Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@hoaxChain
I would maybe pull back a touch with the hammer over the head style, you're kind of devolving into Junseth-isms.
I would maybe pull back a touch with the hammer over the head style, you're kind of devolving into Junseth-isms.
hoaxChain
New Member
Thanks. We had not seen that.
What does this prove exactly?
CWS said:
http://web.archive.org/web/20140602022810/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2009_01_04_archive.html
So CWS was talking about Bitcoin in 2009? That proves it doesn't it? CWS = Satoshi
Maybe the earlier snapshot had an error or the page was temporarily removed in October 2013.
http://web.archive.org/web/20131017085510/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com.au/2009/01/bitcoin.html
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
The holy trinity of Satoshi 
Around the middle of 2009 (2) again asked me to run my computer so that we had another node for his client to connect onto.
"Why don't you get (3) to run his machine ?" I said.
"I have been," (2) said. "But he's getting annoyed having to run his computer all through the night and wanted me to get you to help out."
(2) didn't know that (3) and I had been talking frequently about many things over the past few months.
Pretty much every time there was correspondence between me and (2), I'd send an email off to (3) just in case (2) left something out in what I was asking folks to do or what text is supposed to be posted as an answer to someone's question.
I had to do that because (2) would quite often leave text out or adjust it so that its meaning or emphasis moved.
So I was already expecting this request from (2).
I'd already vented my frustration at (3), who'd calmed me down a wee bit.
This was good because it meant I didn't blast into (2) as much as I was going to.
"What the [redacted] have you been doing ?" I said. "You're supposed have been building up the network over the past few months so that we'd have actual real-world statistics on how nodes will function realtime. What kind of delay is realistic when transactions and blocks of various sizes were transmitted across the planet. What is the optimum number of connected nodes so that data can be propagated most efficiently."
"I've told you before," (2) said. "It's difficult to get anyone to run a node for long. They don't see any real world value in bitcoin but they do see the cost of electricity."
"I told you to get hackers involved in this right from the very start," I said. "My kind of people. Not yours. Hackers, Game programmers. They could include Bitcoin as the in-game currency. And just like on the World-of-Warcraft sites, folks would naturally start exchanging bitcoin into and out of their local fiat currency, thus creating an exchange rate automatically. The entire ecosystem already exists."
"Well, as I told you," (2) said. "I've already tried those computing and hacking sites. They're not interested."
"Really ?" I said. "And which sites would they be, exactly ? You've refused to tell me exactly what you've said and where you've said it to ask for help. And I've searched extensively all over the 'net trying to find any posts which may have come from you. I haven't found any yet."
"You've been trying to check up on me ?" (2) asked. "That's not a nice thing to do to a friend. I have been posting on forums, IRC channels and mailing lists. Just not the normal ones you would've checked out."
"You're saying that you've requested help," I said ."But not in the main locations that most of the folks in the industry would be. Just what mysterious sites have you been going to ?"
"That's none of your business," (2) said.
(...)
Multiple Handles
On the source-forge message-board all three of us had access to the Satoshi handle.
This had caused quite a problem as we often didn't read what the others had written and over time Satoshi would contradict what Satoshi had written just two weeks previously.
That's why we'd decided to create a new message-board and have the contradictory posts from source-forge disappear from the 'net.
In late 2009 (2), (3) and I had a huge discussion over the problem of these posts.
Some of the members of the message-board had begun to make posts which quoted various Satoshi messages which were stating opinions at odds with one another.
Most of those posts were between me and (2).
(2) would notice a question and didn't wanactt to wait until I was available to answer it - so he'd give an answer with which I was opposed.
Some of the members were starting to ask whether Satoshi was a single person or a group, as the posts were making it pretty obvious different people were posting under the same Satoshi handle.
The vocabulary was different, the grammar was different, the opinion and stance on a particular topic was different.
It was clear that Satoshi was having an identity crisis.
I wanted Bitcoin to go in one direction.
(2) wanted Bitcoin to go in another direction.
(3) just wanted to keep us together, going in the same direction.
"What are we going to do ?" (2) asked. "Everyone's suspicious of us now and they're pretty sure there's multiple people behind the Satoshi handle. We're [redacted]. All our effort of being able to hide behind a single character has gone."
"We're not [redacted] yet," I said. "We're going to have to create a new message-board. We're going to have this source-forge board fade away and disappear."
"How's that going to solve anything?" (2) said. "Everyone who's currently on the board is seeing all these posts questioning who Satoshi really is. They're analyzing every single post we've ever made and comparing the differences and posting times."
"We start a new board," I said." Folks memories a very poor. Over time they will forget the specific details of why they believe Satoshi is a group and not a single individual. They will only remember the hints that it may be so. There will no-longer be an proof once we move onto the new message-board."
"But those people right now are pretty convinced Satoshi is a group," (2) said. "Mainly because we kept posting opposite opinions on topics. What's stopping some of these people from making an archive copy of the source-forge message-board right now ? In the future they'd be able to show these contradictory Satoshi posts and Satoshi will no-longer be followed or accepted as an authority figure for giving guidance where Bitcoin should go."
"It's very unlikely anyone will save a copy of the source-forge message-board," I said. "They have no reason to. However, even if they do save a copy and later on post sections of it online, it is an easy thing to make folks believe it's faked text and damage the reputation of the poster. Remember: The current folks who are members of the Bitcoin community will end up being the minority in the future with the influx of new blood. The new folks will see Bitcoin as a way to transact and invest funds. They won't be like the current crop of members who see Bitcoin as an uber tech project and a hippy anti-establishment system."
"But what if they save an archive of the entire site ?" (2) asked. "Something that's not just a bit of text that can be changed. People would know that someone would've been able to fake an entire years worth of messages."
"If someone ends up doing that," I said. "And posts links to it on the 'net, then I'll come up with a solution to handle it. There's absolutely no point in worrying about something that has an extremely small chance of happening."
http://vu.hn/bitcoin origins.html#they-no-longer-listen-to-me
Around the middle of 2009 (2) again asked me to run my computer so that we had another node for his client to connect onto.
"Why don't you get (3) to run his machine ?" I said.
"I have been," (2) said. "But he's getting annoyed having to run his computer all through the night and wanted me to get you to help out."
(2) didn't know that (3) and I had been talking frequently about many things over the past few months.
Pretty much every time there was correspondence between me and (2), I'd send an email off to (3) just in case (2) left something out in what I was asking folks to do or what text is supposed to be posted as an answer to someone's question.
I had to do that because (2) would quite often leave text out or adjust it so that its meaning or emphasis moved.
So I was already expecting this request from (2).
I'd already vented my frustration at (3), who'd calmed me down a wee bit.
This was good because it meant I didn't blast into (2) as much as I was going to.
"What the [redacted] have you been doing ?" I said. "You're supposed have been building up the network over the past few months so that we'd have actual real-world statistics on how nodes will function realtime. What kind of delay is realistic when transactions and blocks of various sizes were transmitted across the planet. What is the optimum number of connected nodes so that data can be propagated most efficiently."
"I've told you before," (2) said. "It's difficult to get anyone to run a node for long. They don't see any real world value in bitcoin but they do see the cost of electricity."
"I told you to get hackers involved in this right from the very start," I said. "My kind of people. Not yours. Hackers, Game programmers. They could include Bitcoin as the in-game currency. And just like on the World-of-Warcraft sites, folks would naturally start exchanging bitcoin into and out of their local fiat currency, thus creating an exchange rate automatically. The entire ecosystem already exists."
"Well, as I told you," (2) said. "I've already tried those computing and hacking sites. They're not interested."
"Really ?" I said. "And which sites would they be, exactly ? You've refused to tell me exactly what you've said and where you've said it to ask for help. And I've searched extensively all over the 'net trying to find any posts which may have come from you. I haven't found any yet."
"You've been trying to check up on me ?" (2) asked. "That's not a nice thing to do to a friend. I have been posting on forums, IRC channels and mailing lists. Just not the normal ones you would've checked out."
"You're saying that you've requested help," I said ."But not in the main locations that most of the folks in the industry would be. Just what mysterious sites have you been going to ?"
"That's none of your business," (2) said.
(...)
Multiple Handles
On the source-forge message-board all three of us had access to the Satoshi handle.
This had caused quite a problem as we often didn't read what the others had written and over time Satoshi would contradict what Satoshi had written just two weeks previously.
That's why we'd decided to create a new message-board and have the contradictory posts from source-forge disappear from the 'net.
In late 2009 (2), (3) and I had a huge discussion over the problem of these posts.
Some of the members of the message-board had begun to make posts which quoted various Satoshi messages which were stating opinions at odds with one another.
Most of those posts were between me and (2).
(2) would notice a question and didn't wanactt to wait until I was available to answer it - so he'd give an answer with which I was opposed.
Some of the members were starting to ask whether Satoshi was a single person or a group, as the posts were making it pretty obvious different people were posting under the same Satoshi handle.
The vocabulary was different, the grammar was different, the opinion and stance on a particular topic was different.
It was clear that Satoshi was having an identity crisis.
I wanted Bitcoin to go in one direction.
(2) wanted Bitcoin to go in another direction.
(3) just wanted to keep us together, going in the same direction.
"What are we going to do ?" (2) asked. "Everyone's suspicious of us now and they're pretty sure there's multiple people behind the Satoshi handle. We're [redacted]. All our effort of being able to hide behind a single character has gone."
"We're not [redacted] yet," I said. "We're going to have to create a new message-board. We're going to have this source-forge board fade away and disappear."
"How's that going to solve anything?" (2) said. "Everyone who's currently on the board is seeing all these posts questioning who Satoshi really is. They're analyzing every single post we've ever made and comparing the differences and posting times."
"We start a new board," I said." Folks memories a very poor. Over time they will forget the specific details of why they believe Satoshi is a group and not a single individual. They will only remember the hints that it may be so. There will no-longer be an proof once we move onto the new message-board."
"But those people right now are pretty convinced Satoshi is a group," (2) said. "Mainly because we kept posting opposite opinions on topics. What's stopping some of these people from making an archive copy of the source-forge message-board right now ? In the future they'd be able to show these contradictory Satoshi posts and Satoshi will no-longer be followed or accepted as an authority figure for giving guidance where Bitcoin should go."
"It's very unlikely anyone will save a copy of the source-forge message-board," I said. "They have no reason to. However, even if they do save a copy and later on post sections of it online, it is an easy thing to make folks believe it's faked text and damage the reputation of the poster. Remember: The current folks who are members of the Bitcoin community will end up being the minority in the future with the influx of new blood. The new folks will see Bitcoin as a way to transact and invest funds. They won't be like the current crop of members who see Bitcoin as an uber tech project and a hippy anti-establishment system."
"But what if they save an archive of the entire site ?" (2) asked. "Something that's not just a bit of text that can be changed. People would know that someone would've been able to fake an entire years worth of messages."
"If someone ends up doing that," I said. "And posts links to it on the 'net, then I'll come up with a solution to handle it. There's absolutely no point in worrying about something that has an extremely small chance of happening."
http://vu.hn/bitcoin origins.html#they-no-longer-listen-to-me
- Aug 19, 2015
- 511
- 803
Been looking for something to read on a long flight, thanks.
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
fresh from rbtc!!
the US national institute of standards and technology (NIST) published draft NISTIR 8202 on january 2018 which states (lines 1060-1064):
the US national institute of standards and technology (NIST) published draft NISTIR 8202 on january 2018 which states (lines 1060-1064):
it's too bad NIST irreparably lost all credibility and purpose for existing after being compromised by the NS@, but i have to say i did enjoy reading that.
that's remarkable. remarkably accurate.
[doublepost=1517183305][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1517183305][/doublepost]
i can hear the screams from r/bitcoin already. whadda they gonna do? troll NIST?
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
This report is like another block on the NISTchain.
So... which one of you works for NIST? Wouldn't it be correct to say it forked and that neither side of the fork is the original... and who uses BCC instead of BCH.
For the holy trinity of Satoshi, does anyone have any understanding of who (2) and (3) are?
For the holy trinity of Satoshi, does anyone have any understanding of who (2) and (3) are?
Is it really possible to define which is the "original blockchain"? Just looking at the blockchain itself, one could make arguments for BTC or for BCH.
Looking at patterns in the number of leading zeros in the blockheader hash, BCH definitely broke the pattern during the fork: the number of leading zeros dropped sharply during the first EDA.
The BTC blockchain also changed because suddenly there were "extension blocks" tacked on to the side of each block.
The BCH blockchain returned fees to historically-normal levels (i.e., cheap).
The BTC blockchain maintained the same signature scheme.
I think the reality is just that the blockchain split on August 1, 2017, into two branches, thereby ending the initial era of Bitcoin as a single cohesive chain. Trying to go further and pick the "real" bitcoin seems like a giant no-true-scotsman exercise to me.
Looking at patterns in the number of leading zeros in the blockheader hash, BCH definitely broke the pattern during the fork: the number of leading zeros dropped sharply during the first EDA.
The BTC blockchain also changed because suddenly there were "extension blocks" tacked on to the side of each block.
The BCH blockchain returned fees to historically-normal levels (i.e., cheap).
The BTC blockchain maintained the same signature scheme.
I think the reality is just that the blockchain split on August 1, 2017, into two branches, thereby ending the initial era of Bitcoin as a single cohesive chain. Trying to go further and pick the "real" bitcoin seems like a giant no-true-scotsman exercise to me.
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
After having read parts of the document, I conclude (2) is CSW and (3) is Dave Kleiman, and (2) is the main part of the project, as has been 'confirmed' by Ian Grigg:
http://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001593.html
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
@bitcool
"Is it really possible to define which is the "original blockchain"?"
Yes, it is. It's - by definition - Bitcoin - A Peer-To-Peer-Electronic Cash System.
It's the same with the homo sapiens who forked about 10'000 years ago into a caricature of himself, a nationalized homo oeconomicus (tribute slave/collectivist). But that fork is an unsustainable Ponzi bubble that can't survive. The original still exists in the rain forest and it will be the one that survives.
"Essentially, the economy is an engine that transforms resources into waste." Ugo Bardi
"Is it really possible to define which is the "original blockchain"?"
Yes, it is.
It's - by definition - Bitcoin - A Peer-To-Peer-Electronic Cash System.It's the same with the homo sapiens who forked about 10'000 years ago into a caricature of himself, a nationalized homo oeconomicus (tribute slave/collectivist). But that fork is an unsustainable Ponzi bubble that can't survive. The original still exists in the rain forest and it will be the one that survives.
"Essentially, the economy is an engine that transforms resources into waste." Ugo Bardi
Last edited:
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@bitcoool
I think this is all a very nuanced question that is highly debatable having to do with parsing out what is essential and inessential to the concept of Bitcoin-ness.
Core declared this question trivially easy with their Dunning-Kruger "softforks are always Bitcoin" principle (and the subsequent patronizing regime of echo chamber pleasing pontifitweets), but we, without the benefit of being disingenuous hypocrites in order to push a political ideology, have to do the heavy lifting of actually figuring all this out.
I think this is all a very nuanced question that is highly debatable having to do with parsing out what is essential and inessential to the concept of Bitcoin-ness.
Core declared this question trivially easy with their Dunning-Kruger "softforks are always Bitcoin" principle (and the subsequent patronizing regime of echo chamber pleasing pontifitweets), but we, without the benefit of being disingenuous hypocrites in order to push a political ideology, have to do the heavy lifting of actually figuring all this out.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Well, it was figured out well before Segwit locked in, that it's no soft-fork from a miner's perspective.
You either enforce the changed rules, or you get orphaned. No different from a hard fork there, but this brings us back to a long time ago in this thread, and I don't want to harp on it, just mention it for the sake of newcomers who might be confused by the whole "soft forks good, hard forks bad" and "But Segwit is a soft-fork!" propaganda. Strictly, the lines are very blurry.
You either enforce the changed rules, or you get orphaned. No different from a hard fork there, but this brings us back to a long time ago in this thread, and I don't want to harp on it, just mention it for the sake of newcomers who might be confused by the whole "soft forks good, hard forks bad" and "But Segwit is a soft-fork!" propaganda. Strictly, the lines are very blurry.
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
I would agree. No-one is currently extending the chain which has 1MB and no Segwit, which was the original. And I believe no-one would make money doing that, since rolling back all the history since 1 Aug 2017 is unpopular and there doesn't seem anyone who wanted those restrictive rules to continue.
As for BCC, there are still some big name exchanges using it, like Binance, Bittrex, ... [1]
That's unfortunate but historically influenced - I also think it would be better to just settle on BCH but exchanges are free to use what ticker symbols they want.
[1] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcoin-cash/#markets
So folks, what's your opinion on this:
It is a guy with a hardware/machinist/teardown channel which I sometimes happen to browse. I noticed the topic, watched it and given the source, I consider this to be someone not really stupid, though only half-knowledgeable on this and definitely from 'outside the bubble/scene'.
He's unlikely to be a Core shill, as he's repeatedly pointing out the massive fee problems that Bitcoin has.
But he has a very curious omission from this whole 12min long video.
Echoing the recent r/btc observation of BCH having some kind of PR issue: What gives? How does that happen? What is the psychology behind this? Is "Bitcoin Cash" causing people to somehow sort it under the mental category of 'ah and then there also was..'?
@singularity : The details of the BCH-Public relations are maybe something for your Bitcoin Cash Fund to explore?
It is a guy with a hardware/machinist/teardown channel which I sometimes happen to browse. I noticed the topic, watched it and given the source, I consider this to be someone not really stupid, though only half-knowledgeable on this and definitely from 'outside the bubble/scene'.
He's unlikely to be a Core shill, as he's repeatedly pointing out the massive fee problems that Bitcoin has.
But he has a very curious omission from this whole 12min long video.
Echoing the recent r/btc observation of BCH having some kind of PR issue: What gives? How does that happen? What is the psychology behind this? Is "Bitcoin Cash" causing people to somehow sort it under the mental category of 'ah and then there also was..'?
@singularity : The details of the BCH-Public relations are maybe something for your Bitcoin Cash Fund to explore?
- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Despite the video seemingly being published around New Year 2018 (I didn't bother to check exact date), the poor shlub has not heard that an upgrade happened in August last year and is called Bitcoin Cash. Otherwise he might have tried it?
Unfortunately many people lap up the "Bitcoin Cash is a scam" propaganda being rammed into all social media channels right now. I wonder if this guy would check it out above the noise level. He calls Monero a "criminal's coin" without much introspection, and Monero's been around forever.
Watercooler / pub talk, spread via Youtube. That's reality.
Unfortunately many people lap up the "Bitcoin Cash is a scam" propaganda being rammed into all social media channels right now. I wonder if this guy would check it out above the noise level. He calls Monero a "criminal's coin" without much introspection, and Monero's been around forever.
Watercooler / pub talk, spread via Youtube. That's reality.
Last edited:
Chris Pacia demonstrating just how outta touch LN devs are:
@awemany i wouldn't take it too seriously. BCH is up against a large number of core trolls who pound forums all day long to stop it. it's just going to take time. the BCH/BTC cross is bottoming out though, imo and we have some large buy walls:
https://i.imgur.com/t0TBiDv.png
@awemany i wouldn't take it too seriously. BCH is up against a large number of core trolls who pound forums all day long to stop it. it's just going to take time. the BCH/BTC cross is bottoming out though, imo and we have some large buy walls:
https://i.imgur.com/t0TBiDv.png
79b79aa8
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2015
- 1,031
- 3,440
i agree with @hodl, i wouldn't take the perceived bad press too seriously. BCH wins when there is substantive worldwide adoption. as we all know this happens iff BCH is useful, which is something users find out when they satisfy a real world need (they make a payment or money transfer) with a solution that is superior to all others on offer (cheaper, easier to use, secure, reliable, permissionless).
of course bad image is a bad thing and good PR is a great asset, so there is no room for self-satisfaction. but at the same time most people in the world do not speak english, let alone know what reddit is, or follow twitter feeds. in any case the bad press is apparently is not driven by the end-game users described above but by recent investors who haven't yet gotten a 3x and think keyboard warrioring is going to tip the balance in their favor. in other words, these are investors looking for an out-of-the-ordinary return, yet didn't put money in bitcoin before it was in the 4 digits hence don't own that much % of the ledger, who don't understand the fundamentals and who can't see through the Core obfuscation, which a competent observer like a NIST scientist easily can.
of course bad image is a bad thing and good PR is a great asset, so there is no room for self-satisfaction. but at the same time most people in the world do not speak english, let alone know what reddit is, or follow twitter feeds. in any case the bad press is apparently is not driven by the end-game users described above but by recent investors who haven't yet gotten a 3x and think keyboard warrioring is going to tip the balance in their favor. in other words, these are investors looking for an out-of-the-ordinary return, yet didn't put money in bitcoin before it was in the 4 digits hence don't own that much % of the ledger, who don't understand the fundamentals and who can't see through the Core obfuscation, which a competent observer like a NIST scientist easily can.
