Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 370. (Read 2032266 times)

If you eventually succeed, then you don't care how many blocks you had to go, because all your blocks are then valid.

It is only the case where you fail then this becomes a cost, and this risk is easily calculable in advance. The risk is low to extremely low as you approach 50% from below.

Higher orphan rate favors the larger pools since they are going to be better connected and thus will mine the orphaned blocks less frequently. This is related to some of the points and math from the selfish mining paper.

Larger blocks = more centralization (whether it is covert or not is irrelevant). As I said, they can't get a solution without changing to my solution.

Perhaps some of you didn't see that I revealed my math on the solution to selfish mining in my refutation of gmaxell.


Shame on you for conflating individual degrees-of-freedom with groupwise molasses inertia.

There are much more enjoyable vocations I would rather be doing than this shit, like hanging out at the beach at my advanced age with a beautiful lady or raising a family (I am 50 but said I look 30s face and body despite the Multiple Sclerosis). Instead I slog away because I don't want to live in a totalitarian world with no options coming Orwellian global economics collapse starting in earnest 2017 or 18 (with initial effects in at least Europe starting October, 2015).

Laws are impotent (and nullified) if they are unenforceable. Example, an anti-jaywalking law for isolated rural dirt roads.

The Sybil attack vector is another facet of enforcement and control. The Sybil attack vector is also the historical modus operandi profile of the banksters because they love to have a paradigm where the masses believe the ideology ("one CPU, one vote", "decentralized mining") yet the truth is they insidiously and covertly control the strings behind the curtain.

The DEEP STATE doesn't want to double-spend nor destroy Bitcoin. That is myopic, childish thinking. They have $trillions already (admitted on national TV by for Head of D.o.D. Donald Rumsfeld on the eve of 9/11). What they want is control and to enforce the legal bullshit they enact with their control over government. They can use the Sybil attack to force you to submit your identification when you submit a transaction or to delay or blackout transactions from people who challenge their totalitarian grip on power over the NWO and the inevitable one-world reserve currency regime coming.

Bitcoin is part of the grand plan for Global Technocracy and total top-down digital control. And it is a marvelous success. You suckers are falling for it.


I do agree and believe this is the Trojan horse planted by the engineers who created Bitcoin knowing full well that the DEEP STATE would commission others to do it if not them, so they might as well enable the possibility for us to upend Bitcoin.

And damn, I am going to (attempt to) do just that! (especially if I can get some minimal financing to cover my meager expenses so i can work full-time on crypto)

Add: actually I don't want to upend Bitcoin. I just want to provide an alternative that has a compelling use case as well fixes the centralization hole in Bitcoin. I do think Bitcoin will spread out to the masses, regardless of anything I do. I am leveraging Bitcoin as a reserve currency for the altcoins and thus I don't need to disparage Bitcoin for that role. I am not unrealistically trying to stop the inevitable one-world reserve currency new order, rather I am trying to find a way to co-exist with it and maintain my personal liberty.

I love that the crypto anarchists are trying to build a closed system in which everything that is possible is legal.  But let us not forget the reality here.  Multiple successful large double spends will destroy the network so your double spend needs to not just pay for the block opportunity cost but also to pay for all your miners.  And you need to figure out how to cash out quickoy.  And how did you acquire those miners install and run them without anyone knowing who you are?  Because once you steal hundreds of millions and destroy the bitcoin network every other miner is going to collude with the chip fabs and the fbi to figure out who you are. 

Therefore we can conclude that the only entities who could do this would not be motivated by profit and not fear legal responses.  But much cheaper and easier for those entities to declare bitcoin illegal.

Repeating yourself redundantly doesn't make your illogic any less so.

I will simply quote myself again above since you clearly refuse to address what I wrote. Asserting that the onus is on me to prove that something that can't be detected is disingenuous. You are not arguing the point, rather just trying to cover your ears and say "nanana".

Can you not read? Try again to read above. I didn't fail to comprehend your point, I was disagreeing with it. Can you not comprehend the logical distinction between not comprehending and disagreeing? That is a category (a.k.a. taxonomy) logic error.

B-listers (or I suspect C-lister in this case) have such poor logic and rationality, it is almost pointless to try to argue with you, because you can't even recognize your illogic.


Precisely that is the fundamental tenet I am referring to upthread where I am thinking about the "one CPU, one vote" and the probabilistic math of Proof-of-Work, but I am arguing that it is not immune to centralization and thus it is an (intentional or not) ruse that is very ideologically compelling.


Subsequent (to yours quoted) posts by myself, inca, and smooth (at least and many others else where such as the Skycoin thread) had argued that the mutual profit motive is not sufficient.


That was the ideology but the reality is that it ain't so.


Cognitive bias.


How did that work out in the past with governments that get stronger and bigger and then always implode. As Warren Buffet says, "when the tide goes out, we know who wasn't wearing underwear".

How did that work out for the quants and the derivative bombs that finally exploded. Etc, etc.

I think you need to read some of Nicholas Taleb's books on Blackswans, Anti-fragility, etc..

Or simply the common due diligence statement, "past performance is no guarantee of future performance".


Indeed. Bitcoin is succeeding. And the DEEP STATE is I am sure quite thrilled.


That does not logically follow, when the bad guys are the government. They will regulate later. Regulation won't kill Bitcoin at that stage when it is already mature. It can enable the Digital Kill Switch where they can turn off your number if they don't like you (i.e. prevent political free speech, expropriate wealth via the ruse of unconstitutional directly apportioned taxation, etc).


I have already addressed this point.

OK, I see what I was missing: you don't need 6 blocks in a row, you just need to pull ahead at some point by chance and then you have the longest chain so you publish it. However, that's still a whole lot of wasted block rewards if you fail. It really does matter, as a practical concern, how many blocks you could expect to have go before pulling ahead. But if you have >50% then you will eventually win no matter what, as long as you hold out (unless someone comes in with more mining power midway through), so you don't really risk much (except your mining pool's reputation). Also, if some alert happened because your pool's mining power went offline, you'd have to hope your miners don't jump to another pool for a while just in case, and you lose all those nice rewards and rep.

--

As for the Sybil attack, it seems pretty outlandish to imagine all that conspiracy stuff going on just to mess with the network once, lose the opportunity to do so again probably forever, and not actually succeed in destroying Bitcoin anyway. Not to mention this would ideally (for the attacker) have to be actual hashing power in hand, not a pool.

And of course there's a nicely generalizable argument that even managing to destroy Bitcoin just allows any of the myriad other networks to adapt based on the attacker's strategy and come back meaner than Bitcoin ever was. It's not a viable strategy: a decentralized swarm can cycle the OODA loop far faster than any centralized entity.

actually, i submit the onus is upon you to prove that the Sybil attacks are occurring especially since we haven't seen any evidence to that fact.  w/o it you are just a troll and Bitcoin continues to gain more acceptance.

You have not refuted the economics and technical points that indicate that a Sybil attack vector exists with the pools.

You have chosen to remain a frog boiling in the pot, because the former double-digit pools have been dissolved into single-digit pools, but you can not prove that there are not multiple single-digit pools that are owned by the same entity.

You can choose to remain blissfully ignorant of the fact that a Sybil attack is possible (and likely because of the economics of pools which I had explained in the link I provided to you) and perhaps already occurring (in testing and lie-in-wait mode).

You are just being disingenuous now.

i thought you were all about logic.

all i hear is a bunch of FUD.

Apparently you don't understand well that a Sybil attack can be not detectable, especially when the power it wields is not yet being fully utilitized in every facet. If I were the DEEP STATE, I would continue to lay the ground work of growing Bitcoin adoption and not disturbing that, while testing and insuring the Sybil attack vector is going to work as planned once Bitcoin reaches the point where they want to turn on the Digital Kill Switch.


If you don't believe the Chinese leadership is in bed with the Rockefellers on the planned Global Technocracy, then I suggest you watch Aaron Russo's video explaining about what Nick Rockefeller told him and then do some googling about Nick Rockefeller and China.

But all of your post belies the main point, which is a Sybil attack hole exists. And we should close that hole.

The math says otherwise. The 51% chain doesn't need to do anything at all. The 49% chain just needs to get lucky to pull ahead briefly, and it eventually will, usually. That 2% lead isn't much. Occasionally the 51% chain will pull too far ahead and you will need to abandon your attack, that's what accounts for the 4% (or whatever number) chance of failure. But usually this doesn't happen.

If Satoshi's brief explanation or Peter R's use of the math isn't clear enough for you, there is more of a step-by-step explanation here, along with some pictures (Figure 3 in particular): https://bitcoil.co.il/Doublespend.pdf

so give me some evidence that the USG is performing a Sybil attack on all the pools.

also, explain to me how the USG controls Chinese mining pools in Mongolia.

Did you completely fail to read the post I made about pools being a Sybil attack vector?

You have no way of knowing if a Sybil attack in occurring now at the pools. You don't have to see an overt attack.

Did humanity see an attack on their government over the past 80+ years while the DEEP STATE has been festering?

If you were trying to grow Bitcoin into a global centralized ledger, would you reveal your hand too soon and cause the frogs to jump out of the pot? Of course not!

The totalitarianism comes all at once at the end game. You can remain blissfully ignoring that possibility if you want. Most humans cows do and so do frogs that boil in the pot. Bitcoin was design to suck you into complacency and disbelief in (cognitive dissonance groupthink slander of logical, rational) dissension.

I suggest you retract your pitiful attempts to slander whether I am logical. You won't likely win a logic debate against me. Smooth might, but you are not capable.

but for every "bit of luck" the 49% attacker gets (by that i'm assuming you mean a "spurt" of luck with several blocks in a row) the 51% honest chain has the same chances of that "bit of luck" of a block spurt.  not only does the 51% honest chain have the advantage of slowly pulling further ahead via percentages alone while the 49% attacker is withholding blocks, he has the advantage of the same block spurt of luck.  both of these factors as the 51% chain pulls further and further ahead will eventually force the 49% attacker to abandon his attack, start over, while suffering losses from the blocks he could have claimed by publishing them instead of holding them back.  in effect, you can neutralize the spurt of blocks from the analysis and just say that the 51% chain will always outrun the 49% chain on average.

There is. I was very skeptical and had basically given up on finding a solution. But it turns out that I was thinking about the problem the wrong way. Paradigm shift epiphanies are like this. And of course the blinded won't believe it until you spell it out for them.


Of course. But again I detect that you are likely playing politics and preparing to slander something again which is your past pattern of behavior.

That is an elegant way of arguing what is the more fundamental tenet or key aspect of Satoshi's contribution and invention, which was my point.

We also have to admit it was likely a ruse to suck us into wetting our ideological underwear and falling into the trap of a centralized public ledger Digital Kill Switch.

You don't need 6 in a row. Let's say you get 6 out of the next 7. You are in great shape here. Or consider that with 51% you are guaranteed to eventually succeed, but you still probably won't get 6 in a row. Peter R's calculation is I'm sure correct (knowing him), and was at least in the right ballpark. With 49% you will very likely succeed.