Topic: Wallet Compile Service - page 3. (Read 1614 times)

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 05:17:18 AM

DETERMISTIC recognise that word?

Means you can verify by compiling yourself that a given executable was compiled from the same source will give same end result.

You are trying to clutch at minute details while ignoring to address the major issue, which I have to repeat again. No matter if someone is able to produce the same executable, this in no case prevents you from changing the code next time...

Thereby, it can't be a proof the way you want it to look

And that is why I'm trying to tell you that the only way to make proof is by having source compiled by 2 different people... and I didn't say only once... you seem so determined to proof me wrong and argue about details you clearly have no real grasp of, it is quite simple I provide a service use it if you need this service.. if you want get someone else also do a compile verify the sources are the same... all your points are basically moot and therefore you only try to show yourself as right no matter the facts... ergo troll

As I've explained earlier, you would more often than not get different binaries even if they are actually compiled from the same source, for a multitude of reasons, some of which I have mentioned. To sum it up, you claim innocence in a world where the assumption of innocence usually doesn't end very well...

And surely is not the way to go

You raise issue's that are well known in the world.

Trust.

Trust is needed to conduct business, no trust no business.

Banks lend large amounts of money to people for over 30 years. There's a huge amount of trust needed here, but banks take precautions, they vet the person, check his credit history.

You as a customer to chaositec can hire someone to vet his code (If you're not able to yourself).

Fundamental business operation is based on trust, it's that simple. If you can't trust people, good luck.
If you don't trust chaos, don't use his service, but for everyone else, i can recommend chaositec.

CHAOSiTEC

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: deisik on July 21, 2016, 05:55:02 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 05:26:59 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 05:17:18 AM

DETERMISTIC recognise that word?

Means you can verify by compiling yourself that a given executable was compiled from the same source will give same end result.

You are trying to clutch at minute details while ignoring to address the major issue, which I have to repeat again. No matter if someone is able to produce the same executable, this in no case prevents you from changing the code next time...

Thereby, it can't be a proof the way you want it to look

And that is why I'm trying to tell you that the only way to make proof is by having source compiled by 2 different people... and I didn't say only once... you seem so determined to proof me wrong and argue about details you clearly have no real grasp of, it is quite simple I provide a service use it if you need this service.. if you want get someone else also do a compile verify the sources are the same... all your points are basically moot and therefore you only try to show yourself as right no matter the facts... ergo troll

As I've explained earlier, you would more often than not get different binaries even if they are actually compiled from the same source, for a multitude of reasons, some of which I have mentioned. To sum it up, you claim innocence in a world where the assumption of innocence usually doesn't end very well...

And surely is not the way to go

And we are back to the same discussion again about compilers... to sum it up..

Your guilty until proven otherwise.. you cannot trust people... and we might as well expect you to cheat on someone tomorrow...

In my country we have a saying... thief thinks everyone is stealing..

So I might as well assume your going to cheat someone out of coins..

At least I have some faith in people.. I double check but I am not paranoid.. you on the other hand assume everyone is guilty.. therefore you should not use any wallets since who knows someone on the inside might tamper with the official bitcoin wallets. So I would suggest to keep away from any cryptocoin.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 05:26:59 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 05:17:18 AM

DETERMISTIC recognise that word?

Means you can verify by compiling yourself that a given executable was compiled from the same source will give same end result.

You are trying to clutch at minute details while ignoring to address the major issue, which I have to repeat again. No matter if someone is able to produce the same executable, this in no case prevents you from changing the code next time...

Thereby, it can't be a proof the way you want it to look

And that is why I'm trying to tell you that the only way to make proof is by having source compiled by 2 different people... and I didn't say only once... you seem so determined to proof me wrong and argue about details you clearly have no real grasp of, it is quite simple I provide a service use it if you need this service.. if you want get someone else also do a compile verify the sources are the same... all your points are basically moot and therefore you only try to show yourself as right no matter the facts... ergo troll

As I've explained earlier, you would more often than not get different binaries even if they are actually compiled from the same source, for a multitude of reasons, some of which I have mentioned. To sum it up, you claim innocence in a world where the assumption of innocence usually doesn't end very well...

And surely is not the way to go

CHAOSiTEC

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 05:17:18 AM

DETERMISTIC recognise that word?

Means you can verify by compiling yourself that a given executable was compiled from the same source will give same end result.

You are trying to clutch at minute details while ignoring to address the major issue, which I have to repeat again. No matter if someone is able to produce the same executable, this in no case prevents you from changing the code next time...

Thereby, it can't be a proof the way you want it to look

And that is why I'm trying to tell you that the only way to make proof is by having source compiled by 2 different people... and I didn't say only once... you seem so determined to proof me wrong and argue about details you clearly have no real grasp of, it is quite simple I provide a service use it if you need this service.. if you want get someone else also do a compile verify the sources are the same... all your points are basically moot and therefore you only try to show yourself as right no matter the facts... ergo troll

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 05:17:18 AM

DETERMISTIC recognise that word?

Means you can verify by compiling yourself that a given executable was compiled from the same source will give same end result.

You are trying to clutch at minute details while choosing to ignore the major issue, which I have to repeat again. It doesn't matter if someone is able to produce the same executable since in no case this can prevent you from changing the code next time. Thereby, it can't be a proof the way you want it to look...

Further, I think I can safely assume that those who can follow the steps required to reproduce the same binary from source code can pretty much compile for themselves

CHAOSiTEC

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: deisik on July 21, 2016, 05:00:59 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 04:51:02 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 21, 2016, 04:35:48 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 04:27:56 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 04:51:02 AM

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are you using the same compiler flags

Seems like you do not fully comprehend how compilers work.. if you optimise for a specific cpu then yes.. if you use exactly the same optimisations the compiler (of course has to be compiled from the exact same codebase) will produce exactly the same executable the cpu does not have anything to do with how code is optimised.. only what compiler optimisations you use... please find someone that knows about compilers and ask them..

Actually it's not irrelevant since you started talking about proof

Regarding compilers and optimization flags, I guess you may want to start your learning curve from here. There is a whole bunch of compiler flags which produce different binaries for different architectures. You may even get different results depending on whether you compile source files in a batch mode (multiple files at once) or each file separately...

I've started talking about the lack of proof, to be precise. As you can see, this perfectly validates my point

notice what ive hilighted.. to compile for a specific architecture IS an optimisation, you decide WHEn you compile to optimise, and what to optimise, even if you want to optimise for a SPECIFIC architecture see this link https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Option-Summary.html

I guess you should read again what I've written, namely

Quote

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are you using the same compiler flags

That is, the same compilation flags may produce different binary codes, since an architecture you compile on (or for) may not support instruction sets which are used for optimizations invoked with these flags (cf. SSE vs 3DNow!). Flags may be the same (not even speaking about compiler version), the output is not...

Is it really so hard to understand, and what are you trying to argue with?

Host optimisation.. meaning if you compile for a generic group of crus result will be the same.. if you start adding more specific cpu optimisations then you are also optimising.. platform specific else your arguing that you cannot compile for different crus on the same machine..

Also see https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/gitian-building.md

DETERMISTIC recognise that word?

Means you can verify by compiling yourself that a given executable was compiled from the same source will give same end result.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: deisik on July 21, 2016, 04:35:48 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 04:27:56 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 21, 2016, 04:35:48 AM

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are you using the same compiler flags

Seems like you do not fully comprehend how compilers work.. if you optimise for a specific cpu then yes.. if you use exactly the same optimisations the compiler (of course has to be compiled from the exact same codebase) will produce exactly the same executable the cpu does not have anything to do with how code is optimised.. only what compiler optimisations you use... please find someone that knows about compilers and ask them..

Actually it's not irrelevant since you started talking about proof

Regarding compilers and optimization flags, I guess you may want to start your learning curve from here. There is a whole bunch of compiler flags which produce different binaries for different architectures. You may even get different results depending on whether you compile source files in a batch mode (multiple files at once) or each file separately...

I've started talking about the lack of proof, to be precise. As you can see, this perfectly validates my point

notice what ive hilighted.. to compile for a specific architecture IS an optimisation, you decide WHEn you compile to optimise, and what to optimise, even if you want to optimise for a SPECIFIC architecture see this link https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Option-Summary.html

I guess you should read again what I've written, namely

Quote

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are you using the same compiler flags

That is, the same compilation flags may produce different binary codes, since an architecture you compile on (or for) may not support instruction sets which are used for optimizations invoked with these flags (cf. SSE vs 3DNow!). Optimization flags may be the same (think -O3), the output is not (even if the compiler version is the same)...

Is it really so hard to understand, and what are you trying to argue with?

CHAOSiTEC

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 04:27:56 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 04:27:56 AM

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are you using the same compiler flags

Seems like you do not fully comprehend how compilers work.. if you optimise for a specific cpu then yes.. if you use exactly the same optimisations the compiler (of course has to be compiled from the exact same codebase) will produce exactly the same executable the cpu does not have anything to do with how code is optimised.. only what compiler optimisations you use... please find someone that knows about compilers and ask them..

Actually it's not irrelevant since you started talking about proof

Regarding compilers and optimization flags, I guess you may want to start your learning curve from here. There is a whole bunch of compiler flags which produce different binaries for different architectures. You may even get different results depending on whether you compile source files in a batch mode (multiple files at once) or each file separately...

I've started talking about the lack of proof, to be precise. As you can see, this perfectly validates my point

notice what ive hilighted.. to compile for a specific architecture IS an optimisation, you decide WHEn you compile to optimise, and what to optimise, even if you want to optimise for a SPECIFIC architecture see this link https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Option-Summary.html

as i said, if you USE THE SAME optimisations on a given program compile, with the same libraries compiled with the same compiler from the same source, you will get identical executables.... platform optimisations are only activated IF you either ask for a compile for current platform, or for a specific platform.. the compiler will not decide by itself what to optimise in regard to cpu if you ask for a generic cpu type.. i.e. compile for i686 or amd64 will produce the exact same code. as long as we use the exact same versions for libraries and compilers.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are you using the same compiler flags

Seems like you do not fully comprehend how compilers work.. if you optimise for a specific cpu then yes.. if you use exactly the same optimisations the compiler (of course has to be compiled from the exact same codebase) will produce exactly the same executable the cpu does not have anything to do with how code is optimised.. only what compiler optimisations you use... please find someone that knows about compilers and ask them..

Actually it's not irrelevant since you started talking about proof

Regarding compilers and optimization flags, I guess you may want to start your learning curve from here. There is a whole bunch of compiler flags which produce different binaries for different architectures. You may even get different results depending on whether you compile source files in a batch mode (multiple files at once) or each file separately. Now I leave it to you to decide who doesn't fully understand how compilers work..

I've started talking about the lack of proof, to be precise. As you can see, this perfectly validates my point

CHAOSiTEC

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 03:59:10 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 21, 2016, 03:13:44 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 03:01:58 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 03:59:10 AM

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

There is no such proof and can't possibly be. That's what people who ask for your assistance should clearly understand and realize, that they are essentially trusting you with their present and future money. Technically speaking, the same source code compiled with the same compiler may produce different executables just for a tiny difference in compiler options or even with the same options aiming at making architecture specific optimizations...

But as I said earlier, this is basically irrelevant, since you can inject code only once and get done with that

But since you brought up text taken out of context about me not wanting to provide proof. You are now backtracking on that.. please be more consistent than that. You cannot try and hit me in the head for not providing proof and then backtrack on that

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are you using the same compiler flags

Seems like you do not fully comprehend how compilers work.. if you optimise for a specific cpu then yes.. if you use exactly the same optimisations the compiler (of course has to be compiled from the exact same codebase) will produce exactly the same executable the cpu does not have anything to do with how code is optimised.. only what compiler optimisations you use... please find someone that knows about compilers and ask them..

Actually it's not irrelevant since you started talking about proof.. I'm presenting the only way proof can be performed.

But since your so persistent I can only give you one advice don't use any wallet.. any altcoin, since your point goes for all.. not just me..

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: deisik on July 21, 2016, 03:13:44 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 03:01:58 AM

Quote from: deisik on July 21, 2016, 03:13:44 AM

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

There is no such proof and can't possibly be. That's what people who ask for your assistance should clearly understand and realize, that they are essentially trusting you with their present and future money. Technically speaking, the same source code compiled with the same compiler may produce different executables just for a tiny difference in compiler options or even with the same options aiming at making architecture specific optimizations...

But as I said earlier, this is basically irrelevant, since you can inject code only once and get done with that

But since you brought up text taken out of context about me not wanting to provide proof. You are now backtracking on that.. please be more consistent than that. You cannot try and hit me in the head for not providing proof and then backtrack on that

I think I have explained my point pretty well. The context you are talking about is irrelevant, since my point would be valid in any context you could possibly try to invoke. Should I repeat it again that validating one executable doesn't in the least deprive you of the capability to inject some arbitrary code next time (or any time you see fit)? In which context this statement wouldn't be valid?

If the same code is compiled on different architectures (e.g. Intel vs AMD), you may get different executables even if you are using the same compilation flags

CHAOSiTEC

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 03:01:58 AM

Quote from: CHAOSiTEC on July 21, 2016, 03:01:58 AM

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

There is no such proof and can't possibly be. That's what people who ask for your assistance should clearly understand and realize, that they are essentially trusting you with their present and future money. Technically speaking, the same source code compiled with the same compiler may produce different executables just for a tiny difference in compiler options or even with the same options aiming at making architecture specific optimizations...

But as I said earlier, this is basically irrelevant, since you can inject code only once and get done with that

But since you brought up text taken out of context about me not wanting to provide proof. You are now backtracking on that.. please be more consistent than that. You cannot try and hit me in the head for not providing proof and then backtrack on that.

As I stated in the beginning it is not possible

But programs compiled with the same compiler version. And the same libraries will produce the same executables if compiled with the same optimisations.

Therefore if you want proof hire 2 different people and get them to compile with the same settings will generate identical executable. So that is the path to take if your paranoid... and that can be used as proof.

Unless of course they know each other and do have plans to inject stuff.. (just getting ahead of you else you would write that)

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

It is irrelevant what you consider me as. I'm not talking for my own sake here (since I use neither Windows nor MacOS, to begin with). You may not be fishing right now (as you put it in respect to me)), but this doesn't in the least guarantee that you won't in the future. As I have already said, you don't provide any proofs but talk is cheap. A paranoid would say that you are trying to steal into your users' confidence (building your trust, providing credentials and so on). Further, the users who may need your "help" are obviously both tech illiterate and ignorantly careless, so there should have come up something like that...

I mean yet another way of parting a fool and his money

and what proof would you consider to be sufficiently?

There is no such proof and can't possibly be. That's what people who ask for your assistance should clearly understand and realize, that they are essentially trusting you with their present and future money. Technically speaking, the same source code compiled with the same compiler may produce different executables just for a tiny difference in compiler options or even with the same options aiming at making architecture specific optimizations...

But as I said earlier, this is basically irrelevant, since you can inject code only once and get done with that

CHAOSiTEC

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002