brain.
Also in the event the monopoly has GHash.io's 51% of the hashrate (probably greater than 51% by now, hidden behind Sybil attack pools), then yes indeed the monopoly could have consecutive blocks.
Go stick your broomstick up your ass again Smartypants. You seem to be quite proficient at fucking yourself.
no, dipshit.
for you, as a supposed engineer which i doubt, to even consider a possibility that is not possible shows that you aren't worth a damn in terms of Bitcoin technical understanding.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unless you correlate it with transaction fees paid, that is meaningless data because we don't know how much is spam.
Also if the owner of the coinbase for the block is the one inserting the spam, then the data would be meaningless even with transaction fees correlated (because the spam could be paying itself).
Non-engineers pontificate.
engineers, pfft!
what kinda "engineer" would even pontificate that the miner is inserting spam into his own blocks when the blocks are coming from different pools and he can't possibly be producing so many consecutive blocks on his own?
dude, you're just a sham.
Did you not see the word "also". If even 1 of those could be a miner inserting spam into his own blocks, then my statement was not in error.
I presented multiple orthogonal statements. This seems to confuse your pea brain.
Also in the event the monopoly has GHash.io's 51% of the hashrate (probably greater than 51% by now, hidden behind Sybil attack pools), then yes indeed the monopoly could have consecutive blocks.
This is why Bitcoin has already died, because it has fallen to political control.
it hasn't fallen, the BIP process of political control you support is actually in jeopardy and if / hopefully when it changes to a distributed consensus, Bitcoin will be more secure for it.
I'm not sure what TPTB need war actually means, I presumed it was a warning, but that was obviously my mistake, you seem to be promoting the idea as a positive outcome.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unbelievable! It's almost as if subsidizing spam/noise transactions creates more of them.
We need 20MB++ blocks ASAP, because God forbid it costs more than a penny to use Bitcoin's seemingly magical, unprecedentedly powerful settlement system (which is based on the most secure and well distributed database in history).
Why should any of the exorbitant expense of running nodes and miners be passed on to consumers? After all, growth at all costs is more important than closing loops and weaning the network off block rewards.
Bitcoin is like a shark; it must keep moving or die. As with Uber, it must stay two steps ahead of the regulators.
Oh, wait: http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/17/uber-drivers-deemed-employees-by-california-labor-commission/
Nevermind: http://www.coindesk.com/ny-bitcoin-business-45-days-bitlicense/
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unless you correlate it with transaction fees paid, that is meaningless data because we don't know how much is spam.
Also if the owner of the coinbase for the block is the one inserting the spam, then the data would be meaningless even with transaction fees correlated (because the spam could be paying itself).
Non-engineers pontificate.
engineers, pfft!
what kinda "engineer" would even pontificate that the miner is inserting spam into his own blocks when the blocks are coming from different pools and he can't possibly be producing so many consecutive blocks on his own?
dude, you're just a sham.
However as long as there remains one honest full node (let's say an MIT independently funded node, or a libertarian party funded node), that single honest full node would be able to easily generate concrete evidence of the corrupt transactions and easily present that evidence to the world for everyone to verify for themselves. Since this honest node monitors the network in real time, it could easily flag corruption in real time.
The masses will ignore such evidence. They won't switch from their existing systems, e.g. Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, 21 Inc, etc..
How many times have I tried to explain the Logic of Collective Action upthread, but if you are determined to ignore reality, I can not force you to comprehend.
Politics is inherently centralizing. Duh! Look out the window and observe society now.
How smug are you now Smartypants.
So from your response it seems you acknowledge that yes my statement that it only takes a single honest full node to identify and communicate any corruption in the system to the world, is in fact correct and you were grossly incorrect.
So you then fall back and say "but no one will care and thus you're wrong". First that is a different argument, second that position itself is absurd for numerous and obvious reasons.
God you really are a fucking child aren't you. Back to ignore.
BTW in the example I laid out Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc are not full node operators but light client users, they will want to work with honest systems because their users will expect them to work with honest system.
Real engineers don't piecemeal analysis in order to delude themselves. Now you've just demonstrated for all astute readers that you are disingenuous (and have an agenda which defies the logic of decentralization).
If there is an incentive to collude, then those establishment vulture capital oligarchs (e.g. Peter Thiel, Larry Summers, etc) who've been funding Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc will be involved in the collusion with those permanently sited full nodes of the establishment that you proposed. This is the way the corruption of politics works. Duh.
The fact that 2/3 of the voters here are so easily deluded by your political obfuscation of the logic, shows that for sure the people can not react correctly to evidence. They can be fooled and moved on to Sybil attacked pools for example (how many times per day do you think people will play Whack-A-Mole before exhaustion sets in Smartypants).
This is why Bitcoin has already failed, because it has fallen to political control.
Edit: also you assume that the nature of an attack on the network would be "corrupt transactions" which are easy to prove. However, the nature of the attack that is most disconcerning is where the monopoly is censoring transactions. This will be impossible for any minority node to prove with evidence.
However as long as there remains one honest full node (let's say an MIT independently funded node, or a libertarian party funded node), that single honest full node would be able to easily generate concrete evidence of the corrupt transactions and easily present that evidence to the world for everyone to verify for themselves. Since this honest node monitors the network in real time, it could easily flag corruption in real time.
The masses will ignore such evidence. They won't switch from their existing systems, e.g. Circle, Coinbase, Paypal, 21 Inc, etc..
How many times have I tried to explain the Logic of Collective Action upthread, but if you are determined to ignore reality, I can not force you to comprehend.
Politics is inherently centralizing. Duh! Look out the window and observe society now.
How smug are you now Smartypants.
So from your response it seems you acknowledge that yes my statement that it only takes a single honest full node to identify and communicate any corruption in the system to the world, is in fact correct and you were grossly incorrect in that long winded nonsense post of yours.
So you then fall back and say "but no one will care and thus you're wrong". First that is a different argument, second that position itself is absurd for numerous and obvious reasons.
God you really are a fucking child aren't you. Back to ignore.
BTW in the example I laid out Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, etc are not full node operators but light client users, they will want to work with honest systems because their users will expect them to work with honest system.
we're not even under attack yet blocks continue to fill up:
Unless you correlate it with transaction fees paid, that is meaningless data because we don't know how much is spam.
Also if the owner of the coinbase for the block is the one inserting the spam, then the data would be meaningless even with transaction fees correlated (because the spam could be paying itself).
Non-engineers pontificate.
Jump to: