Topic: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT - page 8. (Read 157066 times)

Hey, Core does not have a 5 - part post with shiny pictures and gifs, so their proposals must be lacking in comparison to BU and Classic. At least the BU folks are not actively trying to pull in people with their campaigns (they don't have much support anyways). I've just read the following on reddit:
after which an explanation was posted which proved the flaw.

---

---

Update: Ops, I've made a mistake in the last part of the post (the tool was not posted, it was a post/explanation by someone else). I've sent a PM to Adrian and corrected the post (with the added link).

In addition, let's not forget that the expression "xthin" itself was invoked as a propaganda tool, every Classic shill was using it to heap scorn on Core for "lack of xthin". If only they put as much effort into the code design as they did into their brand naming, lol.

Latest "Classic" move,   https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4nkmzp/the_ultimate_defence_against_the_alleged/   "The ultimate defence against the alleged xthinblock attack is header-first mining"

So "unlimited" (and proposed for "classic" but classic, seems mostly dead) has an efficient block relay scheme (their homegrown analog of BIP152) with a design flaw.

The way it works is this: When I relay a block to you, I give you a list of the transaction IDs in the block so you can match them out of your mempool instead of getting them from me.  To save bandwidth instead of sending the whole ID I send only the first couple digits of it.  They reasoned that they sent enough digits that it would be really unlikely for two txn in your mempool to have the same truncated IDs by chance.

What they didn't account for is the well known result, often called the "birthday paradox", that it is _much_ easier to compute two messages sharing the same short hash than you'd expect.  Because of this, with the scheme in unlimited it's very easy for people to make pairs of transactions with matching short IDs and send them to the network. Any block that includes one of these TXN will propagate more slowly (because the reconstruction will fail, and it will have to take a round trip and retry with more data.).

This flaw is something I spotted back in 2014 while working on some of the design work which later became part of BIP152, and I came up with a simple solution: Instead of truncating the txid, you hash it with a keyed value that isn't known to the attacker (we just have the sender pick one).

It's not the biggest deal in the world, but that fix shuts down some easily perpetrated vandalism (which could also potentially performed for profit reasons) at basically no cost.

The "classic" response?  If miners don't verify anything at all, well then it doesn't matter to the miners how long it takes for block data to reach them. And since big miners and companies are all that are classically important, and SPV wallets (which make a strong security assumption that miners validate) are not... why bother fixing the flawed protocol?

Never-mind the fact that classic's attempt at this was already aborted.

Feel free to do that, but don't expect much traffic. Demand for this ha salready been satisfied by other forums, but those are almost exclusively populated by people in support of big blocks. There's no censorship in bitcointalk in the first place, unless you'd classify moving topics promoting bitcoin classic in altcoin boards as censorship. Reddit is another story but it's also not that much of a forum. Given that most of the content there is direct links, meaningful moderation to keep communities on topic is useful. But other subreddits have been created there as well.

Indeed. I'd even say: 'Too light-handed'.

You're wasting your time trying to promote trash like ETH. I truly wonder why "banksters" are pushing ETH through and trying to use it again Bitcoin.

Nevermind; it seems like KNC is still mining somehow, but the total hashrate is under 5%. The number of Classic nodes is under 700 now.

In retrospect, especially, the timing looks really bad, and sure that is what happens when folks overinvest, and also decide to make rash moves, rather than investing and disinvesting in increments...

I don’t envy your timing.

No, censorship is not a serious (or even real) problem.

The moderation here is very light-handed, with a few random exceptions when mprep has been drinking or whatever.

The intentional conflation of censorship and moderation was being used as a red herring and wedge issue in the Gavinistas' social engineering attack on Bitcoin's public forums and governance structures.

It's not fun watching super-smarty-pants world class crypto guys (Backamoto, Gmax, Cryddit) fall hook, line, and sinker for the censorship martyrs' cries of "help help I'm being repressed!"

That tactic was crafted to appeal to cypherpunk "information wants to be free" sentiments, and it worked better than anything else XT or Klassic did.   

Kudos to Thermos for sticking to his guns and not letting the bastards get him down!

do it, then

Is censorship a serious problem?  'Cos I don't give a damn about the sides in the debate, and I could put up a fair forum to discuss cryptocurrency.  I would cheerfully do so if people make it worth my time and recoup my bandwidth expense by contributing half the revenue from any signature ads (which might have the additional benefit of reducing the incentive to place signature ads).

I would cheerfully delete posts that bring up topics strictly forbidden on given forum sections, but every topic specifically forbidden in a given section would be specifically allowed in some other section.  Also, in the interest of NOT allowing monitoring of who's reading which threads, I would insist that all signature ads be the same size (in packets and pixels, not necessarily in bytes) and served from the same machine (over https).

Bluntly, I am no longer a partisan.  I used to care about the block size debate, but I don't care any more.  I care (a little) about banal rudeness and (a lot) about any issues that impair the forum's usability, but any rules about such things would be the exactly the same for everyone regardless of what position they take in any debate.

Call me an amateur investor (trader).  So far in my trading career, I have only opened and closed longs and mostly just in BTC, and I don't engage in shorting of anything.  Therefore, I don't really have any stake in ETH because I have not bought any, so I cannot sell, and I do not plan to open any short in respect to ETH. 

Accordingly, my discussion of my view of ETH probabilities reflects my general assessment of it, mostly regarding opening long positions and/or responding to Chopstick's assertion that BTC is somehow losing out to short term ETH price movements... which I doubt that short term ETH price movements reflects any meaningful threat to bitcoin's current viability.



Your assertion about bitcoin being "growth-capped" seems to be based on pure fantasy rather than facts and/or logic, so your starting premise above seems a bit screwy to me.

I don't claim to know much of anything about any of the various alt coins, whether it is Monero or any other alt coin, and surely a person can make short-term profits from various alt coins, but in doing so, they also potentially may miss out on growth opportunities with bitcoin, too (isn't that called opportunity costs?). 

In any respect, bitcoin seems to remain the most solid of the cryptos in balancing both upside and downside potentialities, and likely, to the extent that any alternative cryptos bring innovations to the cryptocurrency space, bitcoin is likely going to be able to absorb those through rootstock and other technical innovations that seem to be either on the table or in the planning stages.

Do you ever say anything even remotely valuable? I said years ago that I hate to put anyone on ignore for fear they will spark some kind or great debate and ignore greys out any threads they start. I'm going to risk it with you because I can't see it as much of a risk.

In today's Classic Comedy of Errors, Altcoin Jesus makes a Sensor Ship Martyr fuss about reddit's sitewide Cointelespam ban.  

https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/740590787843358720

Hilarity ensues as our #DramaQueen (and former Paycoin provider) struggles to understand the simple words BashCo uses to explain why his false accusation is blowing up in his face.

http://moneyandstate.com/mea-culpa/

"But muh Sensor Ships!" - Voorhees, basically

Behold, the spectacle of Professional Libertarian Eric Voorhees repeatedly violating a private site's terms of service!  What a FSA socialist!

His trolling/FUD/vote brigading is obviously intentional, regardless of the minutia.

This isn't the first "oops I accidentally all the obvious fraud profit" mea culpa we've seen from Eric.

Here's another: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2r5irw/shapeshiftio_official_announcement_re_paycoin/

And another: https://twitter.com/ErikVoorhees/status/705868361163415552

Shapeshift profits from increased volume when the Klassik Klowns stir up Bitcoin-Is-Dooomed drama.

IMO more than a one day suspension was warranted.  But that's up to Reddit admins, because it's private property.  

You pretty much nailed it JJG, as per usual. With a 90% chance of falling 50%, it's time to short it hard.

Personally, I prefer holding Monero (XMR) as a vehicle to capture gains from investment that won't be moving to a growth-capped BTC. It has an Adaptive Blocksize, donchaknow.

You gotta be fairly ill-informed to consider ETH as some kind of meaningful threat to bitcoin when considering the various upcoming scaling and innovative improvements in bitcoin's near future (including the havening of BTC's new supply situation, too), despite some of the recent ETH pumping efforts..  In other words, if you are looking at these kinds of short term price moves, you are getting a bit distracted by the trees rather than attempting to see the forest.

You are gambling considerably if you either hold significant quantities of ETH or you are investing in significant amounts into ETH at this point (in comparison to BTC)... Sure it is possible that ETH could 2x or 3x again, but it's downside seems a lot greater than BTC's downside potential.. .think about it? 

From our current price point, which one is more likely to reduce in price by 50% or more?  ETH or BTC?    I am not sure about what odds I would place, but it seems pretty decent odds that ETH is more likely to go down 50% or more rather than BTC... maybe 90/10 - ish?

Currently, I don't have any money in ETH, and my opinion is that if you are brave enough to put any more than 10% of your total crypto holdings into ETH you are gambling in a fairly irresponsible way with your personal finances that is more likely than not to end in significant financial losses.

Surely as individuals we have a right to exercise discretion over our own personal finances and the risks that we are willing to take, and with any gambling there is a probability that your position could pay off more than a more conservative approach, such as mine.

I don't know about that website, but I've personally checked on one that is supportive of Classic (so I assume that information would be valid). If you take a look at the grid found here, there hasn't been a single Classic block in the last 4 rows (4x40 blocks).

Segwit, besides fixing malleability and providing a dozen other benefits, will act as an indicator of how much we need larger blocks.

Segwit is on the way....Slush just took Klassik's last hope out back and shot it:


*Gavinista butthurt intensifies*   

Not seeing it http://blockinfo.org/pools

24hr is actually up from 7d.

Meanwhile, ETH is up. Great job guys. I'm sure Segwit/LN will be deployed on time with no problems and 100% user adoption in No time

It seems like KnC has shut down their miners, and the Classic hashrate has dropped at Slush. Time to wave goodbye; their total hashrate (in %) will drop quickly. On other interesting news, CSV support at: 81.17%.