Topic: How Lauda censors. (Read 1304 times)

I want to discuss the fact that if one tries to discuss about asic boost, one gets censored, indicating that people saying that it is an exploit, have no rational arguments to back their claims up.  I don't want to discuss especially about you or your "reputation" (I couldn't care less), I want to talk about how my technical arguments about asic boost must destabilize people with your stance so much, that they have no other way of responding but to censor.

That is a statement, not about you personally, but about the validity of ASIC BOOST.  Namely that those that say that it is an exploit, have no arguments left and need to censor if they encounter my technical explanation of why it isn't.

In other words, your act of censoring is about equivalent to a post of your kind of "Your argument is so convincing that I have nothing else to say", which, in itself, is an important statement about ASIC boost.

In which case, that thread shouldn't be in the "reputation" section, because it has nothing to do with your reputation (nor mine), but about a technical argument over ASIC boost, that is now so strong, that no counter argument can visibly be thought of.

I can't move any threads, and neither do I have any "buddies" that can do this to your thread.

Not only is that not a fact, that is an outright deceiving statement. More down here:

This thread is about "Lauda censoring", which is why it got moved to this section. If you want it to be about ASICBOOST then you need to rewrite it all, or lock this and start a fresh one by following what I've suggested in my previous post. Discussing ASICBOOST in this thread is actually off-topic, as is.

I didn't move this thread to "reputation".  Most probably you or one of your buddies did so.
This thread was about the fact that ASIC boost is a normal improvement, like so many others, but that if this is mentioned, one cannot get a normal answer, and that very fact is an interesting given in itself, because it obviously points to a difficulty that those wanting to say that ASIC boost is an exploit, have in arguing, so they are only left with Soviet techniques.  THAT in itself, is a very interesting subject.

The only fact here is that ASICBOOST is an exploit. Case closed.

This thread doesn't make sense. You are trying to discuss several things at once, making it inappropriate for any section. If you were to follow the suggestion given by the automated PM, you should create an identical thread (title/content to be the same or similar optimally) without making it self-moderated. However, you already have a thread on ASICBOOST that nobody wants to respond to. The reputation section is not for discussing Bitcoin and especially not any "technicalities". Make up your mind.

I did not post in your topic any more.  I have been opening another topic, namely about the fact that certain technical arguments cannot be rebutted, and need the subject to be removed, censored etc....

BTW, this is not your thread, but as I told you, you are free to give your technical responses.

OP, you need to get back to primary school as you lack the basic reading comprehension.

You, franky1 nor any user part of the shill gang are welcome in my threads. In this case, I don't care about the content of your post. It is rather very pointless to even attempt to refute it. You can't be reasoned with as it doesn't align with the interests of those who sent you. Case closed.

Censors are individuals, the forum isn't responsible for them.

The concept of this part of the forum is that there are self-moderated posts which can be controlled by anyone so that people have control over their own threads within the forum instead of just moderators.

The forum also isn't responsible for you being a spammer and if you're a spammer, they don't even delete your posts, they just don't pay you for them.

you do know that lauda has no authority.
does not know c++
has not read all the documentation.. right.

he think that because he has a commit (added text to documentation(not code)) he now thinks and play the authority. and think people should bow down to him.

yet when rebutting his points with code and stats his only reply is "wrong because insult"

the best lesson and way to think is
"what if hearn made the same code decisions as blockstream" would you defend the code. or blockstream

it works pretty much every time to determine who cares and knows the code/feature, and who is just defending a particular dev

Thanks, but don't worry, I don't stress.  I was amazed at Lauda's reaction, and I found it an interesting twist.  He has the full right to censor me in his threads, but I have the full right to find that interesting as a way of acting, and I was just following the (automatic) advice given by the system:


I found the topic that Lauda needs to censor the rather rational things I was saying, interesting in itself.  If I make silly technical mistakes, the normal thing to do would be to point out those errors.  But I think, in all modesty, that I'm sufficiently well versed in cryptography and maths to understand the asic boost algorithm, the security level of PoW, and the other implications I wrote above.  That said, I'm essentially here to learn, and I'll provoque people until I can learn from them

BTW, I don't know who Lauda is, and I don't really care, but if he's a hot shot, then it is even more interesting that he needed to censor me, instead of telling me where my argument is wrong (which I obviously don't think it is, but everybody can make mistakes).

Don't stress it - Dino!

I like your posts.

There's a nice clarity of thought to them.. 

..

ps.. I think general stress-levels are pretty high at the moment, and Lauda gets the brunt of ill will, much of it simply for being in a position of 'Authority', which is like a red rag to a bull in BTC land.. lol. Lauda's usually a pretty rational level headed individual judging by his posts. (He's a HE right?)

I wasn't trying to be racist, if that's your point.  But most mining being in China, and Chinese authorities not always being an example of efficiency and transparency, I'm pretty sure that not all mining in China is with a clear electricity bill, that was my point.

I think the reason is obvious, no.  I was pointing out some technical arguments that don't go with the rethoric of asic boost is an attack, a scam, etc...  Technical arguments which I posted already in some different forms, and never got any reply. 

I want these technical arguments to be known and understood in the discussion, or to be countered, if I'm wrong, by logically argumented reasons, and not by Soviet techniques of censorship.

The points I'm making is about bitcoin, and apparently, it is so annoying to some here, that they think they have to resort to censoring techniques, that's my point.  

Visibly, there are arguments that cannot be heard about asic boost and proof of work.  If I'm wrong, it would be nice to tell me technically and logically where I'm wrong.

in my eye

bitcoin has a backdoor.
core want to use it for their "soft" half gestures thus bypass full network consensus

funny part is that by not closing the hole by doing a proper 1 merkle version with all the other community desires such as dynamics and low txsigops and other things. core shot themselves in the foot.

especially by throwing a tantrum last month that someone not core is using the backdoor for efficiency gain.

the funny part is.
if core use it. its a "protocol enhancement" if others use it its called an attack..

propaganda word twisting at its best

EG imagine if hearn invented segwit for banks to have features to pressure users into LN commercial hubs.. and done using the same soft approach
...suddenly the same code, same half gestures, same later voluntary features would be called a trojan horse attack..

and suddenly the propaganda flips the other way where it would be described as 6month old half baked software wants to kill off pool efficiency which will reduce needed difficulty rises for security

so whenever you see the blockstream tantrum event.. ask yourself.
"what if hearn made the same code decisions as blockstream" would you defend the code. or blockstream

I think this should be moved to Meta section. It has nothing to do with bitcoin

Censors never delete your posts if it's really good, there's always a reason for you to be excluded. I'm also a member that has been censored by him and put on the blacklist, which is really bad for me. However, instead of choosing to appeal, I would like to hear their opinions about me, and I start fixing, I'm doing that, and for a short time I can get out of their blacklist.

I stand corrected. But consider it's not just the Chinese that might be siphoning of electricity illegally to run a small scale mining operation. In the UK, cannabis farmers tend to siphon electricity directly off the national grid, bypassing domestic meters.

Unfounded ?
I was only thinking of this:

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/china-oil-bitcoin-mining-theft/

It is maybe interesting to outline again, as succinctly as possible, the different aspects of the PoW scheme of bitcoin.

The PoW scheme is used for 3 different things, and with ASICBOOST, 2 of them matter, and they are:

1) the competition to get block rewards
2) the cryptographic security of the block chain

(the third, deciding upon consensus, doesn't matter here)

These are two totally different aspects, which, unfortunately, have been mixed together in bitcoin (and many other crypto).

Now, what is PoW ?  It is essentially the *economic difficulty* to provide for the solution of a cryptographic puzzle, that is, to make a hash that has a given number of leading zeros.  Note that it is the *economic* difficulty that matters here, not "the number of calculations done".  The ratio between both comes from *technological and mathematical ingenuity*.

This economic difficulty makes that the competition to get block rewards goes mainly to those that have spend most in the technologically and mathematically most efficient way; and that the cryptographic security comes from the economic cost needed for an attacker to "overdo" the solved puzzles.

Of course, the higher the ratio of difficulty of puzzles solved over economic difficulty (given by the mathematical and technological ingenuity known and available to attackers), the lower the security of the PoW.  Each time an improvement is found, the PoW security is lowered (attackers can solve now, with the same economic cost, more difficult puzzles again) ; but also, each time an improvement is found, miners can apply it and up the difficulty of the puzzles that PROTECT the system.  So miners should always use the highest state-of-the-art technology and mathematics to secure the chain, or they will have higher economic costs than attackers.

==> for matters of security, there's no discussion, miners should use ASICBOOST, and all the best and most efficient technology and maths available to solve the most difficult puzzles.

However, one might think that concerning "winning the block rewards" there is an unfairness.  One should "do all the hashcash calculations without jumping any of them" or some other "fairness" concept.

Now, is the standard way of doing PoW in bitcoin adhering to that ?  The answer is no.

A full hashcash calculation consists of:

a) taking a block header of 80 bytes, and split it in a block of 64 bytes, and a remainder, that is padded in a prescribed way into  another block of 64 bytes.

b) apply a hash compression function to the first block with a standardized initial vector.

c) feed the output vector of that calculation in the hash compression function and apply it to the second block

d) take the output vector, pad it to 64 bytes, and apply once again the compression function to it.

Now, what does the STANDARD algorithm ?

it RE-USES step b) for many block headers where the first block is kept constant, and only applies steps c and d when the nonce changes, which happens to only influence the second block.

What does ASIC BOOST ?

it RE-USES part of step c), essentially the key schedule of the compression function, and re-uses also pre-calculated steps b).

So nor the standard algorithm, nor ASICBOOST do a full hash calculation of each newly tested block header.  It is just that re-using part of step c) is much smarter than only re-using step b), because in re-using step b) one cannot re-use a key schedule which is intensive.

Note that in the asicboost paper, what is normally known in block cyphers as the key schedule is called there "the expander", and what is usually known in block cyphers as the "data mixer" is called there the "compressor".

==> for matters of fairness, even the standard algorithm of bitcoin mining wasn't "doing all the hashes" already.  So being somewhat smarter and re-using somewhat more of the calculations (moreover, with a technique that is standard practice in symmetric cryptography, re-using the key schedule) is only that: being smarter in organizing one's calculations.

The first comment was an unfounded slur on the reputation of the Chinese. 

As for the others, there is a narrative to protect.