Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Peter R]

Bitcoin/nChain/UBC proposal for Scaling Bitcoin Stanford (based on BUIP065: Gigablock Testnet):

https://www.scribd.com/document/359889814/ScalingBitcoin-Stanford-GigablockNet-Proposal

 

[lunar]

Great post on r/btc copied here just in case it goes missing.
................

Hello /r/btc, here is what you're up against:

Reddit has removed their blog post identifying Eglin Air Force Base as the most reddit-addicted "city" - Eglin is often cited as the source of some government social-media propaganda/astroturfing programs

Eglin Air Force Base Busted Gaming Reddit

The Pentagon and spy agencies have been busted manipulating the Internet – including social media – in order to promote false propaganda and to stifle dissenting information

British spies manipulate polls, website popularity and pageview counts, censor videos they don’t like and amplify messages they do

Eglin Air Force Base generates more activity on Reddit than any other city in the world.

Check out this blog post with reddit statistics. Notice Eglin Air Force Base as the “most addicted” city. This is about a year ago, so reddit has been getting heavily sh!tp0sted by government employees for at least this long.

Here is a paper funded by Eglin AFB studying how to establish majority views, social control, influence conversations, contain unwanted information. Eglin AFB is a major hub for Pentagon domestic manipulation programs online.

Back in 2013, there was a bit of a scandal when Reddit made an innocent blog post about the "geographic breakdown of reddit visits.":

Most addicted city (over 100k visits total)

Eglin Air Force Base, FL

Oak Brook, IL

South St. Paul, MN

In short, Reddit officially admitted that Eglin Air Force Base generates more activity on Reddit than any other region in the entire world. Yes, Eglin Air Force generates more activity than tech hubs like San Francisco and population centers like New York City. Do you think that immense amount of activity is coming from bored military employees posting funny cat pictures? I don't.

Shortly after Reddit made that blog post, an academic paper funded by Eglin was published on the follow topic: "Containment Control for a Social Network with State-Dependent Connectivity" (.pdf).

For those wondering about the significance of Oak Brook, Illinois on this list, it’s the headquarters of McDonald’s and several other corporations. The unusual amount of activity from Oak Brook is likely generated by marketing shills, but that’s another post entirely. Go visit /r/HailCorporate for more information. I don’t have answers for South St. Paul, MN.

How Covert Agents Infiltrate the Internet to Manipulate, Deceive, and Destroy Reputations

Over the last several weeks, I worked with NBC News to publish a series of articles about “dirty trick” tactics used by GCHQ’s previously secret unit, JTRIG (Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group). These were based on four classified GCHQ documents presented to the NSA and the other three partners in the English-speaking “Five Eyes” alliance. Today, we at the Intercept are publishing another new JTRIG document, in full, entitled “The Art of Deception: Training for Online Covert Operations.”

MUST READ

The Gentleperson's Guide To Forum Spies

Index:

COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum:

Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'

Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'

Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'

Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'

Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'

Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'

8 Traits of the Disinformationalist:

1. Avoidance.
   
   
2. Selectivity.
   
   
3. Coincidental.
   
   
4. Teamwork.
   
   
5. Anti-conspiratorial.
   
   
6. Artificial Emotions.
   
   
7. Inconsistent.
   
   
8. Time Constant.

17 Techniques for Truth Suppression:

1. Dummy up.
   
   
2. Wax indignant.
   
   
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors"
   
   
4. Knock down straw men.
   
   
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist"
   
   
6. Impugn motives.
   
   
7. Invoke authority.
   
   
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news"
   
   
9. Come half-clean.
   
   
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
    
    
11. Reason backward
    
    
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
    
    
13. Change the subject.
    
    
14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them.
    
    
15. Baldly and brazenly lie.
    
    
16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes.
    
    
17. Flood the Internet with agents.

25 Rules of Disinformation:

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
   
   
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
   
   
3. Create rumor mongers.
   
   
4. Use a straw man.
   
   
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
   
   
6. Hit and Run.
   
   
7. Question motives.
   
   
8. Invoke authority.
   
   
9. Play Dumb.
   
   
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
    
    
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
    
    
12. Enigmas have no solution.
    
    
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
    
    
14. Demand complete solutions.
    
    
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
    
    
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.
    
    
17. Change the subject.
    
    
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
    
    
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
    
    
20. False evidence.
    
    
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.
    
    
22. Manufacture a new truth.
    
    
23. Create bigger distractions.
    
    
24. Silence critics.
    
    
25. Vanish.

CONCLUSION

Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline.

This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.

More Info

25 February 2014. Related: GCHQ Full-Spectrum Cyber Effects:

http://cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-cyber-effects.pdf

24 February 2014. Related: GCHQ Online Deception:

http://cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-online-deception.pdf

GCHQ DISRUPTION Operational Playbook:

http://cryptome.org/2014/02/gchq-disruption.pdf

29 January 2014. Related: GCHQ Squeaky Dolphin Psychological Operations:

http://cryptome.org/2014/01/gchq-squeaky-dolphin.pdf (18MB)

4 March 2012. Precursor to this sabotage, OSS Sabotage of Organizations:

http://svn.cacert.org/CAcert/CAcert_Inc/Board/oss/oss_sabotage.html

 

[albin]

I think what's hard to pin down in suspected cases of social media manipulation, is that garden-variety douchebags also inadvertently tend to stumble across one or more of these techniques as a result of their life-experience.

 

[AdrianX]

SO thinking about the upcoming 2X fork, I though I would make a prediction on how it could resolve.

The fork to 2X will happen however there will be a genteelness agreement to soft limit to 1MB so Core and those who use Core are not forked of the network. They will be given 12 month to upgrade to accommodate the new 2MB block format.

During that time BS/Core developers are not going to integrate 2MB blocks, nor are their supporters. What could change is the support for 2MB could fall back to the pre agreement 40%BU and 60% Core the same ratio and Nash equilibrium we saw before the NYA.

After 12 Months those who agreed to Segwit2x are going to point out it can't be enforced and they are not going to risk being orphaned and losing money.

If negotiations start with suggestions to soft limit to 1MB, I'm going to go full Norway and buy more BCH.

 

[adamstgbit]

@AdrianX
Is there any evidence of this 1MB soft limit after 2x?

i think your assumptions about this causing 2MB to fall back to 40% are wrong.

if 2x will starts off with >90% of hash and many businesses like bitpay onboard, While a 1MB soft limit is maintained. then core nodes will be a very precarious software for any user to run, as it will only connect to other core nodes ( core is now discounting from BTC1 nodes right? ) . during the whole 1MB-soft-limit-grace-period , running a core node means agreeing to split with a clear a minority, while maintaining poor connectivity to the minning nodes and other important nodes. Who can afford to run a this shitty kind of node??? forking off from the meaningly lunatics that refuses consensus, will have more or less the same impact as the BCC fork, and then we can all call it B-Core and present its "just another dumb altcoin"


I will still value BCC even if segwit2x goes off without a hitch as described above. because... i feel that while we can all agree that "bitcoin" currently is bitcoin+segwit+2x, we're all going to feel this was only possible because of a sub-optimal compromise
and so we will be left with:
"bitcoin" = sub-optimal compromise.
"bitcoin cash" = original vision, low fees + 0 conf working because no RBF
"bitcoin core" = highly experimental "settlement layer" version of bitcoin.

some businesses will be forced to go with bitcoin cash, because they require a crypto that works as money.
while other businesses limp along trying to work with a sorta-broken crypto. good luck with that....
and with no clear answer as to which is the "real bitcoin", its hard to imagine the broken version will perform better.

edit: oh wow.... my grammar comes out so bad sometimes its horrific re-reading this post. sorry...

 

[Bagatell]

*redundant sub-optimal compromise

 

[Richy_T]

If there is only a *soft* limit of 1MB, I am sure that someone will soon enough put out a 1.001MB block just because...

And it could be either side at that.

 

[awemany]

@AdrianX , @Richy_T :

One should remind oneself that, luckily, that highly likely angle of expected bullshit and manipulation by Core has been predicted and prevented accordingly in the btc1 code base:

https://github.com/btc1/bitcoin/pull/50

But you are absolutely right, @AdrianX, that would have been the way to derail the 2x. If you look at the salty comments by shill-lard and the other detractors, you can see that this is (figuratively) also the weapon that's nicely and squarely stuck in the flesh of Bitcoin's enemies.

All that is left is these enemies gasping for "replay protection, replay protection" but it looks like Jeff Garzik is also firmly standing his ground there - and likely has also been instructed by the parties to the NYA agreement to do and keep doing so.

Fuck these assholes.

 

[awemany]

FYI, Here's someone who wants to bet against 2x on reddit.

EDIT: Drafting conditions, should this work?

"The bet is won by the big-blocker-side, if a block exceeding 1000,000 bytes base block size persists in the blockchain with the most cumulative hash power 1008 after blocks after the 2x HF date of FIXME. If not, the bet is won by the small-blocker-side."

@Peter R. didn't you bet with someone regarding an upcoming HF?

I rarely bet. But this is something I for once do indeed feel sure enough about.

 

[adamstgbit]

@awemany

should submit somthing like that to https://bitbet.us/

 

[awemany]

@adamstgbit: Thank you! They don't seem to have a 2x bet. Are they neutral on the blocksize issue? Does anyone have experience with them?

 

[adamstgbit]

@awemany
not sure if neutral.
but it seems they are doing all their betting with onchain TXs... maybe they should switch to bitcoin cash. lol.

 

[Peter R]

@Peter R. didn't you bet with someone regarding an upcoming HF?

I rarely bet. But this is something I for once do indeed feel sure enough about.

Yes, with RHavar.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/60yh6v/for_fun_and_profit_my_friendly_little_bet_with/

He wins if we get bigger blocks and the Core chain survives without a PoW change or difficulty reset. I win if the Core chain dies or if they hard-fork. The bet is a draw if nothing happens.

 

[awemany]

@solex: Didn't you guys want to pay to have all of BU's slack history? Or was that too expensive? (I kind of think it is)

Maybe there's a way to get special offers for open source teams?

@Peter R.: Ah, I see. I guess DJBunnies is just hot air, though, he's silent now that I called him out there on reddit. I guess that's a sign of sudden ball detachment syndrome, well, what can you do ...

(The bet would be even favorable to your and RHavar's one - just whether majority HP will go 2x and >1MB blocks)

 

[awemany]

Thinking about all this: A futures market for the Core 1x Shitcoin (defined through their github) should be doable, or shouldn't it?

Maybe something to earn some money for an exchange. I expect the price for the 1x shitcoin to be way less than $100.

 

[Richy_T]

Further to an earlier post I made a couple of pages ago, it occurs to me that eventually, miners might drop old UTXOs from the "live" UTXO set and if you want your money to be brought back into the realm of the living, you might have to pay a slightly higher fee to base a transaction off of it. The miner(s) then don't include it in the current block they are mining (unless it "comes back to life" in time) but it will be ready for the next block (or some later block). The higher fee would compensate for the extra work (so would not be significantly higher). If you want your money to stay current, you shuffle it around from time to time.

I see no reason to worry particularly about the UTXO set getting big. It's a red herring (aren't they all?)

 

[adamstgbit]

why would they drop old UTXOs?

isn't that sexist? ageist?

 

[albin]

In the modern Satoshi codebase clients the utxo set is stored on disk and cached in memory from what I understand, so given the BU x-tech features, there's really no incentive to drop any UTXO's, assuming you can keep up as new tx's come in. There are a lot of tweaks like putting chainstate specifically on SSD, or having a shit-ton of memory, both of which are realistic for a legit miner.

 

[lunar]

Thinking about all this: A futures market for the Core 1x Shitcoin (defined through their github) should be doable, or shouldn't it?

Maybe something to earn some money for an exchange.

@awemany that would be a pretty decent project. Take ViaBTCs exchange software and run a Segwit Futures and Bitcoin Cash market. No need to worry about fiat at all.

 

[Richy_T]

In the modern Satoshi codebase clients the utxo set is stored on disk and cached in memory from what I understand, so given the BU x-tech features, there's really no incentive to drop any UTXO's, assuming you can keep up as new tx's come in. There are a lot of tweaks like putting chainstate specifically on SSD, or having a shit-ton of memory, both of which are realistic for a legit miner.

True enough. But if the point is that that doesn't scale, the answer is that economic incentives can take care of it. Just because optimizations haven't been done, doesn't mean they can't be done.

It seems the transaction format is a bit sub-optimal anyway. Inputs are a TXID which means you either have to have that TX information on-hand or keep an index. If transactions also specified the block number of the transaction, it seems the transactions could be indexed directly from the blockchain itself. (Though this could have other complications I think)