bitcoin: a sisyphean nightmare, forever trapped in an endless wall of sperg

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > bitcoin: a sisyphean nightmare, forever trapped in an endless wall of sperg

«‹›17 »

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

unpacked robinhood posted:

Arrêtez de poster des putain de trucs anormaux

J�dete pendejo, yo no soy un puto truc an�malo.

# ¿ Jul 4, 2015 22:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 14:29

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

i just jumped about three pages because I cannot stand you guys butchering the glorious Japanesa language so maybe I missed this...

quote:

After accessing the servers, Bitstamp staff noted a suspicious data transfer on the network logs, dated 29 December 2014, between 1129-1201 CET. The data transfer was approximately 3.5GB and was sent to an unfamiliar German IP addess (185.31.209.128).

The data transfer struck an ominous chord because 3.5GB is the approximate size of
the wallet.dat file containing Bitstamp�s Bitcoin wallet [see Appendix C for the log file
relating to this transfer ].

https://bitstampincidentreport.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/270137312-bitstamp-incident-report-2-20-15.pdf

# ¿ Jul 4, 2015 23:05

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

It's been a time since I have read anything about garza so I went to check hashtalk and it has already disappeared, so now there is paycoin talk, where the most popular thread is this one

quote:

List Of Current Profitable Cloud Mining / Investment Companies 2015

which is just a list of ponzi sites for retards with "medium" to "low" risk

quote:

April Coin
https://aprilcoin.com
Investment based company where you just deposit and decide if you would like to compound or not.
Returns: 0.1% Hourly (2.4% Daily)
Risk: Medium

Lets check that site's faq

quote:

Compounding Questions

What is compound?

Compound interest is interest added to the principal of a deposit so that the added interest also earns interest from then on. This addition of interest to the principal is called compounding.

Which compounding modes does AprilCoin offer?

AprilCoin offers 0%, 25%, 50% and 100% compounding rates.

How can I change my compound percentage?

Yes, You can change your compound percentage on �my deposit� section, anytime you feel need to.

but if that's too risky for you then you can use low-risk 5% a-day places

quote:

Lionery
https://lionery.com
Investment Company that pay back 150%
Returns: 1% to 5% each day up to %150
Risk: Low

I guess they still have some money to lose

trucutru fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Jul 5, 2015

# ¿ Jul 5, 2015 20:10

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

In that Charles Xavier thread

quote:

sf85dude 12 points 12 hours ago

I don't think people will pay to read and contribute content no matter how small. Why not just have a mechanism for advertisers to bid on ad space? The funds would go to nodes, mods, and maybe content creators. You can even have checks and balances to cancel poor ads via some public consensus.

quote:

ryancarnated 1 point 11 hours ago

Actually, just look at how widely used Changetip is in the bitcoin world. People love being able to reward content producers for good content. And people do, of course, pay to download content. NYTimes, Netflix, etc.

quote:

[�]MarshallBanana 2 points 8 hours ago

I'd love to. How widely used is it?

quote:

[�]ryancarnated 1 point 3 hours ago

I don't have any numbers, but it's extremely common to see people using Changetip to tip good work.

quote:

[�]MarshallBanana 1 point an hour ago

Indeed.

# ¿ Jul 6, 2015 19:37

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Zeond posted:

Carl Mark Force IV pleaded guilty and while the plea agreement was good, laff futures declined significantly as there won't be a trial for either him or bridges. sentencing is set for october and he could be going away for anything between 3 and 20 years.

Is bfl still on schedule for september?

Well this shows that even a comically inept moron is still smarter than the DPR

# ¿ Jul 6, 2015 21:56

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Linguica posted:

Remember the guy who rewrote bitcoin in javascript on reddit's dime

Well, now he wants to rewrite reddit itself.. but with bitcoin!

Yeah, he already got like 12 cents donated. Give it a couple millennia and it should be ready.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2015 01:15

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Aleksei Vasiliev posted:

$0.30 if you want your transaction to go through within half an hour lol

VERY MISLEADING you fudster, nothing guarantees that it will go through in less than half an hour.

# ¿ Jul 7, 2015 04:52

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

somebody will explain it properly but, so that you get the idea click here:

https://www.bitcoin.com/en/choose-your-wallet

what wallet does roger's site recommend to you?

Now check here:

https://www.bitcoin.com/en/bump-wallet

Is the wallet that was recommended also the one with the most donations? :iiam:

# ¿ Jul 7, 2015 05:17

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

quote:

Each user funds their own app with a small amount of bitcoin. In order to download content, the user pays a very, very small amount of bitcoin to the peers on the network.

Has anybody told the butters that, with the current 30 cent fee for prompt-verification, butts are no longer a competitive micro-transaction platform?

# ¿ Jul 7, 2015 17:15

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

FCKGW posted:

with the current backlog time, it's faster to drive your money from one side of the country to another than it is to send a bitcoin

But how about remittances?

anthonypants posted:

hmm no, that idea's too centralized. what if, we get a network of relay runners, and

in the early days of butts this was actually suggested by an ideas man. A blind dead-drop relay runner service. Since you didn't know what you were carrying (it is drugs) you had plausible deniability, as I learned from some law books I found in a trash bin.

trucutru fucked around with this message at 18:23 on Jul 7, 2015

# ¿ Jul 7, 2015 18:20

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

JStolfi on the fork:

quote:

[�]jstolfi 12 points 16 hours ago*

The core devs tried to activate BIP66 through a very soft fork, so that clients would not even know that it was happening (otherwise they might get alarmed at the word "fork"). So they just let the new rule to be silently activated as soon as 95% of the miners signaled that they had upgraded to the new version of the software (v3). To make the transaction as smooth as possible, they allowed the players (clients, relay nodes, and miners) running both v2 and v3 to talk to each other even after the transition.

But that plan backfired because some v3 miners got a block B from one of the few remaining v2 miners and started to mine on top of it, not realizing that B was invalid under the v3 rules. For a while, that was the longer branch. That branch was perfectly valid for clients still running v2, and was assumed to be valid by some v3 wallet apps that did not do full checking of the blockchain. Meanwhile, other v3 miners, realizing that B was invalid, ignored that branch and started growing (more slowly) their own branch. The 'bad' branch was already 6 blocks long when the core devs (who fortunately were watching the blockchain at the time) managed to warn those miners that they were mining an invalid branch. Those 6 blocks were then discarded, and the 'good' branch soon overtook it. Fortunately there were no double-spends, and all transactions that were confirmed in the 'bad' branch were eventually confirmed in the 'good' branch too.

The same problem occurred again a few hours later, and this time the 'bad' branch only got to 3 blocks before being abandoned. It is not known whether there were double spends this time.

To guard against possible repeats of the incident, possibly with double-spends, the devs had to issue a warning to all clients (even v3 ones, depending on the software they are using) to wait 30 confirmations (5 hours) for safety.

Thus, what was supposed to be a "stealth" fork became a major PR disaster.

IMHO, the devs blotched the fork. They should have programmed a delay of (say) 2 weeks between the "95% majority" event and the enabling of the BIP66 rules. Then they could have sent a waring to all v2 players, especially the remaining v2 miners and relay nodes, that they should upgrade before BIP66 went into effect. But that would have been bad PR... ha ha.

[�]Prom3th3an 2 points 15 hours ago

Would that even have stopped the false advertising of v3 compliance?

[�]jstolfi 5 points 15 hours ago

I don't see that as quite "false advertising".

One thing is the 'consensus rules' that say when a block is valid. Another thing is the algorithm that miners use when building the blocks that they try to mine. The 'v3' label refers to the former only. By stamping 'v3' on their mined blocks, they only indicated that they agreed to the version of the 'consensus rules' that enforces BIP66 after the triger event.

The software that those miners were running would indeed have checked the BIP66 rule, if it got a chance to do so. But the software only checked the transactions to be included in the block that they were mining, and not those of the parent block that they got from another miner.

The v3 'consensus rules' say that a block is valid after the trigger event only if the transactions satisfy BIP66 (among other conditions) and the parent block is valid. But the v3 rules don't say that miners have to fully check that the blocks that they issue are valid. It would be better for bitcoin if they did, but miners have the 'right' to create their blocks any way they want, even post blocks full of random bits.

The miners should want to post valid blocks rather than invalid ones, because invalid blocks don't pay anything; but they must win the race against other miners to earn anything. They figured out that they would earn more by gambling that the previous block was valid, and mining on top of its hash only, than by downloading it and verifying it first. If the previous block was v3-valid, their block would be v3-valid too. If the previous block turned out tobe invalid, well, bad luck.

The Bitcoin Core release that includes v3 does verify the parent block before mining on top of it; but miners are not required to run BitcoinCore, and the v3 'consensus rules' do not require anyone to run a particular version of the software.

quote:

[�]jstolfi 12 points 16 hours ago*

An interesting detail is how the big pools steal the hash of the most recent block from other pools, even before it gets out to the relay nodes. That is why they couldnot even check its version stamp.

[�]DoctorDbx51% sandwiches 5 points 7 hours ago

Just so I am clear, as I have been out of the scene for a while, but are you saying these bigger pools monitor the feed of other pools, and steals their mined blocks before the confirmation of block success can propagate?

[�]jstolfi 3 points 3 hours ago

Yes, that is what I have been told. And it makes sense. All they have to do is subscribe anonymously as members of the other pools, and they will get that information as soon as the pool manager receives a mined header from some other member. The pool's interest is to make sure that the block just mined is valid, and to put all its members to mine on top of it as soon as possible, while it its still sending it out to the relay nodes.

[�]DoctorDbx51% sandwiches 2 points 3 hours ago

hahah poo poo... I wonder which pools are doing this?

All the big ones I imagine... and to each other too I bet.

[�]jstolfi 6 points 9 hours ago

To be precise, a miner gets bitcoins for being the first to mine the next valid block. They are not required to verify anything (and it is not possible to check whether they are indeed verifying anything.) They only verify enough to maximize their expected gain.

In particular, when they steal the hash of a recently mined block from some other pool, they are quite confident that it will be a valid block. So they don't bother to check it, and that gives them a few precious seconds of advantage in the block race.

Usually that is a safe assumption; it failed in this case because of the switch-on of BIP66 and the "victim" of the theft rbeiong out of date.

trucutru fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jul 7, 2015

# ¿ Jul 7, 2015 18:31

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

So, it's been a while since we posted some milkcrate mining rigs...

and all that for that sweet 1/6 of the pie.

gently caress the earth!

# ¿ Jul 7, 2015 18:54

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Heresiarch posted:

i was thinking more along the lines of getting paid for it

have you asked the buttcoin foundation?

# ¿ Jul 7, 2015 19:39

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

maniacdevnull posted:

So, it's like pieces of eight, you chop them up once and they're now bits forever, there's no way to recombine/defrag your buttcoins and make them whole chunks again?

Yes, you can consolidate all those inputs by grouping them together in a (large) transaction. The wallet that receives the butts will now have a single unspent input instead of thousands. Of course, this makes it easier to track the butts so many of the more :tinfoil:

butters don't do it.

There are a shitload of issues with bitcoin that could be fixed by using their own loving distributed hash-generating network to automatically consolidate those inputs or to prune the blockchain but it's impossible to make changes in that poisoned environment.

blugu64 posted:

wait guys, I just realized that if you had enough of the mining power, it would behoove you to spam the blockchain. it would drive up transaction fees, and cost you almost nothing because you'd be solving enough blocks to recapture the fees from the transaction spam you yourself created.

Yeah, that is what many of the dudes at r/bitcoin suspect, that the large chinese mining operators banded together to do this. But the fees are such an anemic source of butts (since nobody uses bitcoin) that it should be more trouble than it's worth.

trucutru fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jul 8, 2015

# ¿ Jul 8, 2015 02:34

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Buttcoin purse posted:

How would a transaction that says:

Input 1: 0.0001 from address A
Input 2: 0.0001 from address A
Input 3: 0.0001 from address A
Output 1: 0.0002 to address A
Mining fee: 0.0001

help you trace butts? "Clearly the owner of address A still has the private key for address A"?

Because in your example all the inputs are in the same address, so it is obvious that the same person controls all of them. In reality people use wallets that handle a shitload of bitcoin addresses, each one with a small amount of coins so it is not immediately obvious that the person who just spent some butts on some quality buttplug is the same person giving a donation to Ron paul, as would be the case if the butts had been consolidated first.

Edit: read this as an intro to the wonderful world of bitcoin wallets http://bitzuma.com/posts/five-ways-to-lose-money-with-bitcoin-change-addresses/

trucutru fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Jul 8, 2015

# ¿ Jul 8, 2015 05:50

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

jony ive aces posted:

i, too, enjoyed it

anything that says "assume everyone is an idiot" is p yospos. death is certain hail satan
also killhamster and divabot don't forget this post that was actually first posted here by divabot

the wider-scale problem is of pools not verifying other pools' mined blocks, but the even funnier problem is that at least one small pool apparently wasn't even verifying the signatures on the transactions it mined. so it could have in theory been used to steal butts (especially with both of those problems working in tandem)
lol

an interesting effect of this is that if a pool is being spied on by all the others then it might not be able to do that selfish mining thing that was theorised where a pool would not immediately broadcast its mined blocks in the hope of having a headstart on mining the next block afterwards. it wouldn't work since it obviously has to send the mined block to its own miners and therefore the other pools' spies. otoh since they'd just be getting the hash and not the whole block it probably still would gently caress it up for a competitor if they are first to get the followup block without the earlier block being published in full so idk i guess maybe it would still work

otoh if a pool is successfully doing selfish mining then them spying on all their competitors could be helpful since they'd have earlier warning of a competitor mining an equivalent to a block they were witholding, so could immediately publish theirs and hope that it propagates better and is used

ugh that's a lot more words than i had meant to write so i'll just end this post with

selfish mining would still work, it just would be even more obvious that you were doing it, but who gives a drat in fygm land? (If the controller hides the actual block and only forwards the header to the miners then it could be lying and other miners listening to the spies could soft-fork the network).

trucutru fucked around with this message at 14:35 on Jul 8, 2015

# ¿ Jul 8, 2015 14:29

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Boxturret posted:

start the stress test during a fork while the chief scientist is on vacation, whoever did this is a genius

the chief scientist that they despise with the intensity of a thousand suns (because he tends to make sense and doesn't drink the flavor-aid)

Linguica posted:

In case "Porcfest" sounds familiar, yes it was this

It could be a new trial , where hopefully the whole story can be told, ~~or my semi-naked girlfriend could come rescue me in a helicopter~~, or the case could be dismissed altogether

trucutru fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Jul 8, 2015

# ¿ Jul 8, 2015 23:36

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

Greyhawk posted:

Ryan X. Charles
‏@ryanxcharles

I'm happy to announce I'm now full-time on the decentralized reddit project.

well, that's quite the positive serial entrepreneur spin.

i wonder if he'll make yet another freaking ama about his current situation

On the professor X. Charles thread

most upvoted:

quote:

[�]WBlackJackandHookers 27 points 4 hours ago

"You wanna fire me...Fine...I'll build my own decentralized Reddit...with Blackjack...and Hookers."

quote:

[�]kenfagerdotcom 6 points 3 hours ago

And /r/fatpeoplehate. Never forget.

quote:

[�]cap2002 11 points 5 hours ago

A fitting tribute to his layoff from Reddit. Bravo.

[�]cpgilliard78 8 points 4 hours ago

Lay me off and I'll disrupt your business with 100 lines of python code.

his reply:

quote:

[�]ryancarnated 9 points 3 hours ago

Hey friends. It's really awesome to see the positive response about all this. Will be posting more information soon.

edit: Oh, and, as always, AMA.

i loving *knew* it

trucutru fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Jul 8, 2015

# ¿ Jul 8, 2015 23:44

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

InShaneee posted:

so wait...the fork happened because they can't convince enough mining pools to upgrade to the new software, and now their solution to the backlog is to disincentivize fees? bet that goes over great.

It happened because the miners are supposed to verify transactions to see if they are valid but gently caress that! you would have to spend some precious seconds doing that instead of generating a few trillion random numbers per second.

# ¿ Jul 9, 2015 08:30

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

the freemarket is such a bitch

# ¿ Jul 9, 2015 15:50

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

quote:

I got charge a 0.08872 transaction fee for withdrawing 0.136 BTC from BTCjam. Wtf? (imgur.com)

submitted 19 hours ago by ihavebad80hd

[�]BTCJammer 9 points 15 hours ago

this address is spamming our wallet (1JceroDThChGfsfTC2ZbGjafPQoFm5mZbF) with small transactions causing withdraws to have an unusual number of inputs. We are currently working to solve this issue right now. Thanks for the heads up.

If you have any additional questions or need some help reach out to us at support@btcjam.com.

[�]ihavebad80hd[S] 2 points 8 hours ago

Thanks for responding. Strange that even you guys are a victim of this spamming.

lol, so you can send a lot of dust poo poo to an address to force its owners to pay more in fees to move coins out unless they reconfigure their wallet to avoid dust-consolidation.

currency of the future

# ¿ Jul 9, 2015 16:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 14:29

trucutru: Jul 9, 2003; by Fluffdaddy

The Kins posted:

brazil.txt actually got finished, though?

he actually finishes at around the 2/3 point in that story

# ¿ Jul 9, 2015 21:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > bitcoin: a sisyphean nightmare, forever trapped in an endless wall of sperg

«‹›17 »