Emir's cornell email it's public domain: egs@systems.cs.cornell.edu. So need to PM it to you
p.s. no bath for me last night in Milan, too tired
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
p.s. no bath for me last night in Milan, too tired
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Good story from @Aquent :
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/viabtc-might-block-segwit-calls-1mb-blocks-network-suicide-moves-bitcoin-unlimited/
@sickpig If you fall asleep in the bathtub, you could drown
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/viabtc-might-block-segwit-calls-1mb-blocks-network-suicide-moves-bitcoin-unlimited/
@sickpig If you fall asleep in the bathtub, you could drown
pekatete
Active Member
Looks like that is a no go question for him, I asked the same on reddit and still have my eyes peeled. Well well, I'll suppose most pools are aware of the attack and have a fix.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
I recall in like spring of 2014 this exact kind of attack was devastating to both BTCGuild and Eligius, and for BTCGuild in particular, I wouldn't be surprised if the fallout of the situation contributed greatly to the subsequent rapid loss of hashrate and eventual loss of will to deal with the Bitlicense, leading to shutdown.
From what I recall supposedly it had to do with a fairly large (~1% total hashrate) miner in China privately putting together his own hardware, and running his own buggy cgminer fork that threw an exception when share difficulty was > 2^32, thus making it impossible to submit a block solution when difficulty exceeded 4 billion, yet still accumulating shares. I remember an amusing thread on Bitcointalk where someone purporting to be this miner was bickering about Eligius explicitly withholding his money. On the BTCGuild side, that era was grim, because the pool luck was just implausibly low for way too long.
Edit: btw an unrelated tangent I can't resist about Bitlicense. The very idea of regulating pools somehow on the idea that they have custody of customer funds is patently insane. Our beloved Prof. Bitcorn actually even scribbled this in handwritten pen on top of a printout of the draft text and submitted these scans as his comments, because apparently he's such a rockstar that he can just submit it like he's grading their paper, instead of producing written comments like a regular human being. Anyway, say you're hashing on a pool, you're basically doing a job that the pool operator pays you to do. The UI basically tells you what the pool owes you. This is further substantiated by the fact that in the US, mining revenue is taxed as income. If there's any interpretation that has legs that categorizes pools as MSB's simply because of perceived funds custody, then I don't see how eventually we don't avoid any employer at all being an MSB because they presumably hold your money until the date by which checks are cut arrives!
From what I recall supposedly it had to do with a fairly large (~1% total hashrate) miner in China privately putting together his own hardware, and running his own buggy cgminer fork that threw an exception when share difficulty was > 2^32, thus making it impossible to submit a block solution when difficulty exceeded 4 billion, yet still accumulating shares. I remember an amusing thread on Bitcointalk where someone purporting to be this miner was bickering about Eligius explicitly withholding his money. On the BTCGuild side, that era was grim, because the pool luck was just implausibly low for way too long.
Edit: btw an unrelated tangent I can't resist about Bitlicense. The very idea of regulating pools somehow on the idea that they have custody of customer funds is patently insane. Our beloved Prof. Bitcorn actually even scribbled this in handwritten pen on top of a printout of the draft text and submitted these scans as his comments, because apparently he's such a rockstar that he can just submit it like he's grading their paper, instead of producing written comments like a regular human being. Anyway, say you're hashing on a pool, you're basically doing a job that the pool operator pays you to do. The UI basically tells you what the pool owes you. This is further substantiated by the fact that in the US, mining revenue is taxed as income. If there's any interpretation that has legs that categorizes pools as MSB's simply because of perceived funds custody, then I don't see how eventually we don't avoid any employer at all being an MSB because they presumably hold your money until the date by which checks are cut arrives!
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
The letter to the SEC already leaked!
Dear Sirs, I am Thermos, CAO (chief agitprop officer) of Axa-PwC-Blockstream-Core, none other than the greatest censor of all times.
We are a bit in trouble at the moment, especially our CTO, but I can assure you, it's just a flesh wound!
I strongly recommend that Bitcoin will be defined explicitly as the cryptocoin controlled by the software of The Honourable Society, which forever will be represented by The Four Magnificent Seven:
Adam Back, inventor of Bitcoin
Gregory Maxwell, inventor of Everything
Peter Todd, the greatest advisor since Seneca
Luke 500 kB jr., official Speaker of the God of all Gods
Yours faithfully
Thermos
Dear Sirs, I am Thermos, CAO (chief agitprop officer) of Axa-PwC-Blockstream-Core, none other than the greatest censor of all times.
We are a bit in trouble at the moment, especially our CTO, but I can assure you, it's just a flesh wound!
I strongly recommend that Bitcoin will be defined explicitly as the cryptocoin controlled by the software of The Honourable Society, which forever will be represented by The Four Magnificent Seven:
Adam Back, inventor of Bitcoin
Gregory Maxwell, inventor of Everything
Peter Todd, the greatest advisor since Seneca
Luke 500 kB jr., official Speaker of the God of all Gods
Yours faithfully
Thermos
Last edited:
pekatete
Active Member
The entire letter is poetic, but this .... brilliant!
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
Bitcoin Unlimited has a new Secretary in the person of Peter Rizun.
His track record speaks for itself and I hope you will join me in offering heartfelt congratulations to @Peter R
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip032-passed-vote-peter-r-for-secretary.1504/
We thank @digitsu and @TrevinHofmann for putting their names forward. It really shows the strength of this organization that we had three incredible candidates for the one position.
The Bitcoin Unlimited Foundation has taken a back-seat due to the efforts placed in our recent conference but this will come to the forefront, so we still hope to expand the organization further and more roles will be made open for those interested in the challenge.
[doublepost=1476393421][/doublepost]Bitcoin Unlimited also welcomes four new members.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip031-passed-new-members-for-election-2.1498/
Congratulations to @cliff, @Norway, @chriswilmer and @tim potter
We will be updating the membership list on our website. The default is assuming that members want anonymity. Anyone who is a member and is OK with being public on our website is asked to get in touch and we can add their real-name as this does give us a better image overall.
His track record speaks for itself and I hope you will join me in offering heartfelt congratulations to @Peter R
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip032-passed-vote-peter-r-for-secretary.1504/
We thank @digitsu and @TrevinHofmann for putting their names forward. It really shows the strength of this organization that we had three incredible candidates for the one position.
The Bitcoin Unlimited Foundation has taken a back-seat due to the efforts placed in our recent conference but this will come to the forefront, so we still hope to expand the organization further and more roles will be made open for those interested in the challenge.
[doublepost=1476393421][/doublepost]Bitcoin Unlimited also welcomes four new members.
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip031-passed-new-members-for-election-2.1498/
Congratulations to @cliff, @Norway, @chriswilmer and @tim potter
We will be updating the membership list on our website. The default is assuming that members want anonymity. Anyone who is a member and is OK with being public on our website is asked to get in touch and we can add their real-name as this does give us a better image overall.
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
Secretary Peter
(Sorry, that was Peter G, not Peter R)
[doublepost=1476394848][/doublepost]@solex
I'm very interested in a role for future conferences. I have to say I was very lucky to get Roger Ver to open his wallet for the "Hard Fork Café"-event and use his connections to fill the room with hashpower.
@Norway: Did you organize that event? I really think I should have gone to Milan. Maybe next conf in Europe
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
@awemany
Yes, but I don't think many know. Even @theZerg worried that Rogers event could collide with mine, he he. I met Roger Ver in Milan thursday, two days before the event.
He liked the idea, and when I told him I tried to arrange it without a budget, he just said he would pay. What a man!
I had to borrow @theZerg's laptop to design the paper invitations, and @sickpig helped me cutting them out with scissors in my hotel room over a beer
Yes, but I don't think many know. Even @theZerg worried that Rogers event could collide with mine, he he. I met Roger Ver in Milan thursday, two days before the event.
He liked the idea, and when I told him I tried to arrange it without a budget, he just said he would pay. What a man!
I had to borrow @theZerg's laptop to design the paper invitations, and @sickpig helped me cutting them out with scissors in my hotel room over a beer
Ok. So on this Metcalfe's idea thing and Greg causing facepalms and laughter all around:
Of course this is all unchartered territory and economics is in general not falsifiable, especially if it is such a one time experiment like Bitcoin. That's why I take the whole correlation with a grain of salt - though don't doubt a bit the general trend of more transactions possible -> higher value of BTC( ... who'd have thought... /s)
And I must say that even though I do feel the grain of salt is more than appropriate, the match is indeed uncannily good.
Now, there are on some guys from the Corium side of things trickling into my reddit submission on Greg being very gregarious, downplaying the whole thing. "Why log? That seems weird." seems to be a common complaint. Another one is 'well, we don't know'. (Yes, we don't know as well, but we point this graph out, no kidding ... /s)
Now, I have done my fair share of count rate histograms and the like in semilogy plotting (actually up until the point when I was full of them).
It is absolutely clear to me why @Peter R. appropriately used a log plot here. I really wonder now, how many of those fight the graph because
a) it doesn't fit their world view
b) they don't understand it why you plot this like you do
c) they are paid to not understand it
I also have to say that I have first real doubts about Greg's competency now.
We really should have a shill / paid troll index. Because maybe with some patience and after removing the burden of needlessly dealing with those of type c), we could, with patience, maybe still move some from b) at least. /u/ytdm digging up a recent small blocker who's at least convinced now that Core is full of shit is an example.
But maybe I should also be optimistic and this might soon not be necessary anymore. One can hope!
[doublepost=1476399106][/doublepost]@Norway: Sounds awesome, great job, and yes I think Roger seems to be a great guy in gettings things moving. Great to have him on our side.
Of course this is all unchartered territory and economics is in general not falsifiable, especially if it is such a one time experiment like Bitcoin. That's why I take the whole correlation with a grain of salt - though don't doubt a bit the general trend of more transactions possible -> higher value of BTC( ... who'd have thought... /s)
And I must say that even though I do feel the grain of salt is more than appropriate, the match is indeed uncannily good.
Now, there are on some guys from the Corium side of things trickling into my reddit submission on Greg being very gregarious, downplaying the whole thing. "Why log? That seems weird." seems to be a common complaint. Another one is 'well, we don't know'. (Yes, we don't know as well, but we point this graph out, no kidding ... /s)
Now, I have done my fair share of count rate histograms and the like in semilogy plotting (actually up until the point when I was full of them).
It is absolutely clear to me why @Peter R. appropriately used a log plot here. I really wonder now, how many of those fight the graph because
a) it doesn't fit their world view
b) they don't understand it why you plot this like you do
c) they are paid to not understand it
I also have to say that I have first real doubts about Greg's competency now.
We really should have a shill / paid troll index. Because maybe with some patience and after removing the burden of needlessly dealing with those of type c), we could, with patience, maybe still move some from b) at least. /u/ytdm digging up a recent small blocker who's at least convinced now that Core is full of shit is an example.
But maybe I should also be optimistic and this might soon not be necessary anymore. One can hope!
[doublepost=1476399106][/doublepost]@Norway: Sounds awesome, great job, and yes I think Roger seems to be a great guy in gettings things moving. Great to have him on our side.
Last edited:
You guys are awesome!
Thanks again to everybody working for Unlimited! The first ray of hope is there, thanks to your work.
~10% Hash power for big blocks lately!
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
Apologies to everyone for a long overdue dive into emergent consensus with illustrated examples:
https://medium.com/@solex1/decentralizing-the-block-size-limit-1fe8f86730c#.v2pvrs96r
[doublepost=1476428891][/doublepost]@Norway
Great job on organizing the "rebel" meeting. It certainly would have helped Haiyang's decision-making about whether to go with BU and our onchain scaling vision.
https://medium.com/@solex1/decentralizing-the-block-size-limit-1fe8f86730c#.v2pvrs96r
[doublepost=1476428891][/doublepost]@Norway
Great job on organizing the "rebel" meeting. It certainly would have helped Haiyang's decision-making about whether to go with BU and our onchain scaling vision.
pekatete
Active Member
Dusty
Active Member
- Mar 14, 2016
- 362
- 1,172
I suppose you did not a reality check, discovering that that was only another stalling technique, and Core has decided to not fork, ever.
If you was in Milan you should have talked with them and discovered that with "block size increase" they only mean to use things like segwit and schnorr sigs to pack more tx in the same 1MB block.
cliff
Active Member
- Dec 15, 2015
- 345
- 854
-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC $639.28
Gemini Daily $635.945 | 1950 BTC | Total $1,240,092.75
-------------------------------------
XAU (spot)* $1,258.06
COMEX CG1* $1,259.50
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX - FFR) 0.0358% | BTCswap(Polo) 0.0286%
-------------------------------------
HashRate 1.83 EH/s
MarketCap $10,173,247,267
BTC Dominance 80.8%
Exchange Volume (BTC) $59.90m
Exchange Volume (ALT) $26.23m
Exchange Volume [BTC] Dominance 69.5%
-------------------------------------
GBTC* $92 | SPDR Gold Trust ETF* $119.38
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas 1.79%
Copper* $212.6/lb
Crude (WTI)* $50.58/barrel
*Indicates price at market opening
** Prev Close
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP!
-------------------------------------
BTC $639.28
Gemini Daily $635.945 | 1950 BTC | Total $1,240,092.75
-------------------------------------
XAU (spot)* $1,258.06
COMEX CG1* $1,259.50
-------------------------------------
BTCswap(BFX - FFR) 0.0358% | BTCswap(Polo) 0.0286%
-------------------------------------
HashRate 1.83 EH/s
MarketCap $10,173,247,267
BTC Dominance 80.8%
Exchange Volume (BTC) $59.90m
Exchange Volume (ALT) $26.23m
Exchange Volume [BTC] Dominance 69.5%
-------------------------------------
GBTC* $92 | SPDR Gold Trust ETF* $119.38
-------------------------------------
10YR Treas 1.79%
Copper* $212.6/lb
Crude (WTI)* $50.58/barrel
*Indicates price at market opening
** Prev Close
-------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
- Decentralizing the Block Size Limit (solex)
- Emergent Consensus: Guide to Forking Safely (wallstreettechnologist)
- ‘Bitcoin Unlimited’ Hopes to Save Bitcoin from Itself (Motherboard)
- Bitcoin: to invest or not? (The National)
- [Abstract] Anonymity, Cybercrime and the Connection to Cryptocurrency
- Payment Services Evolution: From the European Directive of 2007 to the Digital Single Market and The European Directive of 2015. (Jiminez, International Journal of Social Science and Economic Research, PDF)
-------------------------------------
Last edited:
I didn't expect them to be so clear on the contentious matters. This really is a nice surprise.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
another great article from @digitsu
Emergent Consensus: Guide to Forking Safely
Is this just speculation, or a tease at something in pipeline?
Would be great to see other clients start adopting BUIP005. Imagine the momentum if Classic, XT, bitcore and btcd all opted to implement this?
Emergent Consensus: Guide to Forking Safely
Is this just speculation, or a tease at something in pipeline?
Would be great to see other clients start adopting BUIP005. Imagine the momentum if Classic, XT, bitcore and btcd all opted to implement this?