Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
I think it's pretty safe to assume now that brgtroll is a marketing contractor for Blockstream, because that is the only logical explanation for why he had proprietary information about the Stalling conference ahead of time.

It's hilarious that with all the slanderous allegations made form their camp, Blockstream literally has a paid shill.
 

Aquent

Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
252
667
It's him - he seems to make a lot of comments under his own name in bitcoin related articles like http://techcrunch.com/2014/08/12/shift-is-developing-a-debit-card-that-lets-you-spend-digital-currency-loyalty-points-and-regular-money/

If he truly loves bitcoin (which sort of seems like he does) and he has been hired to manipulate or sockpuppet etc, he should blow the whistle and become a hero. No one can be absolutely certain of the right decision, but everyone can be absolutely certain of abhorrent behaviour such as hiring sockpupets or ddosing or trying to sabotage other implementations, etc. Such behaviour therefore should be exposed regardless of whether one agrees or not with the message as the need to even engage in such behaviour suggests awful motives.

It may be more likely though that he has been hired to do seo or some menial thing and finds himself willing to lick his client's boots. We probably don't even need to think they hiring sockpupetts when it also makes sense to think that they have far too many employees or contractors all of whom are very vocal in support of 1mb4eva, which in the end amounts to the same thing.

As an example, you may remember GibbsSamplePlatter and his constant support for small blocks - well it became obvious why:
If you look at this page: https://www.blockstream.com/team/ you can see just how many people they hire (a lot) and plenty are not even mentioned like presumably Gibbs whose real name I don't know.

You'll find many of them on the core slack channel as well. Obviously we know about Adam and his tweeter propaganda, but leviathan (Johnny Dilley, Strategy Director at Blockstream) is constantly there as well as the "core tech engineers" such as Warren Togami and of course we know about maaku and his empty threat that he will quit (which in a way amounts to trying to hold the whole community hostage) and gmax etc. I suspect mjimim or whatever his nick is, is probably employed by blockstream as well or awaiting an offer.

Of course it is not fair to paint blockstream as a fully monolithic entity - for example sipa just gets on with the code (most of the time) as does rusty and tries to stay out of it, and on the other hand there are some individuals who have been persuaded to favour small blocks (but are hardly vocal, if at all), but I think that the overall behaviour of blockstream and the majority of its employees shows that the survival of blockstream depends on controlling bitcoin which is an unfortunate and abhorrent conclusion, but fully explains their unwillingness to compromise as well as their ridiculous rhetoric.

I am not sure why they *need* such control though. I can only think that some or most or their main products depend on making protocol changes which they fear would be highly controversial and not accepted by the community. If they can persuade everyone of their silly theology that we should never hardfork, that something requires 100% consensus when they disagree but easily mergeable without that consensus when they agree because of whatever wordplay, that they the smartest people on earth and they know best and everyone should just shut up and follow along then I suppose they'd be able to change the protocol in whatever way they like to serve their bitcoin intranet for fee paying private products.
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
Is it this guy: https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.linkedin.com/in/bergealex4&prev=search ?

"
Account Manager
Soluvox
December 2013 - Present (2 years 2 months)
As an account manager at Soluvox, I held various positions:

• Business Development Manager for the social media sector
*• Social Media Strategy Advisor for companies *
• communities Manager
• Editor on our blog www.soluvox.ca/blogue/"
LOL professional digital influencer (shill - sock puppet)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
This is the way I visualize it:

Cool visualization.

I think before the fork, mind share is doing something similar. When the code is released in the next week or two, if it keeps the supermajority and they switch, the holdouts will be drilled away by the userbase, arguments can be presented to move the remaining hashrate to other pools... "Why are you, one or two pools, holding bitcoin back?, users: vote with your feet"
 

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
haven't looked to see if this has been posted, but for all the berg fans and foes out there: http://snoopsnoo.com/u/brg444

Also, he's on twitter and another forum (not bitcoin - i'll see if i can find it again, its been a while since I found it).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
Did Bitgo acquire Greenaddress?

The service sounds exactly the same, and even the logo (the shield with Bitcoin "B" on it) looks identical except colored blue.

The "Partners" list I imagine is the parties to which Bitgo is communicating their key lists securely?
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Over the past few days, I've noticed new FUDback loops emerge tied to the (incorrect) notions that:

1. There can be only one dominant implementation.
2. Developers will only contribute to one GitHub repo.

I think if we can break down these misconceptions, we can make further progress with Unlimited and Classic.

I tried to help break down #1 with this diagram (but it never really gained any traction):



The point of the last pie chart was to communicate that all Core has to do to stay relevant is to increase the block size limit so that its customers can track the longest chain. In fact, all it really has to do is give its customers the option to increase the limit through an advanced config window. It could even add all these scary warning to continue to promote their idea that the block size limit is some ultra-critical security parameter!

I've been trying to think up a good visual for #2 but haven't come up with anything yet.
[doublepost=1453223883][/doublepost]@Christoph Bergmann

Yes, feel free to use my diagrams as you please (I should add a CreativeCommons logo in the future).
 

bitsko

Active Member
Aug 31, 2015
730
1,532
"2. Developers will only contribute to one GitHub repo."

I remember seeing the bitcoin commit history visualized. If there are already examples of developers commiting to two different forks of a project on github, then could this not be visualized in that fashion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter R

sickpig

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
926
2,541
So now we see the RBF endgame:

http://www.coindesk.com/bitgo-instant-bitcoin-transaction-tool/

Destroy pre-existing functionality in order to promote a proprietary platform.

The ironic part is that many useful-idiots were roped into supporting RBF because they were afraid of exactly this outcome.

Nice trick, if you can pull it off.
if I got it right BitGo scheme is technically possibile even if opt-in RBF won't be deployed. Am I missing something obvious?

once RBF will be the default behaviour this will increase demand for bitgo like services, though.
 
Could you briefly describe this kind of attack?
I wrapped my head today around the "anyonecanspend"-Attack. This is how it works:

- to do a sw-transaction, first somebody has to create an output that looks like "anyonecanspend" (a special script that allows to use bitcoins on an adress as in input without the privkey) for old nodes, but new, updated nodes learn that the condition to spend them are in the segregated witness.
- to spend this transactions with the new nodes you need to store the signature in the segregated witness.
- new nodes can validate the signature of this kind of adress

But what is with old nodes? Old nodes see "anyonecanspend", and my old node should have no problem to use that output as in input. If only 25% of the network did update, my transaction can get through the network and reach a miner, and if the miner also didn't update, the tx goes in a block.

In short: bad guy can just steal all transactions when bitcoiners want to prepare outputs for segregated witness.

I don't believe this is possible, but I don't know how it is prevented with a softfork.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Could you briefly describe this kind of attack?
i don't know. i'm not Peter Todd ;)

i know core dev says that since tx's relayed thru these nodes aren't yours, then why care about validating and relaying? that's sounds lame to me and it's not hard to imagine surrounding an old node with a Sybil attack.

but how about if some exchange/miner like BTCC with >100 nodes worldwide decided to Sybil Attack/spend funds from one of Bitstamps cold wallets to itself? leave all it's 100 nodes as old code, self mine an non SW block, and then send it as a 1 tx SPV block to it's own nodes, like it often does already?
 
Last edited:

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
if I got it right BitGo scheme is technically possibile even if opt-in RBF won't be deployed.
Yes, it's technically possible.
once RBF will be the default behaviour this will increase demand for bitgo like services, though.
Correct.

It's also true that there's absolutely no reason this kind of feature has to be designed the way they did. They've decided to underwrite merchant processing,basically, which gives them the ability collect a toll on every retail payment as well as collecting analytics data which they can monetize if/when they decide to do so.

There is no reason for cryptographic reputation systems to have any of those properties. It's possible to build a superior system that's entirely user-controlled and bypasses gatekeepers like Bitgo entirely.
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
"2. Developers will only contribute to one GitHub repo."

I remember seeing the bitcoin commit history visualized. If there are already examples of developers commiting to two different forks of a project on github, then could this not be visualized in that fashion?
That video is awesome and shows that Bitcoin-dev is a completely fluid process! We should try to get more exposure for it.

It would be nice to have another visual like that too--but as a static image or animated GIF. I've noticed that people are more likely to view an image than press "play" on a video.
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
  • When you are quite certain to succed, make a large block. The risk is loss of one block's mining reward, plus some minutes of hashpower for the next block. Only one miner has to be first, because if one block succeeds, the risk is already greatly reduced. Most miners can just relax and wait until risk is eliminated.
I wonder if this is likely to be resisted until the halving. The block reward will be lower, meaning less potential loss and the overall hashrate is likely to be lower (not sure how that plays into it though).

It might also be an empty block that is artificially inflated that gets mined rather than a block with real transactions too.
 

YarkoL

Active Member
Dec 18, 2015
176
258
Tuusula
yarkol.github.io
That video is awesome and shows that Bitcoin-dev is a completely fluid process! We should try to get more exposure for it.

It would be nice to have another visual like that too--but as a static image or animated GIF. I've noticed that people are more likely to view an image than press "play" on a video.
Here you go

http://videogif.co/mkyLYFtuC4C/

or

http://i63.tinypic.com/v7xw88.gif




(takes a while to load)
Created with http://www.videogif.co/ that allows you tp turn max 20s segments of a youtube video into gif.

ps. what about my question?
 
Last edited:

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
@Justus Ranvier - Is that why Statoshi @lopp would not look at BitcoinUnlimited and stayed with promoting XT?
Lopp is moderator at r/bitcoinXT. not sure if that had anything to do with it. did he reject BU outright? that would be surprising.