Epitome of a blowhard.
The context.
Topic: Shelᖚy (TPTB_need_war) Psychoanalysis. Smartest Man in the Altcoin Discussions? (Read 8853 times)
October 24, 2017, 01:30:51 AM
June 27, 2016, 09:29:15 PM
your opinion if perfectly valid, the steem launch was a dud ... is that something smooth needs to take responsibility for?
yes absolutely cuz he called anyone who did something similar to be criminals, basically told them to gtfo
so he is absolutely guilty if he did the same. wouldnt be a very smooth attitude.
~CfA~
DASH had scam elements beyond the stealth mine, and that's what I've seen smooth attacking them for
Stop with the arbitrary ethics. No one can define scam unambiguously. This is not church. Are you a Libertarian who believes people can be responsible for their own decisions or do you advocate a NannyState here in altcoin land?
It will cut down on a lot of needless and useless verbal diarrhoea if we stick to discussions about technology, marketing, speculation and stop trying to win by attacking each other with mud slinging.
Everyone should be free to state their opinion, but incessantly battering our opinion on others is oppressive and leads to a lot of useless arguing.
Also when someone doesn't walk their own talk, they should probably not be surprised if they suffer a credibility crisis.
So I will try to STFU now and await smooth's response, if any.
...But there are some ideas in each development that are perhaps worthy. I have borrowed for example some concepts from Iota, even though I have explained that (afaics) the DAG can't be a decentralized consensus algorithm. So you can't say that it has all been worthless, neither from a marketing development nor technological concepts development perspective.
Nature meanders on the path of annealing optimum fittness. The noise is necessary in order to not get stuck in a local minima. Study simulated annealing algorithms over N dimensional spaces.
I am not going to criticize the projects of others. I think the speculators have to wise up or lose their lunch money. That is life. After all, even you are playing the speculation musical chairs game. The market is what it is. If I deny reality, I am diminishing my opportunities to succeed...
Nature meanders on the path of annealing optimum fittness. The noise is necessary in order to not get stuck in a local minima. Study simulated annealing algorithms over N dimensional spaces.
I am not going to criticize the projects of others. I think the speculators have to wise up or lose their lunch money. That is life. After all, even you are playing the speculation musical chairs game. The market is what it is. If I deny reality, I am diminishing my opportunities to succeed...
sometime after they can no longer ransom off small amounts of their personal stack for 20-50x what they sold it to themselves for
What underwriting for an IPO of a public stock is ever any different than that.
I understand your complaint is you want ICOs to be very visible and open to everyone on a equal availability basis. I think that makes the most sense as well, because you raise the most money for the developers. But I guess they have a different strategy.
Why be so jealous? You missed one. Move on. There will be many others. You win some, you lose some. Anal retention isn't healthy (and I say that sincerely, not being against you).
Sounds just like gambling to me. Whether people have a better chance to make money in this game or the lottery is unclear.
Why did nature make the thrill of crush, so that we cheat on our wives. Yet then your new crush demands you call her 5X per day and make babies. Was it any better than where you started?
The introduction of chance is absolutely essential to existence of possibilities.
It isn't our decision to make whether or not gamblers would be better off in some other way. There is nothing that top-down control can't destroy.
...that's going to allow Anonymint to sit around in his underwear and buy everything at carpet bagger prices because he held cash...
While r0ach has been locked and loaded in his basement with his stash of BTC gaining 2 - 3X fiat value, while others have pocketed 10 and 100 fiat baggers outside on altcoins. Poor r0ach getting relatively poorer daily and making himself feel better by writing about how all those scams are too profitable and how jealous he is.
The tinfoil hats have been saying the sky would fall down since at least 2007. So much profit outside, while they've been locked and loaded in their basements.
I suspect AnonyMint would prefer the latter.
And when the sky does fall, there is no guarantee that Bitcoin will be any more reliable than an altcoin. Bitcoin might be more controllable with capital controls due to the centralized control of mining in China, and TrojanHorsecoin is surely more traceable.
These CCs are not heirlooms. They are not get-out-crisis-free cards. They are speculative gambles. There is not a certain asset to get you through the coming crisis. The strongest asset is probably one's health and mental acuity. All the "holier than thou" crap is butthurt ointment.
Yes the altcoin arena is loaded with delusional designs that won't end up being adopted for anything. But that is irrelevant. People are here to speculate, gamble, and potentially turn a small amount of lunch money into a fortune.
Now imagine what happens when AnonyMint releases a coin that is actually widely adopted. Fortunes will be made. And r0ach will miss the entire opportunity in his basement locked and loaded sweating in camouflage underpants and an aluminium foil helmet.
Do they really need a reason? ICOs are hot now. Investors want to buy, so people will come up with something to sell.
Or just move on to something else. There is no shortage of alternatives.
Imo, NXT needs to be relaunched back from the original genesis block and start fresh.
Or just move on to something else. There is no shortage of alternatives.
Jealous adult men creating strawman squabbles over who can create a better gambling product for the market that wants to gamble.
Buy low, sell high, and ignore the "holier than thou" pathetic, useless whining. Legality is the problem of the issuers and possibly the promoters, not of the speculators.
Compete or lose. Ask the Oklahoma Thunder how that works. I like to see any of these whiners in this thread whining on a basketball court about playing fair while getting repeatedly dunked on and ignored by the opposing team that is fast breaking obliterating them while the losers stand still pleading their futile case.
I bet these whiners resemble this 30-something guy who can't even jumper higher than a shorter, chronically ill, muscle atrophied, 51 year old guy who hadn't been able to train his autoimmunity weakened legs.
All of us know that none of these altcoins have any relevance outside this tiny gambling ecosystem. We'll also know it if ever there exists something of greater relevance, because its million users adoption will exist not as a promise, hope, nor vaporware.
We don't engage with scammers in any form of businesses, not even in betting. We ridicule the scammers, call them piece of shit scammers
What about the alleged Bitcoin scam of mining costs charged to the Chinese people and profits kept for the politically well connected? Do you ridicule it?
And who determines which is a scam and which is not? You?
I agree you have your free will to do what ever you want. And I have the free will to think you are obnoxious. You seem to be under the delusion that you have any relevance in this sphere.
You are as relevant as the ant who just scurried onto my desk and got squashed by my thumb.
Tell him your asshole is not tight enough for the horny prison population.
Hey Mr. Irrelevant Self-Appointed Altcoin Police Enforcer, you never answered me:
by now he is a law enforcement material
What enforcement
Copious tough talking diarrhoea flowing out one end but zero action forthcoming.Indiegogo doesn't even enforce their own policy against selling prohibited perks that are negotiable instruments.
AnonyMint documented the reasons ICOs can be considered harmful, but it is irrelevant.
Decentralized, open sourced tokens are probably not investment securities regardless of how they were issued, but many of these recent schemes such as the DAO appear to not be actually sufficiently decentralized to avoid being classified as investment securities. But that is the potential legal problem for the issuers and perhaps promoters, but not for the readers here who are just the speculators.
There are too many self-important do-nothing talking heads on this forum. At least the scammers are risking their own future legal problems to provide the market here a semblance of what it craves.
So keep on babbling talking heads. That is a symptom of the disease of the incapable.
So if you really think your goal is to invest to better the true adoption and goals of a decentralized economy, then stop whining and go make it a reality. Stop blaming the scammers for your own inability to invest in and/or launch something that really addresses that goal.
Being less worse, doesn't make it an accomplishment. Two wrongs don't make it right.
Too much useless verbal diarrhoea on BCT.
And then he claims to know what is expert coding
Ah pardon me, but being an active coder yourself would allow you to be a peer. Otherwise you are just a rocking chair, finger up his anal-yst. Yeah I know you scored 16 touchdowns in 1932 for the Brooklyn Browns with half your ear torn off. How many times have you repeated that story? Btw, we wear helmets now and take steriods. And ES6 with modules on Node.js isn't your grandmother's Java threads.I have no doubt they will deliver 20-50x ROI for the greedy shills who promote their scam so hard, but how can be a success to create many bagholders and losers? All P&D coins - like IOTA will be - inevitably results in an army of bagholders who lose money. That is not a success, even if the creators of the scam and their shills make money.
Boohoo. Isn't that just like life and nature. The lion has to kill in order to eat. Lunch money investors want to take risks and try to become millionaires. Who appointed you as top dick sergeant?
You are welcome to criticize their plans, but your "holier than thou" façade is typically a covering for skeletons in your own closet. I been around long enough in this world to know those who protest the most, have the worst guilt. Applying this psychological tool, DecentralizedEconomics likely has some serious skeletons in his closet revolving about sexual perversion.
I stand by my statement: IOTA will be never used by any TOP100 bluechip IoT business for IoT micropayments, which is the primary use case of IOTA.
This statement is not so hypocritically righteous. You are expressing your foresight. I have my own doubts about the viability of most of the altcoins.
Bitcoin seems entirely viable as the TrojanHorse that enslaves us in a digital loss of privacy and easily executed capital controls with the control over the mining by the oligarchs.
It is one big fucking mess. So please stop the pretension.
You are buthurt and talking nonsense.
Do you disagree that the great idea of Satoshi, the socially important concept of decentralized cryptocurrency that could be a tool to liberate a generation from the crocks of Wall Street slowly but surely is becoming a gambling swamp of wannabe rich, greedy schmucks? What can be good in such ICO/IPO originated speculation that inevitably creates bagholders and financial losses for many?
Do you disagree that the great idea of Satoshi, the socially important concept of decentralized cryptocurrency that could be a tool to liberate a generation from the crocks of Wall Street slowly but surely is becoming a gambling swamp of wannabe rich, greedy schmucks? What can be good in such ICO/IPO originated speculation that inevitably creates bagholders and financial losses for many?
You do not seem to understand that if Satoshi's idealism was decentralization, then you don't want decentralization. And you don't accept the necessarily decentralized (partial orders, no total orders) physics of the universe you exist in.
Learn:
Normally, I'm morally opposed to "gambling"...
Feel free to deflect your embarrassment with something about ... your other hypocrite moralizing bullshit.
Please enlighten us why "free will" is immoral (i.e. the free will to choose to participate in a randomized redistribution of bets).
Seems immoral to want top-down control to remove "free will", for it is the antithesis of the physics of existence:
Max Keiser wander in and pump Factcom to the moon as just a long shot gamble even though he has no idea if it's a viable system or not, which then attracts random noobs into thinking it might have value.
AnonyMint critiqued the ludicrous tech of Factom.
But that is irrelevant. Max brings awareness to crypto, brings more lunch money to the table.
From this cesspool can rise a
It isn't usually possible to throw the bath water out independently of the baby when the baby is a decentralized market. You say you want decentralized markets, yet you are unwilling to accept their imperfection. Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control, which is the antithesis of existence, because the speed-of-light is necessarily finite (otherwise past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal nothingness) and thus a top-down observer can't anneal distributed processes in real-time.
Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.
Yeah HODL some Bitcoin. It is the most stable CC so far. HODL your nose and realize the altcoin cesspool is necessary.
Now readers will understand why I referred you to your own request to look up the definition of 'idiot'. You aren't one of sharpest Qtips in the medicinal cabinet.
created nothing except bagholders
My research is not a bagholding. I am the only person on earth to have truly solved how to make an ASIC resistant proof-of-work algorithm.
That $5 million was well wasted. $trillions in future value created from a measly $5 million (of which only a small smidgen needed to reach me to create the serendipity of nature's resilience). And you haven't seen even the tip of the iceberg yet.
STFU. You are a depressing, curmudgeon.
Go on with your babbling incomprehension of how nature and the earth functions. And you try to make me responsible for jl777. Who the fuck ever proved that I have anything to do with anything jl777 did? Because I didn't! I wasn't involved in any thing of Nxt.
Go accomplish something and stop whining. If you can't compete, that is your problem. Produce something better for the speculators. Stop your annoying whining.
The joke is on you not understanding that Armstrong is writing about the medium-term when he is bullish, and in the shorter-term his reversals are guiding us through bounces and dips until we get the V crash slingshot that sets up the medium-term blast off.
Your lack of reading comprehension is the joke. AltcoinUK enjoins you in that handicap.
Your lack of reading comprehension is the joke. AltcoinUK enjoins you in that handicap.
slingshot that feeable puppet mind of yours.... guiding useless scenario after the fact.
As MA has explained, there will always be dumb people to be the bagholders in the market. There is nothing anyone could do to change that.
No, because I do not believe his unprofitable PoW solution is viable.
The doubt was removed. Perfect decentralization is possible. The key discovery was how to make validation go to ~0 cost, which causes a homoeostasis (Nash equilibrium) to form on the game theory of centralization.
And the other discovery was how to remove computation from proof-of-work. Both are recent discoveries.
Max Keiser wander in and pump Factcom to the moon as just a long shot gamble even though he has no idea if it's a viable system or not, which then attracts random noobs into thinking it might have value.
AnonyMint critiqued the ludicrous tech of Factom.
But that is irrelevant. Max brings awareness to crypto, brings more lunch money to the table.
From this cesspool can rise a
It isn't usually possible to throw the bath water out independently of the baby when the baby is a decentralized market. You say you want decentralized markets, yet you are unwilling to accept their imperfection. Imperfection is required to have any dynamic system. Otherwise you have top-down control, which is the antithesis of existence, because the speed-of-light is necessarily finite (otherwise past and future would collapse into an infinitesimal nothingness) and thus a top-down observer can't anneal distributed processes in real-time.
Nature is simultaneously ugly and fabulously diverse and interesting. I wouldn't prefer the disinfected nirvana of absolutely no possibilities.
Yeah HODL some Bitcoin. It is the most stable CC so far. HODL your nose and realize the altcoin cesspool is necessary.
June 27, 2016, 08:57:48 PM
Is this guy still banned?
Apparently yes, but his "reformed" xerox copy appeared:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ideal-no-icos-no-proof-of-work-no-proof-of-stake-no-governance-and-no-forks-1526067
So, are you admitting ban evasion?
Who is banned? Where is your proof of such a ban.
June 27, 2016, 07:43:43 PM
Is this guy still banned?
Apparently yes, but his "reformed" xerox copy appeared:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ideal-no-icos-no-proof-of-work-no-proof-of-stake-no-governance-and-no-forks-1526067
June 26, 2016, 10:00:46 PM
Is this guy still banned?
Apparently yes, but his "reformed" xerox copy appeared:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ideal-no-icos-no-proof-of-work-no-proof-of-stake-no-governance-and-no-forks-1526067
June 20, 2016, 04:32:14 PM
Is this guy still banned? I guess that it's for his own good. His last post was just a day after I triggered him enough to make him go on a 5 consecutive reply rant in this very thread, part of this must have been against me. I don't know as I have him ignored. He was displaying clear symptoms of hypomania prior to being banned, if he's as smart as peple here say he'd better find a way to express his thoughts without getting triggered so much.
June 20, 2016, 02:10:26 PM
He is smart and dedicated to his cause.Now if only he will tell us more about his current project so we can discuss that instead of him.
May 14, 2016, 08:25:47 AM
He is too smart for his own good.
Smart folks can be their own worse enemies.
That said, TPTB has earned the respect of his peers whether they will admit it or not.
Smart folks can be their own worse enemies.
That said, TPTB has earned the respect of his peers whether they will admit it or not.
May 11, 2016, 11:50:44 AM
He's outstandingly smart but not necessarily always smart enough to recognize assumptions. The mind is a very dangerous thing.
May 11, 2016, 07:02:10 AM
the putrified nature of any forum, comes from abusive, divisive, and threatening individuals like you.
Quoting that because I don't want it to be lost in the future when historians and the press are documenting the man who built an altcoin that displaced Bitcoin.
May 11, 2016, 06:36:16 AM
But fine, go ahead and give credence to Chicken Little. It's not the first time he's gone off on some half baked rant about how we're all doomed and it certainly won't be the last time that he's been completely wrong about it. Credibility. Equals. Zero.
The paid propagandists such as DooMAD will come here...
We are always being turned against each other and take our eyes off the true source of the our problems.
DooMAD I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror.
We are always being turned against each other and take our eyes off the true source of the our problems.
DooMAD I don't know how you can look at yourself in the mirror.
...One for each personality disorder you suffer from?) likely to contain unrealistic and purely hypothetical scenarios that may be closer to fiction than any semblance of reality, along with false logic and copious amounts of clutching at straws.
Please do continue to destroy yourselves with your socialist delusions, while the Minsky Moment of global collapse approaches:
2018 Kaboom!
https://www.docdroid.net/file/download/i3f8uVF/stanley-druckenmiller-the-end-game.pdf (<-- see page 7)
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21698240-it-question-when-not-if-real-trouble-will-hit-china-coming-debt-bust
Butt is a bit sore, but it is from sitting in the programming chair 18 hours a day.
https://www.docdroid.net/file/download/i3f8uVF/stanley-druckenmiller-the-end-game.pdf (<-- see page 7)
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21698240-it-question-when-not-if-real-trouble-will-hit-china-coming-debt-bust
With fondest memories of your banned spiritual leader who I hope was hit by door on his way out.
of your banned spiritual leader who I hope was hit by door on his way out.Butt is a bit sore, but it is from sitting in the programming chair 18 hours a day.
Oh and remember during 2013 to 2015, I was sharing the predictions of Martin Armstrong which called for a massive lurch towards global clusterfuck on 2015.75 (Sept 30/Oct 1 2015), we'll the prediction was entirely correct (click the following Quote to read more):
[...]
Something important does always happen on the ECM turn dates. For example:
1. On March 13/14 2016, the deadcat bounce of Baltic Sea index (measure of the world's trade activity) rolled over and started to decline again.
2. On 2015.75, was precisely the event that began WW3 and the stage of the conflict that sent the migrants invading Europe:
3. From my March, 2009 essay:
Something important does always happen on the ECM turn dates. For example:
1. On March 13/14 2016, the deadcat bounce of Baltic Sea index (measure of the world's trade activity) rolled over and started to decline again.
2. On 2015.75, was precisely the event that began WW3 and the stage of the conflict that sent the migrants invading Europe:
Quote from: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/are-terrorist-attacks-following-the-8-6-year-frequency/
Putin invaded Syria precisely on September 30, 2015, which was to the day of 2015.75. That warned that whatever takes place right on the day becomes the main focus. Putin then withdrew precisely on pi day. So what is taking place from the Middle East will break the back of Europe economically as governments seek to raise taxes to pay for the pretend “refugees” as well as extremists who have infiltrated Europe and destabilized its borders and security. This is unwinding the entire freedom of movement within Europe which was the cornerstone of the EU concept. With borders resurfacing, Brussels begins its decline.
Even 9/11 took place right on our pi target from the peak in the ECM. This is starting to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a cycle to this type of activity that is following the 8.6 frequency. The Madrid attack on the train was March 11, 2004, or 2004.19. If we project target dates from the USA 9/11 incident, we arrive at 2004.16, which was March 1 or 10 days earlier before the attack. We have been running various terrorist attacks through our models. The list is indeed long (see Wikipedia). Nonetheless, it appears that certain groups do fall into unique cycle frequencies. This appears to enable one to determine which group was behind what.
2002.780 Indonesia Bali Oct 12, 2002
2002.810 Moscow October 23, 2002
2003.372 Morocco, Casablanca May 16, 2003
2003.361 Riyadh Saudi Arabia May 12, 2003
2003.887 Turkey, Istanbul November 20, 2003
2004.191 Madrid March 11, 2004
2004.668 Beslan, Russia September 1 – 3, 2004
Let’s face the facts. The Economic Confidence Model works with such precision it is often mind-numbing. This is monitoring human activity as a coherent, collective economic entity of “civilization” that materializes by people coming together. I suppose it makes sense that we are influenced collectively to respond with a cyclical rhythm. It appears the same is reflected in terrorist activity.
Even 9/11 took place right on our pi target from the peak in the ECM. This is starting to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a cycle to this type of activity that is following the 8.6 frequency. The Madrid attack on the train was March 11, 2004, or 2004.19. If we project target dates from the USA 9/11 incident, we arrive at 2004.16, which was March 1 or 10 days earlier before the attack. We have been running various terrorist attacks through our models. The list is indeed long (see Wikipedia). Nonetheless, it appears that certain groups do fall into unique cycle frequencies. This appears to enable one to determine which group was behind what.
2002.780 Indonesia Bali Oct 12, 2002
2002.810 Moscow October 23, 2002
2003.372 Morocco, Casablanca May 16, 2003
2003.361 Riyadh Saudi Arabia May 12, 2003
2003.887 Turkey, Istanbul November 20, 2003
2004.191 Madrid March 11, 2004
2004.668 Beslan, Russia September 1 – 3, 2004
Let’s face the facts. The Economic Confidence Model works with such precision it is often mind-numbing. This is monitoring human activity as a coherent, collective economic entity of “civilization” that materializes by people coming together. I suppose it makes sense that we are influenced collectively to respond with a cyclical rhythm. It appears the same is reflected in terrorist activity.
3. From my March, 2009 essay:
I don't know if anyone else has commented already, that Martin Armstrong's "It Is Just Time" prediction made back in October 2008, for a major turn event on March 19, nailed the exact day (after) the Fed announced to start buying government bonds directly.
He had also predicted ahead of time the turn that coincided with the peak in the precious metals prices last March 2008.
Google "Martin Armstrong", for the remarkable story about how accurate his computer model predictions have been, and him being in the maximum security prison without a trial, together with the Shoe Bomber and the Unibomber, alledgedly because of his unwillingness to share his model with the CIA.
He had also predicted ahead of time the turn that coincided with the peak in the precious metals prices last March 2008.
Google "Martin Armstrong", for the remarkable story about how accurate his computer model predictions have been, and him being in the maximum security prison without a trial, together with the Shoe Bomber and the Unibomber, alledgedly because of his unwillingness to share his model with the CIA.
May 06, 2016, 04:25:45 AM
Don't have the time or energy to read this thread but I'd like to say that Anonymint is one of few here I'd like to meet in person.
His intellect is high, much higher than most here (including myself).
Too bad his coin never made it though. Would have been big.
His intellect is high, much higher than most here (including myself).
Too bad his coin never made it though. Would have been big.
May 06, 2016, 12:38:59 AM
Although it may turn out to be false alarm. It is still interesting to see what other high level techs will say about this double hashing and possible vulnerability.
Let's await the discussion and hope it is comprehensible even in part to the layman. It's got to be more interesting than the usual spam that clutters the main alt board.
Let's await the discussion and hope it is comprehensible even in part to the layman. It's got to be more interesting than the usual spam that clutters the main alt board.
Amen, and a little reminder as to why alts serve a purpose, at least the ones that didn't copy/paste BTC.
Here is a few morsels of technical kryptonite for the "meme image self-masturbation"
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14766916
So they want to play hardball... okay I know that game too...
Whose cock are you sucking today boiz? Gmax? Bitalik? Sincereo? Duckefeller? Cat got your tongue or mouth too full of yummy finger-licking-good semen?
The low-life anonymous scum that is here on BCT:
Feel sorry for the kids. Half-Filipino......half-petrified. 
What kind of man talks about another man's kids on a public forum hiding behind anonymity. That isn't a man. I dare him to say that to my face. You run out of ammunition to attack my reputation with, so you involve my kids who have nothing to do with anything that is going on here on this putrefied forum.
May 05, 2016, 10:48:23 PM
TPTB_need_war, you cannot prove nor disprove that the Sartre text Craig Wright supposedly hashed is a collision for SHA256.
I asked you to not do what you just did above:
Don't cherry pick my context to make inane non-rebuttals which side-step my holistic set of points.
You also pointed out that he supposedly has access to a supercomputer. Even with access to a supercomputer, he would not be able to find a collision as other researchers have already tried. Simply having a lot of computing power does not mean that he can find a collision.
Alternatively, Craig could have found a vulnerability in sha256, in which case a lot more things than just Bitcoin is screwed. If Craig did not responsibly disclose such a vulnerability and instead exploited it, this would be incredibly sketchy and dishonest behavior.
Alternatively, Craig could have found a vulnerability in sha256, in which case a lot more things than just Bitcoin is screwed. If Craig did not responsibly disclose such a vulnerability and instead exploited it, this would be incredibly sketchy and dishonest behavior.
The point is that with a supercomputer together with a new cryptoanalysis break, the two together might be required to accomplish the attack. I want you to know that if China's pools see nearly all the mining shares, then they are viewing about 268 of SHA-256 hashing power per annum which may or may not be fulcrum. Don't presume you know all the theoretical attacks that are possible.
The theory that the sha256 double hash is weaker than sha256 is false. It has been proven that performing multiple iterations of a hash is more secure than just one iteration. Specifically, many websites will store users passwords in the form of a multiple iteration hash.
You've made at least two mathematically illiterate errors in that quoted text:
1. Testing that double-hashing fulfills some criteria you have prechosen, says nothing about security against cryptoanalysis which your criteria has not considered.
2. Securing a password by iterated hashing (because it requires the dictionary attacker to perform the iteration cost on each dictionary trial) says nothing about the increased vulnerability of collision cryptanalysis. You are conflating two separate issues of security.
I am done speaking to these amateurs. Waste of my time.
May 05, 2016, 10:33:45 PM
I will proceed to explain once you confirm that do not understand why Merkle–Damgård construction is relevant? Either explain or admit you don't know. So I can proceed to teach you something. You are wasting my scarce time with your stalling/deception tactics and trolling.
No, you're the one wasting my time. I don't have to explain anything. You do. And you're not. I can only assume by your lack of explanation that you can't produce one.
Next time you will realize not to fuck with me, because I know a lot more than you assume.
I assume you know nothing, so knowing more than that isn't much of an accomplishment. But please go ahead and demonstrate your accomplishment. We're all waiting.
I'll interpret your reply as an ostensibly intentional veiled admission that you could not answer the question. So I will proceed to explain the sort of theoretical analysis that I was interested in discussing in the thread that the "forum-Hitler" Gmaxwell nuked.
Tangentially note the disclaimer that I wrote in the OP of the thread which was nuked:
Does anyone know what black hole Bitcoin core (Blockstream) developer Gmaxwell moved the quoted thread to?
[...]
I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.
I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.
I had written in that nuked and vaporized thread a post (my last or nearly last post in that nuked thread) which explained that at the moment I wrote that quoted OP, I had been mislead by sloppy writing on the news sites (and also the linked sites of the protagonists) into thinking that the hash of the Sartre text was already confirmed. For example, I provided this quote:
Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.
Being at is was by that time late in the evening for my timezone and I had been awake roughly 18 hours already, and I was skimming in an attempt to make some quick feedback on this potentially important event, so I could return to my work asap. In the nuked thread, I quickly realized that the Sartre text hadn't been verified to match the hash, so I actually stopped posting in the nuked thread for a few hours. Then when I came back to thread, it didn't exist so I could no longer follow up or read what had been elucidated. Thus note my original focus was on how the hell could Craig have achieved that match, so he must have broken the hash. I had recalled that I had theoretically doubts about the double hashing which I had never bothered to discuss with anyone. It had been 2+ years since I did that research on cryptographic hash functions, so I had to decide if I was going to go dig back into that research or not. I figured I'd sleep on it and then be able to think with a clearer, rested mind about the implications of the revelation (to me) that the hash had not been verified to match the text because the portion of the text had not been sufficiently specified (again the "undisclosed" term didn't make sense to me in quick skimming because I had read on the blog that the Sartre text was referred to).
But instead of being able to sleep on it and then decide whether to let it go or dig back into my past research, my thread was nuked and I was under attack. Remember I don't back down from anyone when I think I am justified. When I think I am wrong, I mea culpa.
So now back to the subject matter of whether double hashing could theoretically lead to any weakening of the second preimage and/or collision security of the SHA-256 cryptographic hash function.
Afaik, there is no research on this question. If anyone is aware of any, please kindly inform me.
First I will note the Merkle–Damgård construction (which SHA-256 employs) is subject to numerous generic attacks and even though afaik none of these are currently known to be a practical threat against a single hash of SHA-256, we can perhaps look to those generic attacks for potential clues as to what a double-hashing might enable which a single-hash application perhaps might not.
Note in the pseudo-code for SHA-256 that what distinguishes a double-hashing from doubling rounds (i.e. "Compression function main loop:") or repeating the input text in double the block chunks (i.e. "Process the message in successive 512-bit chunks:"), is that the h0 - h8 compression function state which is normally orthogonal to the input block chunks instead gets transmitted as input to a block chunk in the second hash application (i.e. "Produce the final hash value (big-endian):") after being added to the output of the compression function (i.e. "Add the compressed chunk to the current hash value:"). And the h0 - h8 compression function state is reset to a constant (i.e. "Initialize hash values:").
The reason I think this might be theoretically significant is because we should note that the way cryptographic hash functions are typically broken is by applying differential cryptanalysis. Differential cryptanalysis is attempting to find some occurrence of (even higher order) differences between inputs that occurs with more frequent probability than a perfectly uniform distribution. In essence, differential cryptanalysis is leveraging some recurrent structure of the confusion and diffusion and avalanche effect of the algorithm.
Not only does the double-hashing introduce a constant h0 - h8 midstream thus introducing a known recurrent structure into the middle of the unified algorithm of a double-hashing, but it shifts the normally orthogonal compression function state to the input that it is designed supposed to be orthogonal to. On top of that, the additions of the h0 - h8 state at the midpoint, can possibly mean the starting state of the midpoint is known to have a higher probability of zeros in the least significant bits (LSBs). This last sentence observation comes from some research I did when I created a much higher bandwidth design variant of Berstein's ChaCha by fully exploiting AVX2 SIMD, that was for a specific purpose of creating a faster memory hard proof-of-work function. In that research, I had noted the following quote of an excerpt in my unfinished, rough draft, unpublished white paper written in late 2013 or early 2014 (and kindly note that the following might have errors because it was not reviewed for publishing and was merely notes for myself on my research understanding at that time 2+ years ago):
Quote from: shazam.rtf
Security
Addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) diffuse through high bits but set low bits to 0. Without shuffles or rotation permutation to diffuse changes from high to low bits, addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) can be broken with low complexity working from the low to the high bits [5].
The overflow carry bit, i.e. addition modulo ∞ minus addition modulo (2^n - 1), obtains the value 0 or 1 with equal probability, thus addition modulo (2^n - 1) is discontinuous i.e. defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) [6] because the carry is 1 in half of the instances [7] and defeats linearity over the ring Z/2 [8] because the low bit of both operands is 1 in one-fourth of the instances.
The number of overflow high bits in multiplication modulo ∞ minus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) depends on the highest set bits of the operands, thus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) defeats linearity over the range of rings Z/2 to Z/(2^n).
Logical exclusive-or defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) always [8] because it is not a linear function operator.
Each multiplication modulo ∞ amplifies the amount diffusion and confusion provided by each addition. For example, multiplying any number by 23 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 16 added to the number multiplied by 4 added to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number. This is recursive since multiplying the number by 4 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number multiplied by 2. Addition of a number with itself is equivalent to a 1 bit left shift or multiplication by 2. Multiplying any variable number by another variable number creates additional confusion.
Multiplication defeats rotational cryptoanalysis [9] because unlike for addition, rotation of the multiplication of two operands never distributes over the operands i.e. is not equal to the multiplication of the rotated operands. A proof is that rotation is equivalent to the exclusive-or of left and right shifts. Left and right shifts are equivalent to multiplication and division by a factor of 2, which don't distribute over multiplication e.g. (8 × 8 ) × 2 ≠ (8 × 2) × (8 × 2) and (8 × 8 ) ÷ 2 ≠ (8 ÷ 2) × (8 ÷ 2). Addition modulo ∞ is always distributive over rotation [9] because addition distributes over multiplication and division e.g. (8 + 8 ) ÷ 2 = (8 ÷ 2) + (8 ÷ 2). Due to the aforementioned non-linearity over Z/(2^n) due to carry, addition modulo (2^n - 1) is only distributive over rotation with a probability 1/4 up to 3/8 depending on the relative number of bits of rotation [9][10].
However, multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) sets all low bits to 0 orders-of-magnitude more frequently than addition modulo (2^n - 1)—a degenerate result that squashes diffusion and confusion.
[5] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX. 2 Related Work.
[6] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family.
4.1 Links between Different Kinds of Operations.
[7] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX.
6 Cryptanalysis of generic AR systems.
[8] Berstein. Salsa20 design. 2 Operations.
[9] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX.
3 Review of Rotational Cryptanalysis.
[10] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family.
4.1.3 Modular Additions and Bit Rotations. Corollary 4.12.
Addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) diffuse through high bits but set low bits to 0. Without shuffles or rotation permutation to diffuse changes from high to low bits, addition and multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) can be broken with low complexity working from the low to the high bits [5].
The overflow carry bit, i.e. addition modulo ∞ minus addition modulo (2^n - 1), obtains the value 0 or 1 with equal probability, thus addition modulo (2^n - 1) is discontinuous i.e. defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) [6] because the carry is 1 in half of the instances [7] and defeats linearity over the ring Z/2 [8] because the low bit of both operands is 1 in one-fourth of the instances.
The number of overflow high bits in multiplication modulo ∞ minus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) depends on the highest set bits of the operands, thus multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) defeats linearity over the range of rings Z/2 to Z/(2^n).
Logical exclusive-or defeats linearity over the ring Z/(2^n) always [8] because it is not a linear function operator.
Each multiplication modulo ∞ amplifies the amount diffusion and confusion provided by each addition. For example, multiplying any number by 23 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 16 added to the number multiplied by 4 added to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number. This is recursive since multiplying the number by 4 is equivalent to the number multiplied by 2 added to the number multiplied by 2. Addition of a number with itself is equivalent to a 1 bit left shift or multiplication by 2. Multiplying any variable number by another variable number creates additional confusion.
Multiplication defeats rotational cryptoanalysis [9] because unlike for addition, rotation of the multiplication of two operands never distributes over the operands i.e. is not equal to the multiplication of the rotated operands. A proof is that rotation is equivalent to the exclusive-or of left and right shifts. Left and right shifts are equivalent to multiplication and division by a factor of 2, which don't distribute over multiplication e.g. (8 × 8 ) × 2 ≠ (8 × 2) × (8 × 2) and (8 × 8 ) ÷ 2 ≠ (8 ÷ 2) × (8 ÷ 2). Addition modulo ∞ is always distributive over rotation [9] because addition distributes over multiplication and division e.g. (8 + 8 ) ÷ 2 = (8 ÷ 2) + (8 ÷ 2). Due to the aforementioned non-linearity over Z/(2^n) due to carry, addition modulo (2^n - 1) is only distributive over rotation with a probability 1/4 up to 3/8 depending on the relative number of bits of rotation [9][10].
However, multiplication modulo (2^n - 1) sets all low bits to 0 orders-of-magnitude more frequently than addition modulo (2^n - 1)—a degenerate result that squashes diffusion and confusion.
[5] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX. 2 Related Work.
[6] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family.
4.1 Links between Different Kinds of Operations.
[7] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX.
6 Cryptanalysis of generic AR systems.
[8] Berstein. Salsa20 design. 2 Operations.
[9] Khovratovich, Nikolic. Rotational Cryptanalysis of ARX.
3 Review of Rotational Cryptanalysis.
[10] Daum. Cryptanalysis of Hash Functions of the MD4-Family.
4.1.3 Modular Additions and Bit Rotations. Corollary 4.12.
So now put those aforementioned insights about potential recurrent structure at the midpoint of the double-hashing, together with the reality that a Boomerang attack is a differential cryptoanalysis that employs a midpoint in a cipher to form new attacks that weren't plausible on the full cipher. Bingo!
I'll refrain from providing my further insights on specifics beyond this initial sharing. Why? Because I've been treated like shit by Gmaxwell and you all here grant him too much Hitler-esque control over the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum where these sort of discussions are supposed to occur, so I will take my toys else where. Enjoy your echo chamber.
Do I have an attack against Bitcoin's double-hashing? I leave that for you to ponder.
May 05, 2016, 01:00:15 AM
Lol. I doubt that.
Your whole argument is based on something that hasn't even been performed publicly yet.
Your theory is based on a few pieces of code on CSW's blog and other people's word.
We still have to wait to see how CSW will actually sign the keys.
Your theory is based purely on speculation of what we think happened, instead of what we know.
If we know the signature (in theory) and the address (according to BBC), then what was the message?
Your whole argument is based on something that hasn't even been performed publicly yet.
Your theory is based on a few pieces of code on CSW's blog and other people's word.
We still have to wait to see how CSW will actually sign the keys.
Your theory is based purely on speculation of what we think happened, instead of what we know.
If we know the signature (in theory) and the address (according to BBC), then what was the message?
Quoted as documentation of your ignorance of the technical details.
Eventually you trolls will learn not to fuck with me.
Yes, you were the first to discover that CSW discovered a "backdoor" in Bitcoin.
Your understanding of the technical details here is greatest over all others.
And the first to:
1. Explain to Gmaxwell (in his CoinJoin thread from 2013) that he couldn't use a blacklist to fix jamming of CoinJoin
2. Solve the jamming problem of decentralized exchange.
3. Design a technical solution to the inherent centralization in Satoshi's proof-of-work.
4. Which included being the first to explain technically why Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine Generals Problem.
5. The first to explain why Z.cash's Equihash is likely not ASIC resistant.
6. First to solve a decades old unsolved fundamental problem of computer science programming language theory.
Get off my lawn you jealous troll. You are wasting my and the readers' time.
May 05, 2016, 12:11:34 AM
Apparently TPTB_need_war thinks it's a good idea to send private messages swearing at people who disagree with him. Hypomanic reaction much?
Hypomanic reaction much? Another troll...
Come on man, I'm not attacking your reputation, I just think that what you're assessing is ridiculous. This isn't an ad hominem, I didn't even talk about you.
Can you look in the mirror and say that with a straight face
If that's close to your mindset then I gotta say that this is the most speculative FUD I've seen.
You need to learn some interpersonal skills.
Why are you lying on your profile claiming to be a female?
Also sending me PMs with foul language and threats doesn't really help you make a point.
Why are you lying? I didn't send you any threat. I sent you a private message with quoted copy of the message I posted in this thread and nothing more in the body of the message (so you would be aware I replied), and I put in the Subject "go fuck yourself" to let you know my feelings about your slimly and technically irrelevant ad hominem attack.
Come on man, I'm not attacking your reputation, I just think that what you're assessing is ridiculous. This isn't an ad hominem, I didn't even talk about you.
Can you look in the mirror and say that with a straight face
If that's close to your mindset then I gotta say that this is the most speculative FUD I've seen.
You need to learn some interpersonal skills.
Why are you lying on your profile claiming to be a female?
Man you have a serious deficiency with definitions.
If you want to talk about the technical subject matter, you don't need to involve how I perceive the matter. What I perceive is irrelevant. Show the technical rebuttal. Your involvement of what you misperceive to be my mindset is ad hominem. Do you need help with comprehending definitions?
May 04, 2016, 11:17:21 PM
Apparently TPTB_need_war thinks it's a good idea to send private messages swearing at people who disagree with him. Hypomanic reaction much?
Hypomanic reaction much? May 04, 2016, 09:03:45 PM
Click this quote to read what Gmaxwell and others will respond:
And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain.
Hahahaha nope.
Read and weep idiot.
Please provide technical justification.
You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key.
You do not seem to understand that linking to your own post doesn't prove anything. Can you post the public key, the message Wright signed, and the signature for everyone to see and verify?
The analysis was provided by others already. The review of that is ongoing here.
Do you enjoy being a troll?
You trolls can eat your words now.
As much as you enjoy quoting yourself.
I'm as much a troll as you are an investigator.
I empathize as I know jealously is an affliction of the incapable.
Enjoy your life.
Btw, I did write in the OP that I am busy on other work and that I hadn't studied the issue very deeply. Yet in this case, you've just put your foot in your mouth as is appropriate for having disingenuous motives.
I step out to walk the dog and eat lunch, and not surprising those who want to discredit my reputation spring into action. You should stick to the facts and not do ad hominem that will burn your own arse...
Please if you are going to troll, at least don't make such a huge blunder. Obviously I am not writing about how Craig ostensibly fooled Gavin by apparently misspelling 'signature'.
I am writing about the fact that he provided a signature which matches a Satoshi address and which afaik also signs the hash of a Sartre text. Whether this is correct or not, it is entirely unrelated to what he demonstrated to Gavin.
Yes I am theorizing on how he could have possibly found a preimage for the hash. I think that is a prudent mental exercise, unless someone can show that he hasn't provided a preimage.
Your laziness isn't my fault. You find all the links if you click the link I provided to you upthread:
The three things that I asked for are nowhere to be found in the link you provided. There is only your own speculation.
So just to establish the facts - you DON'T have one or more of the following: the public key, the message Wright signed, the signature. Your claims that Wright cracked SHA256 are baseless.
Are you fucking blind?
If you click any of these links in the link I provided to you several times, you will end up finding the links to the analysis done by others which has all the information you asked for:
....
The only contention remaining is whether the Sartre text hashes to the hash Craig signed. Apparently no one has bothered to check that, even they are so damn quick to declare him a fraud without checking it.
Wholly shit! I am contemplating the possibility that Craig has revealed that who ever created Bitcoin put a backdoor in it!
As I already explained, the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities.
But note this small detail:
Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context.
A cryptographic hash function has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value.
Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2256 times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack).
So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked.
It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256.
If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash.
I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.
As I already explained, the signature Craig has provided proves either he has cracked something about the way Bitcoin uses SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key. Afaics, there are no other mathematical possibilities.
But note this small detail:
Quote from: https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification
You'll note that Bitcoin, for reasons known only to Satoshi, takes the signature of hash of a hash to generate the scriptSig. Quoting Ryan:
Well that isn't so insignificant of a detail when you think more about it in this context.
A cryptographic hash function has a property named collision resistance. Collision resistance is related to preimage resistance in that if we have a way to quickly find collisions, then if the preimage is collision then we also break the preimage resistance for that particular hash value.
Collision resistance is normally stated as the number of hash attempts required to find a collision or the number of rounds to break collision resistance with reasonable hardware. Normally this is exponentially less than computing the SHA256 hash function 2256 times. For SHA256, there are collision resistance attacks up to 46 of the 64 rounds of SHA256 (and 52 of 64 rounds for preimage attack).
So what happens to collision (and preimage in this context) resistance when we hash the hash? Well all the collisions from the first application of hash become collisions in the second hash, plus the new collisions in the second application of the hash thus increasing the number of rounds that can be attacked.
It seems likely that Craig has identified the back door that was placed in Bitcoin as explained above, and used his supercomputer access to find a preimage of SHA256.
If am correct, this is major news and Bitcoin could crash.
I urge immediately peer review of my statements by other experts. I have not really thought deeply about this. This is just written very quickly off the top of my head. I am busy working on other things and can't put much time into this.
And with his access to a supercomputer, it is plausible he was able to reverse the hash in order to find a text that matched the signature that was already on the blockchain.
Hahahaha nope.
Read and weep idiot.
I have now reviewed your analysis and have concluded you are talking out of your ass.
Please provide technical justification.
It's increasingly obvious that despite not being able to present actual cryptographic proof Wright is putting a lot of effort into obfuscation and trying to sway the public opinion, whether it's for his business interests or something else.
You do not seem to understand the math. Either Craig broke SHA256 or he has Satoshi's private key.
You do not seem to understand that linking to your own post doesn't prove anything. Can you post the public key, the message Wright signed, and the signature for everyone to see and verify?
The analysis was provided by others already. The review of that is ongoing here.
You, my friend are peerless; there can be no review of your work.
Do you enjoy being a troll?
You trolls can eat your words now.
As much as you enjoy quoting yourself.
I'm as much a troll as you are an investigator.
I empathize as I know jealously is an affliction of the incapable.
Enjoy your life.
If that's close to your mindset then I gotta say that this is the most speculative FUD I've seen.
Btw, I did write in the OP that I am busy on other work and that I hadn't studied the issue very deeply. Yet in this case, you've just put your foot in your mouth as is appropriate for having disingenuous motives.
I step out to walk the dog and eat lunch, and not surprising those who want to discredit my reputation spring into action. You should stick to the facts and not do ad hominem that will burn your own arse...
Let me get this straight. Not only are you taking Gavin's word for the signed message, but on top of that you're also jumping to the conclusion that Craig discovered and exploited a backdoor in bitcoin no one was aware of up to date.
Please if you are going to troll, at least don't make such a huge blunder. Obviously I am not writing about how Craig ostensibly fooled Gavin by apparently misspelling 'signature'.
I am writing about the fact that he provided a signature which matches a Satoshi address and which afaik also signs the hash of a Sartre text. Whether this is correct or not, it is entirely unrelated to what he demonstrated to Gavin.
Yes I am theorizing on how he could have possibly found a preimage for the hash. I think that is a prudent mental exercise, unless someone can show that he hasn't provided a preimage.
Analysis of what? Please post the facts being analyzed, i.e. the public key, the message Wright signed, and the signature. The thread you linked to doesn't have that.
Your laziness isn't my fault. You find all the links if you click the link I provided to you upthread:
The three things that I asked for are nowhere to be found in the link you provided. There is only your own speculation.
So just to establish the facts - you DON'T have one or more of the following: the public key, the message Wright signed, the signature. Your claims that Wright cracked SHA256 are baseless.
Are you fucking blind?
If you click any of these links in the link I provided to you several times, you will end up finding the links to the analysis done by others which has all the information you asked for:
....
Craig Wright’s chosen source material (an article in which Jean-Paul Sartre explains his refusal of the Nobel Prize), surprisingly, generates the exact same signature as can be found in a bitcoin transaction associated with Satoshi Nakamoto.
The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so infinitesimally small that it is unlikely.
The likelihood that a private key will generate two identical signatures when signing two different sources – a Bitcoin transaction on the one hand, and a Sartre text on the other – is so infinitesimally small that it is unlikely.
The only contention remaining is whether the Sartre text hashes to the hash Craig signed. Apparently no one has bothered to check that, even they are so damn quick to declare him a fraud without checking it.
May 03, 2016, 12:52:20 AM
Details of USA Securities Law is covered in the following thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-altcoin-topic-everyone-wants-to-sweep-under-the-rug-1218399
Making AMPS publicly available for sale to non-accredited USA investors makes the unregistered investment securities illegal even if issued by foreigners.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-altcoin-topic-everyone-wants-to-sweep-under-the-rug-1218399
Making AMPS publicly available for sale to non-accredited USA investors makes the unregistered investment securities illegal even if issued by foreigners.
Alt currencies are not investments in the eyes of existing law anyway.
With that strawman statement which does not address the points of the Howey test, you obviously do not comprehend the thread that was provided to you. You probably didn't even read it or read it carefully.
Verbal handwaving is not technical explaining. It is clever marketing to fool n00bs, but I know better.
If you are the guy who doesn't get it, and almost everyone else does
No one understands the details including yourself. For if you did, you would explain it here in sufficient technical detail so as to be unambiguous statements.
You are BS and you know it.
We need sufficient technical detail so that we can verify if the system will do what he is claiming it will do.
It has been in commercial operation for a couple years.
You are referring to components of the system such as Special K or Microsoft's use of process calculi, but the devil is in the details. This usage of some components of his research has no bearing on whether any of this is applicable to Synereo. Without the details, we can't tell you exactly why you are wrong.
And you certainly don't know the technical details either.
Any way, I don't have more time to waste on your nonsense.
So, again, please cease and desist with the negative misinformation and claims.
Ask your father for a refresher on Libel & Slander.
Ask your father for a refresher on Libel & Slander.
Sue me in the USA (which is the only jurisdiction which you can enforce on me). Hahaha. So we can go in court and talk about selling illegal unregistered investment securities. There is nothing slander nor libel in demanding proper disclosure with all the technical details explained so that laymen investors can evaluate if this AMP token is a worthwhile investment.
Any way, this is all a waste of my time because Synereo will fall and JAMBOX will not. And JAMBOX isn't selling and hyping tokens. Talk to me again in 6 - 9 months. Until then, any thing other than technical details from you is hot air.
Lol, Synereo with a $9 million marketcap and only $0.016 million ($16,000) of probably fake (insiders buying from themselves) daily volume. You snakeoil salesmen having a hard time getting fools to buy this fake market cap now.
Stop wasting everyone's time with your ridiculous allegations. Nobody takes you seriously. Your stupid "Jambox" will be a total failure just like you are.
Jump to: