Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 374. (Read 2032266 times)

that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

smooth, i didn't realize you were a Monero dev.

Ah. That makes a lot more sense.

I completely understand Gavin's tweet the other day about losing sleep.

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

This is already implemented in certain altcoins, for instance the CryptoNote family whereby Monero currently is the biggest (ignore Bytecoin, it had a 80% premine which actually is a danger to anonymity). I personally don't know the details of it, but this is what I could find:




source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35azxk/screw_the_hard_limit_lets_change_the_block_size/cr2phqd
note: Tacotime is one of the 7 core team members of Monero

What does that have to do with me?

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

Citation needed

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Cypherdoc expresses the security model (economic incentives to ensure miner honesty) nearly word-for-word out of the Bitcoin whitepaper, you accuse him of violating the (incorrectly) cite the whitepaper to say that he's wrong, I quote the section in question, and then you accuse me of being disingenuous?

Just keep on doing what you're doing - your own dishonesty is making my case better than anything I could say.

this is the public post where he announced the move form IBM to blockstream:

https://plus.google.com/103188246877163594460/posts/eEeJxNaajWg

Thanks for the correction!
And the last point answers something that was puzzling me.

A payment stream was also the way I had devised to handle real-time micropayments, so I guess that is obvious enough since now others have published the idea I had in private.

It is sort of like how we felt when we read Satoshi's whitepaper, "why didn't I think of that!". Adam Back's hashcash concept was already known. The Satoshi Proof-of-Work was a fairly obvious step, but yet no one saw it until he published.

When this hit me in the forehead, my reaction was "this is sort of obvious, it must have a flaw because surely someone else thought of this before". So I as I dug into potential pitfalls it became more clear to me why others may not have entertained this idea before. The key is that true decentralization arises from careful use of centralization and that is what I believe makes the concept non-obvious, even though once it is revealed it seems quite simple and obvious.

sorry I've 0 time to contribute to discussion to any degree of usefulness, just a minor nitpick Lightning Network isn't a Rusty Russel's creation,  Joseph Poon and Thaddeus Dryja are the main authors. That said Rusty provide a fantastic series of posts explaining the key concepts behind LN: http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=450.

One last thing Rusty was recently hired by blockstream.

So what do I get for revealing the details now (versus working in private to implement and earn money on an altcoin)?

I have solved the design problem. I now know the Holy Grail design we need for crypto-currency.

I will give you one hint. Adjustments to difficulty are no longer critical.

Edit: I will give you one more hint. Bitcoin's design conflated what is centralized with what can be decentralized, thus causing the entire design to have a centralized final destiny. The solution is to unconflate.

You've always been the disingenuous debater in every discussion I've ever had with you.

You know damn well that Satoshi's major invention was Proof-of-Work in Section 4 as solution to the Byzantine General's Problem of how to trust an outcome without trusting the participants.

The above Satoshi quote as an aside at the bottom of section 6 (not even the main point of section 6) is stating that the abnormal case of 50% attack where Proof-of-Work fails would disincentivized if the entities doing the attack also is vested in a lot of coins. But that doesn't even cover the case where the entities doing the attack don't have a lot of coins.

Sheesh you and your wise cracks. You know damn well I read the whitepaper.

I am the former AnonyMint.

I agree with Satoshi. Even though Bitcoin is destined by design to become the centralized bankster coin that they (the DEEP STATE or NSA) commissioned, it can for the time being be used anonymously if careful and it is the reserve currency of the altcoins and thus is building an altcoin ecosystem wherein the superior design can be realized.

Perhaps "Satoshi" outsmarted his handlers. That would be historically the wise way an engineer would fool those he works for (knowing that they would continue without him anyway).

What do you mean by the bolded part?

How do you know the owners of the former double-digit pools don't control several of the single digit percentage pools, i.e. a Sybil attack is present?

How do you know that the owners are not purposefully attempting to distribute their miners across several different pools (all under the same management), i.e. a Sybil attack is present?

The fact that there isn't a visible attack (Sybil attacks are often invisible) doesn't impart any information on whether Bitcoin pools are becoming owned by a few. You can attempt to make the argument (below) that control over the pools isn't a problem, but that is a sometimes orthogonal argument to whether Bitcoin pools are centralized.


ZERO barriers means a Sybil attack is plausible.

ZERO barriers often implies there is no way to defend market-share and profits. Thus it is a power vacuum to be exploited by those who don't want profits, but rather willing to lose money because they want control (and external profits from that control).


If the pools have 50% of the hashrate, then any flag from a minority is ignored. Do you mean make a political statement to the miners imploring them to stop using the offending pools?

So what if the pool owners distribute their miners across 100s of pools they own (which appears to me to be what they have done). You going to play political Whack-A-Mole? Sybil attacks are very difficult to deal with.



And more so implausible game of Whack-A-Mole when they aren't do any falsification, rather just refusing to include certain ("unapproved") transactions. As their hashrate approaches 100%, the have a Digital Kill Switch on humanity.

And what do you do when the government has dictated that only registered and licensed entities can be pools? Then the ZERO cost shifts to INFINITE cost for those who don't sell out to those in control of the power vacuum of the democracy-lie.


If they are wise they do the falsifications from 100s of smaller pools with a Sybil attack. This forces you to the bigger pools with reputations, then they can do it from the bigger pools too.

How can you win? If a pool establishes a good reputation and is not part of the cartel, they will use the same methods they used to capture monopolies else where such as murdering the owners if necessary or more simply just offering pools free-of-charge or even pay miners extra to mine at their pools driving the honest pools bankrupt.

Sorry you can not win.

Bitcoin is fatally flawed and will end up a centralized bankster coin. I warned that in 2013. See my linked essay above.