Reddit User Account Overview

/u/

/u/Contrarian__
Redditor Since March 27, 2011 (3,387 days old)
Karma Posts: 6,015 Comments: 28,044 Combined: 34,059
Active in


https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/

The risk of a chainsplit due to the "IFP" (or tax) combined with the automated rolling checkpoints is **highly significant even in the absence of intentionally malicious behavior.** This fact is met with [incredulity and scorn](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiyec25/?context=3) even among popular developers. This was also prompted by the [false assertion](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fixwbae/) that BCN would follow the 'longest chain': > For exchanges and users, this client will follow the longest chain whether it includes IFP soft forks or not. This is dangerously misleading. Rather than give another high-level argument, I decided to run the numbers on the actual risk. To that end, I wrote a simple [simulation](https://repl.it/repls/DistantRottenBrace). It makes some simplifying assumptions, but is generally conservative in that it probably *underestimates* the actual risk. Here are some assumptions: * The tax soft-fork gets locked in on ABC due to signalling at 2/3 hashrate * The ABC nodes reject any non-tax blocks * The BCN nodes do not reject them * The BCN miners do not pay the tax *at least initially* What do you think the probability is that a chainsplit will happen within *one day* if ABC miners have 2/3 hashrate and BCN miners have 1/3? If you guessed **greater than 90%**, then congratulations, you're right. (It's > 99% within 2 days.) In fact, the **average** time it takes for a chainsplit to happen with those parameters is about 10 hours, with an average of fewer than 10 blocks getting orphaned total. Even with ABC miners commanding 3/4 hashrate and BCN only 1/4 hashrate, the average time to a chainsplit is just over a day. Here are the raw numbers for the **average time and orphans until a chainsplit happens**: BCN Hash Hours Orphans 0.4 5.8 3.96 0.39 6.16 4.46 0.38 6.6 5.06 0.37 7.1 5.77 0.36 7.64 6.41 0.35 8.33 7.49 0.34 9.03 8.45 0.33 10.18 10.0 0.32 11.05 11.17 0.31 12.37 13.0 0.3 13.89 15.15 0.29 16.24 18.04 0.28 18.33 20.86 0.27 20.98 24.11 0.26 24.88 28.77 0.25 29.66 34.58 0.24 37.33 43.72 0.23 46.81 54.67 0.22 60.5 69.43 0.21 74.54 84.24 0.2 98.13 107.52 0.19 146.08 155.97 0.18 199.75 205.13 0.17 272.91 268.44 0.16 423.32 396.75 0.15 759.05 669.78 0.14 1134.56 946.42 Yesterday I posed [my own question](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiygzte/) to /u/NilacTheGrim: > Parameters: ABC has 2/3 hashrate, BCN has 1/3. > How long do you think it takes before BCN locks in a chainsplit with p >= 0.25? The answer is around five hours, rather than his answer of "173 days". As is apparent from the data, one way to mitigate this risk is to make the signalling threshold for the tax much higher. Even with BCN miners having only 15% of hashrate, the probability of a natural chainsplit within two days is around 10%. After ~90-95% hashrate signalling, the risk of a chainsplit is negligible in normal conditions. **So if you take only one thing away from this, it's that the 2/3 hash signalling is FAR TOO LOW to prevent a natural chainsplit**, due to the automated rolling checkpoints and "unparking" PoW penalty in ABC and BCN. Alternatively, if BCN removed the automated checkpoints and unparking PoW penalty, the risk would also be minimal in normal conditions. Again, this analysis is in the absence of an intentional attack. The risk only increases with the presence of any malicious actors. (Thanks to these fine [comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffapqej/) and [posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/am8fsl/bitcoin_abcs_parked_blocks_feature_allows/).)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 12:59:20

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/dq56fu/some_numbers_behind_bchs_daa_oscillations_which/

In short, there are [winners and losers](https://i.imgur.com/aTgyobH.png) as a result of the DAA "gaming", which isn't surprising. However, I wanted to see exactly who's benefiting, so I graphed the average difficulty per solved block per pool for each day over the past few weeks. You can think of this as representing something close to "relative cost per hash". The percentage next to the pool's name is their share of blocks over the total time period. Consistently, BTC.TOP has benefited the most from the oscillations, and not *just* because they are the "largest pool". In fact, there is a significantly larger "pool" in the "Unknown miner" that has paid to the same address, and they have not topped BTC.TOP's performance. (In the chart, that's Unknown5.) In a similar vein, BTC.com has been one of the poorest performers (or the most honorable, depending on your perspective), despite being a comparatively large pool. The revenue differences may seem relatively insignificant (about an 8% difference separates the best from the worst performers), but in terms of *profitability*, it could have significant ramifications. [Here is my raw output](https://pastebin.com/jUEfvG1m). I guessed the pools from the coinbase scriptSig and/or their scriptPubKey clustering behavior.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on November 1, 2019 10:44:31

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/bdxkrf/the_fraud_continues_craig_wright_just_purposely/

Craig Wright's fraud continues. Yesterday, he [submitted into evidence](https://www.scribd.com/document/406503654/Fake-email-from-Dave-to-Uyen) an email he says was from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen asking her to be a director of his 'bitcoin company' in **late 2012**. It is provably fake. **Craig didn't realize that the email's PGP signature includes a signing timestamp along with the ID of the key used as metadata.** Was the email actually sent **in 2012**? Let's find out! The beginning of the signature is as follows: iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTH+uQAAoJELiFsXrEW+0bCacH/3K Converted to hex, it's: 89 01 1c 04 01 01 02 00 06 05 02 *53 1f eb 90* 00 0a 09 10 **b8 85 b1 7a c4 5b ed 1b** 09 a7 07 ff 72 We [know](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880) how to find the long ID of the key used and the timestamp of the signature. I've bolded the ID and italicized the timestamp. Looking on the MIT keyserver, we can [find the fake* key](https://i.imgur.com/5ooGihN.png). **The timestamp of the signature is 1394600848, which is March 12, 2014, two weeks before Craig filed to install Uyen as a director of Dave's old company, and almost a year after Dave died!** We can double-check with `gpg -vv`. Transcribe the email and paste it in. Here's the output: :signature packet: algo 1, keyid B885B17AC45BED1B version 4, created 1394600848, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest 09 a7 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2014-03-12) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID B885B17AC45BED1B) (I'll note, as an aside, that Dave apparently spelled his name incorrectly and put a typo in the subject.) *The fake key has the same pref-hash-algos as Craig's fake keys, and were never updated.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/CryptoCurrency on April 16, 2019 14:45:55

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bdxjuy/the_fraud_continues_craig_wright_just_purposely/

Craig Wright's fraud continues. Yesterday, he [submitted into evidence](https://www.scribd.com/document/406503654/Fake-email-from-Dave-to-Uyen) an email he says was from Dave Kleiman to Uyen Nguyen asking her to be a director of his 'bitcoin company' in **late 2012**. It is provably fake. **Craig didn't realize that the email's PGP signature includes a signing timestamp along with the ID of the key used as metadata.** Was the email actually sent **in 2012**? Let's find out! The beginning of the signature is as follows: iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTH+uQAAoJELiFsXrEW+0bCacH/3K Converted to hex, it's: 89 01 1c 04 01 01 02 00 06 05 02 *53 1f eb 90* 00 0a 09 10 **b8 85 b1 7a c4 5b ed 1b** 09 a7 07 ff 72 We [know](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880) how to find the long ID of the key used and the timestamp of the signature. I've bolded the ID and italicized the timestamp. Looking on the MIT keyserver, we can [find the fake* key](https://i.imgur.com/5ooGihN.png). **The timestamp of the signature is 1394600848, which is March 12, 2014, two weeks before Craig filed to install Uyen as a director of Dave's old company, and almost a year after Dave died!** We can double-check with `gpg -vv`. Transcribe the email and paste it in. Here's the output: :signature packet: algo 1, keyid B885B17AC45BED1B version 4, created 1394600848, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest 09 a7 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2014-03-12) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID B885B17AC45BED1B) (I'll note, as an aside, that Dave apparently spelled his name incorrectly and put a typo in the subject.) *The fake key has the same pref-hash-algos as Craig's fake keys, and were never updated.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 16, 2019 14:43:53

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/b47ysk/dr_dr_dr_prof_craig_wright_esq_accidentally/

In his [newest article](http://archive.is/qljA9), Craig says: > Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency ... **At no point have I said that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, a currency in any form**, or anything monetary-wise other than digital electronic cash. Compare that to [when Satoshi announced Bitcoin 0.3](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.msg2004#msg2004): > Announcing version 0.3 of **Bitcoin, the P2P cryptocurrency! Bitcoin is a digital currency** using cryptography... Also of note, Craig himself called it a 'cryptocurrency' in one of his [faked blog posts](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) supposedly from August of 2008. > I have a **cryptocurrency** paper out soon. Of course, that doesn't match Satoshi's recorded thoughts on the word: > In one e-mail, **Satoshi pointed to a recent exchange on the Bitcoin e-mail list in which a user referred to Bitcoin as a “cryptocurrency,”** referring to the cryptographic functions that made it run. > “**Maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin**. Do you like it?” Satoshi asked. “It sounds good,” Martti replied. “A peer to peer cryptocurrency could be the slogan.” From: Nathaniel Popper. “Digital Gold.” (That email exchange would have been around mid-2009, almost a year after Craig's **totally real** blog post.) I feel like he's not even trying anymore. Lest anyone get the wrong idea, this post isn't meant as a serious proof that Craig's not Satoshi. That's [already been well established](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b318ih/in_honor_of_craig_wrights_ragequit_from_twitter_i/eiwho2w/). This is simply to point and laugh.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Buttcoin on March 22, 2019 13:38:52

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/b479rk/please_excuse_the_craig_wright_spam_but_this_is/

In his [newest article](http://archive.is/qljA9), Craig says: > Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency ... **At no point have I said that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, a currency in any form**, or anything monetary-wise other than digital electronic cash. Compare that to [when Satoshi announced Bitcoin 0.3](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=238.msg2004#msg2004): > Announcing version 0.3 of Bitcoin, the P2P **cryptocurrency! Bitcoin is a digital currency** using cryptography... Also of note, Craig himself called it a 'cryptocurrency' in one of his [faked blog posts](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) supposedly from August of 2008. > I have a **cryptocurrency** paper out soon. Of course, that doesn't match Satoshi's recorded thoughts on the word: > In one e-mail, **Satoshi pointed to a recent exchange on the Bitcoin e-mail list in which a user referred to Bitcoin as a “cryptocurrency,”** referring to the cryptographic functions that made it run. > “**Maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin**. Do you like it?” Satoshi asked. “It sounds good,” Martti replied. “A peer to peer cryptocurrency could be the slogan.” From: Nathaniel Popper. “Digital Gold.” (That email exchange would have been around mid-2009, almost a year after Craig's **totally real** blog post.) I feel like he's not even trying anymore.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 22, 2019 12:40:17

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinsv/comments/axyra5/craig_accidentally_proves_hes_not_satoshi_again/

Here's [Craig](https://medium.com/@craig_10243/the-story-of-bitcoin-continued-2f1ec78ba38b): > "I worked on Bitcoin for a long time before I found something **that would not be able to be used in a manner that was anonymous**." > ... > "I designed Bitcoin to create an **immutable evidence trail**, money that is private and yet does not suffer the fate of Gyges. Anonymity is a curse. Nothing good comes of it." First, having Bitcoin participants be 'anonymous' is literally on the first [announcement](https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09959.html) from Satoshi. Second, he [reaffirms](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=13.msg46#msg46) its importance [again and again](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=8.msg34#msg34). Third, (and most importantly) he even says that Bitcoin would be **better** if it didn't need every transaction to be public. Here's the [real Satoshi](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg8637#msg8637): > "If a solution was found [to avoid creating a public graph of every transaction], a much **better**, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible." I mean, he conclusively states that the only reason for the 'public ledger' is to prevent double-spends: > "It's the need to check for the absence of double-spends that requires global knowledge of all transactions." A couple messages later he says: > "What we need is a way to generate additional blinded variations of a public key ... Then you need to be able to sign a signature such that you can't tell that two signatures came from the same private key. I'm not sure if always signing a different blinded public key would already give you this property. If not, I think that's where group signatures comes in. With group signatures, **it is possible for something to be signed but not know who signed it**." > "As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it. If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it." So, Satoshi was **highly interested in transaction anonymity** and leaving out 'immutable evidence trails'. This is basically how Monero works.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bitcoinsv on March 6, 2019 08:21:37

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinsv/comments/asc40q/craig_wright_accurately_accused_of_lying_under/

In this [recent thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinsv/comments/artxzb/craig_wright_falsely_accused_of_lying_under_oath/), /u/gjgjhyyt77645tyydhg5 accused me of lying or being mistaken about Craig Wright lying under oath, which I did [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9w3tzc/csw_appears_to_be_threatening_legal_actions_but/). However, unsurprisingly, it turns out **he** was lying (or mistaken). He said: > Part A of the afadavit mention 2 address's controlled by the "financier" Contrarian claims the addresses [https://www.scribd.com/document/379265751/Kleiman-Lawsuit-Exhibit-4](https://www.scribd.com/document/379265751/Kleiman-Lawsuit-Exhibit-4) . Contrarian then claims they are ,mentioned here. [https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html](https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html) >But they are not. Alas, they actually are. They are the [second and third](https://blog.wizsec.jp/2018/02/kleiman-v-craig-wright-bitcoins.html) addresses discussed. This statement he made becomes suddenly fairly ironic: > The idiots in r/btc never bother to check, they just cheer it on I didn't see any members of this sub or the other SV sub check the claim. They simply 'cheered it on'. I await his apology for that issue. Also, I must only assume he's changed his mind about Craig Wright's claim of being Satoshi. He further confused himself by saying: > In the other point Contrarian doesn't understand the difference between a joint shareholding and one in one persons name. Craig indicated the shares were held jointly. However, when one member of a jointly shared party dies, the shares go to the other member, even if the deceased had a will. Craig, moreover, claimed to subsequently be the sole shareholder and had a controlling vote in the shareholders' meeting. His shares were indicated to be in **his own name**, so he was undeniably a shareholder, which he subsequently denied, also under oath.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bitcoinsv on February 19, 2019 11:19:17

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9uua0y/bitcoin_sv_supporters_now_claiming_that/

I'm loath to give these people attention, so I'll just copy a snippet: > It is at this point that Bitmain will accuse Coingeek of being a malicious miner and an attacker, when Coingeek will be simply exercising its right as a miner to vote with CPU. It's insane on its face, but for those who need it spelled out explicitly, here's why: What distinguishes an 'attacking miner' from an 'honest' miner is intention. The white paper describes an ‘attack’ where a miner follows all the rules of bitcoin, yet is still labeled as an ‘attacker’: > We consider the scenario of an attacker trying to generate an alternate chain faster than the honest chain. Even if this is accomplished, it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes, such as creating value out of thin air or taking money that never belonged to the attacker. Nodes are not going to accept an invalid transaction as payment, and honest nodes will never accept a block containing them. An attacker can only try to change one of his own transactions to take back money he recently spent. Clearly, the 'attacker' is following all the rules of Bitcoin, and could (as claimed above) say they were just 'voting with their CPU'. The reason they're an 'attacker' is not because they're breaking a rule in Bitcoin, but because they're doing something with *malicious intent*. In the whitepaper example, they're trying to steal; in the SV example, they're trying to starve or re-org, so exchanges won't function and people won't be able to use the chain.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on November 6, 2018 19:36:55

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9sznrc/calling_out_nchain_why_hasnt_nchain_addressed_the/

Over six months ago, Craig Wright, Chief Scientist of nChain, [was shown to have blatantly plagiarized](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/) a paper he put out [in the name of nChain](https://i.imgur.com/U8XqRzL.png). There was no official response from nChain, other than Craig's [blaming it on other nChain employees](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/983947880833732608), even though the issue wasn't merely a 'missed citation'. This week, I've given **undeniable** [proof](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/) of [two more instances](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sexx0/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/) of *blatant and intentional* plagiarism (as well as potential copyright infringement) in academic-style papers, again put out **in nChain's name**. **There has still been no response from nChain,** and only [more lies](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1057163348226334720) from their Chief Scientist. The lead developers of the SV software have already [purposely](https://youtu.be/tPImTXFb_U8?t=4392) turned a blind eye to the fact that their Chief Scientist is almost certainly a [fraud](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9i3xj3/nchain_establishes_a_new_standard_of/e6gxz3b/) who used his dead friend as cover for his lie about being Satoshi Nakamoto: > Steve Shadders: “On the question of whether I believe Craig Wright is Satoshi, **it doesn’t matter to me, whether he is or not**. Thought hard about this, but I think if I was offered a cryptographic proof that I would probably say no because I think that would just fundamentally change something, and **it really just doesn’t matter."** > Dan Connolly: "When I came to join nChain, I had to have a think about it, and what it comes down to is: **it doesn't matter**." They both seriously considered the matter, but came to the conclusion that **it's not relevant whether their boss is a lying fraud**. If fraud is not important, then plagiarism (and potential copyright infringement) likely isn't, either. Is this type of behavior endemic to the culture at nChain? Are there any assurances that Bitcoin SV is free from copyrighted material? Ironically, nChain is primarily an intellectual property company; the fact that they apparently do not care about plagiarism (or potential copyright infringement) is quite hypocritical. **Why hasn't nChain addressed the multiple instances of blatant plagiarism by its Chief Scientist?** For anyone who'd like answers, here is nChain's [official Twitter](https://twitter.com/nChainGlobal), as well as their CEO's (Jimmy Nguyen) [Twitter](https://twitter.com/JimmyWinMedia). I've already notified them, but they've remained silent.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/CryptoCurrency on October 31, 2018 11:14:50

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sz7qs/calling_out_nchain_why_hasnt_nchain_addressed_the/

Over six months ago, Craig Wright, Chief Scientist of nChain, [was shown to have blatantly plagiarized](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/) a paper he put out [in the name of nChain](https://i.imgur.com/U8XqRzL.png). There was no official response from nChain, other than Craig's [blaming it on other nChain employees](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/983947880833732608), even though the issue wasn't merely a 'missed citation'. This week, I've given **undeniable** [proof](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/) of [two more instances](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sexx0/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/) of *blatant and intentional* plagiarism in academic-style papers, again put out **in nChain's name**. **There has still been no response from nChain,** and only [more lies](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1057163348226334720) from their Chief Scientist. The lead developers of the SV software have already purposely turned a blind eye to the fact that their Chief Scientist is almost certainly a [fraud](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9i3xj3/nchain_establishes_a_new_standard_of/e6gxz3b/) who used his dead friend as cover for his lie about being Satoshi Nakamoto: > Steve Shadders: “On the question of whether I believe Craig Wright is Satoshi, **it doesn’t matter to me, whether he is or not**. Thought hard about this, but I think if I was offered a cryptographic proof that I would probably say no because I think that would just fundamentally change something, and **it really just doesn’t matter."** > Dan Connolly: "When I came to join nChain, I had to have a think about it, and what it comes down to is: **it doesn't matter**." They both seriously considered the matter, but came to the conclusion that **it's not relevant whether their boss is a lying fraud**. If fraud is not important, then plagiarism (and potential copyright infringement) likely isn't, either. Is this type of behavior endemic to the culture at nChain? Are there any assurances that Bitcoin SV is free from copyrighted material? Ironically, nChain is primarily an intellectual property company; the fact that they apparently do not care about plagiarism (or potential copyright infringement) is quite hypocritical. **Why hasn't nChain addressed the multiple instances of blatant plagiarism by its Chief Scientist?** For anyone who'd like answers, here is nChain's [official Twitter](https://twitter.com/nChainGlobal), as well as their CEO's (Jimmy Nguyen) [Twitter](https://twitter.com/JimmyWinMedia). I've already notified them, but they've remained silent.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 31, 2018 10:25:57

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/9sghwl/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/

[Old plagiarism 1](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/). [Old plagiarism 2](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/). New plagiarism from [this paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3151940). Here are the two uncited sources: [source 1](http://www.uvm.edu/pdodds/files/papers/others/2005/newman2005a.pdf) and [source 2](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00276314). There may be more uncited sources, but I got bored. These two sources cover almost half of the paper. As before, the plagiarism is blatant and intentional. He basically substituted the word 'transaction' for 'infection' and made minimal other textual changes. All the math has been stolen because Craig [simply can't do math](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8cmq15/nchain_releases_nakasendo_royaltyfree_software/dxjc4iu/). Various Examples: * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/MYEV0fg.png) * [Source 1](https://i.imgur.com/tj2U5EF.png) and (maybe the most obvious -- just click back and forth on these two images) * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/Xc47j7o.png) * [Source 2](https://i.imgur.com/S6M5MHn.png) and * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/DiWWSqu.png) * [Source 2](https://i.imgur.com/1pwPrYq.png) Serially taking credit for other people's work. It's the Craig Wright way.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on October 29, 2018 15:43:14

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9sexx0/craig_wright_actually_did_completely_original/

[Old plagiarism 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/). [Old plagiarism 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/). New plagiarism from [this paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3151940). Here are the two uncited sources: [source 1](http://www.uvm.edu/pdodds/files/papers/others/2005/newman2005a.pdf) and [source 2](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00276314). There may be more uncited sources, but I got bored. These two sources cover almost half of the paper. As before, the plagiarism is blatant and intentional. He basically substituted the word 'transaction' for 'infection' and made minimal other textual changes. All the math has been stolen because Craig [simply can't do math](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8cmq15/nchain_releases_nakasendo_royaltyfree_software/dxjc4iu/). Various Examples: * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/MYEV0fg.png) * [Source 1](https://i.imgur.com/tj2U5EF.png) and (maybe the most obvious -- just click back and forth on these two images) * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/Xc47j7o.png) * [Source 2](https://i.imgur.com/S6M5MHn.png) and * [Craig's paper](https://i.imgur.com/DiWWSqu.png) * [Source 2](https://i.imgur.com/1pwPrYq.png) Serially taking credit for other people's work. It's the Craig Wright way.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 29, 2018 13:01:31

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9rddek/new_plagiarism_from_craig_wright_at_least_40_of_a/

[Here is the old plagiarism](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8b9re2/craig_wright_accused_of_plagiarizing_his_research/). The new plagiarism is from [this paper that purports to show that Bitcoin Script is Turing Complete](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3147440). The paper itself is completely ridiculous, but let's ignore the [fallacious conclusion](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/86ljpe/this_was_lost_a_bit_in_the_shuffle_yesterday_dr/dw66xm9/) and focus on the plagiarism: From the bottom of page 5 in Wright's paper: > Starting from the simplest primitive recursive functions, we can build more complicated primitive recursive functions by functional composition and primitive recursion. In this entry, we have listed some basic examples using functional composition alone. In this entry, we list more basic examples, allowing the use of primitive recursion: From the [uncited source](https://planetmath.org/examplesofprimitiverecursivefunctions): > Starting from the simplest primitive recursive functions, we can build more complicated primitive recursive functions by functional composition and primitive recursion. In this entry, we have listed some basic examples using functional composition alone. In this entry, we list more basic examples, allowing the use of primitive recursion: Note the bizarre, double "in this entry" language. It goes on to list the **exact same 16 examples with the exact same names and symbols**. Here's how we know it's *intentionally plagiarized*: he slightly rewords many of the notes on the steps. For instance: Source: > To see that q is primitive recursive, we use equation Craig: > We can test that q is primitive recursive using the equation: Another instance: Source: > where sgn⁡(y) takes the case y=0 into account. Craig: > In this, sgn(y) takes the case of y = 0 into consideration --------------- The next section is just as bad. [Here is the uncited source](http://ii.fmph.uniba.sk/cl/oldcourses/lpi1-2004/lect/sli8.pdf), which is copied into Craig's paper starting on page 10. Source: > expects a program, which is a list of instructions which modify a stack of natural numbers. Such a machine is Turing complete iff any numerical function computable on a Turing machine can be computed on the stack machine Craig: > expects a script that acts as a program which is defined to be an ordered set of instructions that operate on and alter a Stack of natural numbers (the Stack Set). This machine is Turing Complete IFF* a decidable program can be run on the Stack machine when that program is also computable on a Turing Machine. (As a funny side note, Craig put a footnote to indicate that 'IFF' means 'if and only if'. He was too lazy to change it in-place.) Another instance: Source: > A functional term `a` denotes (has as its value, evaluates to) a number in an assignment of a number `v` to the variable `V` and a functional term `r` to the variable `R`. Craig: > A functional term `a` denotes a number in an assignment of a number `v` to the variable `V` and a functional term `r` to the variable `R` . Again, all of the notation is *perfectly identical* down to the subscripts and superscripts. Here's another instance: Source: > we will study a stack machine for the computation of functional terms which are the minimal set of expressions formed from: the variable `V` and decimal numerals `n` by `Incr(a)`, `Decr(a)`, `Head(a)`, `Tail(a)`, `Pair(a, b)`, `If(a, b, c)`, `Apply(a, b)`, and `R(a)` where `a`, `b`, and `c` are previously constructed functional terms. We can show that every Turing computable function f can be computed by evaluating a functional term for f. Craig: > We now extend our minimal machine into the computation of functional terms. As above, these are the minimal set of expressions formed using `∨` , `n` (an integer) by • `Incr(a)` , • `Decr(a)` , • `Head(a)` , • `Tail(a)` , • `Tail(a)` , • `Pair (a, b)` , • `IF (a, b, c)`, • `Apply (a, b)` , and • `R(a)` In this operation set, `a` , `b` and `c` are previous constructed functional terms. A Turing computable (or decidable) function f can be computed in an evaluation of a functional term of f . Note 1) the minor word-changing to avoid being detected, 2) the copy mistake where he put in `Tail(a)` twice, 3) and his use of 'logical or' instead of the variable `V`. This is only a sampling of the plagiarism. I invite you to compare the [sources](https://planetmath.org/examplesofprimitiverecursivefunctions) he [copied from](http://ii.fmph.uniba.sk/cl/oldcourses/lpi1-2004/lect/sli8.pdf) with ['his' paper](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3147440) directly. None of the references of his paper contain the plagiarized content.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 25, 2018 15:19:28

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qrba2/so_far_all_of_the_arguments_against_op/

Here are the candidates: **1) OP_CHECKDATASIG is a ['subsidy'](https://www.yours.org/content/how-to-implement-ecdsa-signature-verification-in-script-and-why-datasi-9f113344542f).** Some have given [solid rebuttals](https://www.yours.org/content/dear-ryan--why-op_checkdatasig-is-not-a-subsidy-3c240f0b8f19); others have [pointed out](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9q6z9y/rxc_new_video_dear_roger_why_dsv_is_a_million/e88pikc/) that **Script size is not well correlated to computational complexity**, and [that](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qi39n/dear_ryan_why_op_checkdatasig_is_not_a_subsidy/e89pnzc/) **computational complexity is not the main driver of fees anyway**. /u/jtoomim [pointed out](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9q6z9y/rxc_new_video_dear_roger_why_dsv_is_a_million/e8a1836/?context=3) that OP_CHECKDATASIG has a 'computational cost' of about 0.000000096 satoshis per byte. There's not much else to add except that Satoshi 'subsidized' several other opcodes in the same way as suggested here. OP_SHA1, OP_SHA256, and OP_RIPEMD160 all are **very rarely** used and, if implemented natively in Script, would require many *thousands* of opcodes. However, they all have *easy and well-optimized native implementations*, so it makes sense to include them as opcodes. The same applies to OP_CHECKDATASIG. **2) Miners will be [forced to support it forever once activated](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qi39n/dear_ryan_why_op_checkdatasig_is_not_a_subsidy/e89jpg0/).** Besides being [factually inaccurate](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qi39n/dear_ryan_why_op_checkdatasig_is_not_a_subsidy/e89on83/), this is a strange objection, since the opcode is simpler than OP_CHECKSIG (and reuses nearly all the same code), which is used in nearly every single transaction. **3) If only script limits were taken away and the protocol locked down, we could do this *exact thing* in Script already, so it's unnecessary.** This is a [non-starter](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9qi39n/dear_ryan_why_op_checkdatasig_is_not_a_subsidy/e89qt56/). **4) [Opcodes are precious](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9q3f7t/why_should_op_checkdatasigverify_be_privileged_to/) and one shouldn't be wasted on this.** There are about 60 unused single-byte opcodes and potentially tens of thousands of double-byte opcodes, which always seems to get left out of 'Satoshi's Vision', though they were coded by Satoshi himself and present in version 0.1. ------------------------------------------------------- Given all these poor arguments, one might naturally ask why there have been so many recently. I can't prove this in any rigorous way, but here's my best hypothesis: Ever since Dear Leader [decreed](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1027625508140474368) that OP_CHECKDATASIG was 'shitcoin code', there's been a race, mostly among his [acolytes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12-V_rDPkoY#), to see who can come up with some justification ('will no one [rid me](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F) of this meddlesome opcode?'). After Dear Leader himself gave a [ridiculous reason](https://twitter.com/ProfFaustus/status/1027424052724547584) ('the idea that unlicensed gambling will be tolerated is a joke'), he gave away the game by [admitting](https://twitter.com/proffaustus/status/1033653060004978689?lang=en) his 'patents' would be affected by it, along with bonus technobabble about enabling loops **in Script**. So it was left up to others to find compelling reasons to oppose CDS. And this is the result.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 23, 2018 13:44:33

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9djki0/heuristicpunch_has_an_entire_network_of_literal/

/u/heuristicpunch (aka, /u/geekmonk, as [he admitted to](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8yjilv/_/e2e2grl/)) accused me of being a sockpuppet. As usual, he was projecting. I've uncovered (at least part of) his vast array of shilling sockpuppet accounts: /u/geekmonk /u/3quality /u/connectionstatus /u/politicallyincorrecd /u/lalacarmen It's fine if people have multiple accounts. However, these accounts are almost all shilling deals and sales or evading bans. On to the evidence. I'll first prove that 3quality is heuristicpunch/geekmonk. * /u/3quality posts in the same unique subreddits as /u/geekmonk (/r/deals, /r/relationships, /r/entrepreneur) * They have a very similar style and idiosyncratic word usage ('ad hom' for 'ad hominem') * One of /u/3quality's first posts to /r/btc was to complain about /u/heuristicpunch's ban from /r/btc (**reddit rule breaking!**). [Here he is denying the obvious](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9chaom/dyor_there_is_no_abusive_pattern_with_heuristic/e5arq5c/). * They both like the rapper XXXTENTACION (from /u/heuristicpunch's [Twitter post](https://twitter.com/yovngbvcks/status/887836538272403457) and /u/3quality's [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/hiphopheads/comments/8sflrg/xxxtentacion_murder_witness_speaks_out_in/e10kwb6/). He publicly admits that's his Twitter handle [here](http://archive.is/PMBIi). That's probably sufficient, but it only gets worse from there. * They both post the **exact same deals and content** (and nobody else does): [3quality's post](https://www.removeddit.com/r/deals/comments/8jzvz6/use_promo_code_lisas_for_25_off_of_both_full_and/), and [/u/geekmonk's post](https://www.removeddit.com/r/deals/comments/6jg760/20_off_any_full_design_package_promo_code_lisas/) * And [here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/ethinvestor/comments/73cdcu/blockchain_company_less_than_24h_left_for_1000/) and [here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/icocrypto/comments/73c8rb/the_blockchain_company_less_than_24h_left_for/) Proof that /u/connectionstatus is part of the network: * [He basically admits it](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9cej7z/proof_of_censorship_in_rbtc_someone_proabc_just/). * Compare [this](https://www.removeddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9arttg/wormhole_scam_eli5_burn_addresses_in_bitcoin_are/) to [this](https://www.removeddit.com/r/btc/comments/9arpa9/bitmain_wormhole_scam_eli5_burn_addresses_in/). By the way, how did geekmonk post that latter link only a week ago? He claimed that his account was removed by reddit. More lies, apparently. Proof that /u/politicallyincorrecd is part of the network: * [Same post as 3quality and geekmonk](https://www.removeddit.com/r/ICOAnalysis/comments/73capj/bctoken_sign_up_today_for_1000_free_tokens_ahead/). * Same subreddits (/r/relationships) * First /r/btc [post was during /u/heuristicpunch's ban trying to create a new subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9cxaok/i_have_just_created_a_new_subreddit_for_bch/) Proof that /u/lalacarmen is part of the network: * Same subreddits (/r/entrepreneur, /r/deals, etc) * Only crypto related comment is in [the post by connectionstatus](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/9arttg/wormhole_scam_eli5_burn_addresses_in_bitcoin_are/e4y3d1c/) Again, it's fine to have multiple accounts, but these accounts are set up to **shill and push deals**. Here are merely a few examples: * [Here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/gaming/comments/77t1m1/business_strategy_game_computer_tycoon_came_out/) * [Here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/Gaming4Gamers/comments/77bqah/today_i_found_out_about_computer_tycoon_and_im/) * [Here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/teenagers/comments/7hmfhv/me_19f_with_a_guy_i_met_online_20_m_he_said/) **he's pretending to be a woman to push a chatroulette alternative**! * [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/relationship_advice/comments/7jo19d/married_redditors_just_found_out_27_m_through_a/) he switches to being a man to push the same site. * [Here](https://www.removeddit.com/r/icocrypto/comments/7bqbil/geens_data_storage_with_zero_theft_risk_and/) he's shilling for another blockchain. * [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8fdele/proof_that_ugeekmonk_is_likely_a_paid_csw_shill/) is a more comprehensive list of shilling activity just under his geekmonk account Is it any wonder people think he could be a shill for Craig? Also, [this post of his](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7oo6u5/_/dsb5gug/) is funny, especially in light of his [post asking for /u/deadalnix for an apology](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9abny8/_/e4u7ks8/).

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 6, 2018 11:13:09

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9cyi3o/scronty_phil_wilson_is_not_satoshi/

His [story](http://vu.hn/bitcoin%20origins.html) is entertaining fan fiction, but it's still fiction. Right off the bat, he says there's no evidence of his involvement, which *should* be disqualifying on its own: > There is no verification of truth here. There is absolutely no evidential proof that I had any part in the project. However, even the *story itself* is nonsense. * He said Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman were involved. [They weren't](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/96p5e5/csw_effect/e426dwg/). * In one of his very first assertions, [he makes a provably false statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8c3hkv/bitcoin_origins_by_scronty_describing_satoshi_as/dxcmotb/) about registering a domain at the time: > I told Craig via Dave to generate a new TLD ( Top Level Domain ) for us to use for correspondence on the project so that any current 'net handles are not associated with what we do. ... Dave came back after Craig **obtained rcjbr.org** and created the two email handles for us. The problem is that rcjbr.org was first created in 2011. * He says that "12th March 2008 Craig asks Dave to help with his white paper and code", which is a reference to a [provably fake](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/80fzhw/craig_s_wrights_email_to_dave_kleiman_is_provably/) email. * His description of Hal Finney's involvement is **utterly contradicted by the evidence**. Here's how he describes Hal's involvement: > Hal came on board almost immediately. > He was really quite interested in how we'd used ideas from his RPOW for Bitcoin. > One of the first things he did was to change the code to use a more modern form of C++. > Vectors and maps. > Suddenly, I was unable to read the source-code clearly. Compare that to Hal's [description of his early involvement](https://forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2014/03/25/satoshi-nakamotos-neighbor-the-bitcoin-ghostwriter-who-wasnt/#5b95eb682528): > As for your suspicion that I either am or at least helped Satoshi, I’m flattered but I deny categorically these allegations. I don’t know what more I can say. You have records of how I reacted to the announcement of Bitcoin, and I struggled to understand it. I suppose you could retort that I was able to fake it, but I don’t know what I can say to that. I’ve done some changes to the Bitcoin code, and my style is completely different from Satoshi’s. **I program in C, which is compatible with C++, but I don’t understand the tricks that Satoshi used.** We know that's true, since Hal's RPOW was all [C code](https://github.com/NakamotoInstitute/RPOW/tree/master/scc), his [Bitcoin key extractor](https://github.com/halfinney/bc_key/blob/master/bc_key.c) was written in C, and even his [Bitcoin contributions](https://github.com/halfinney/bitcoin/commit/dc411b51e0a3cffc4a599382ef0a9b92486f59d5) were practically pure C. * He endorses Craig's [fake blog posts](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) as genuinely made: > He'd pretty much announced the Bitcoin release in this website blog after stating his original attempt was a failure. > From Cracked, inSecure and Generally Broken > "Well.. e-gold is down the toilet. Good idea, but again centralised authority. The Beta of Bitcoin is live tomorrow. This is decentralized... We try until it works. Some good coders on this. The paper rocks" > "Are you [redacted] kidding me ?" I said. "You'd better take that down or remove to post." It's fine if he wants to pretend that Craig made it, then deleted it before it was archived, then undeleted it for some reason, let it be archived, then deleted it yet again. However, one remaining problem is that [one fake post](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) calls Bitcoin a 'cryptocurrency' in August of 2008. That fully contradicts the evidence of when that word was first used **from Satoshi's own description!**: > While Satoshi never discussed anything personal in these e-mails, he would banter with Martti about little things. In one e-mail, **Satoshi pointed to a recent exchange on the Bitcoin e-mail list in which a user referred to Bitcoin as a “cryptocurrency,” referring to the cryptographic functions that made it run.** > “Maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin. Do you like it?” Satoshi asked. “It sounds good,” Martti replied. “A peer to peer cryptocurrency could be the slogan.” From: Nathaniel Popper. “Digital Gold.” (That email exchange would have been around mid-2009, almost a year after Craig's totally real blog post.) * The entire section entitled [51% Attack](http://vu.hn/bitcoin%20origins.html#51attack) is absurd. Scronty describes how **Hal** 'discovered' 51% attacks. In the story's timeline, this supposedly happens after the software has been written, yet the **entire whitepaper is premised around the fact that the majority of hashpower is honest**. It's **impossible** that this would be a new problem. If this is just out-of-order in this story, we're to assume that Hal was involved in the writing of the whitepaper, but **that's not part of the story**, either. Bonus hilarity: > On May 29th 2011 I make an archive of my Bitcoin-related emails. > During the archiving process Outlook crashed. > After a computer restart I found that the Bitcoin subfolder no-longer exists and that the archived file was corrupted. > As I was using POP3 at the time, I had no other copies of those emails and they were gone forever from my end. Compare that with how Craig's [excuse](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-1191.1508-1191.1961) for missing emails: > Wright told me that around this time he was in correspondence with Wei Dai, with Gavin Andresen, who would go on to lead the development of bitcoin, and Mike Hearn, a Google engineer who had ideas about the direction bitcoin should take. Yet when I asked for copies of the emails between Satoshi and these men **he said they had been wiped when he was running from the ATO**. It seemed odd, and still does, that some emails were lost while others were not. How utterly, utterly surprising...

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 4, 2018 14:45:02

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9cyg4b/scronty_phil_wilson_is_not_satoshi/

His [story](http://vu.hn/bitcoin%20origins.html) is entertaining fan fiction, but it's still fiction. Right off the bat, he says there's no evidence of his involvement, which *should* be disqualifying on its own: > There is no verification of truth here. There is absolutely no evidential proof that I had any part in the project. However, even the *story itself* is nonsense. * He said Craig Wright and Dave Kleiman were involved. [They weren't](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/96p5e5/csw_effect/e426dwg/). * Right off the bat, [he makes a provably false assertion](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8c3hkv/bitcoin_origins_by_scronty_describing_satoshi_as/dxcmotb/) about registering a domain at the time: > I told Craig via Dave to generate a new TLD ( Top Level Domain ) for us to use for correspondence on the project so that any current 'net handles are not associated with what we do. ... Dave came back after Craig **obtained rcjbr.org** and created the two email handles for us. The problem is that rcjbr.org was first created in 2011. * He says that "12th March 2008 Craig asks Dave to help with his white paper and code", which is a reference to a [provably fake](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/80fzhw/craig_s_wrights_email_to_dave_kleiman_is_provably/) email. * His description of Hal Finney's involvement is **utterly contradicted by the evidence**. Here's how he describes Hal's involvement: > Hal came on board almost immediately. > He was really quite interested in how we'd used ideas from his RPOW for Bitcoin. > One of the first things he did was to change the code to use a more modern form of C++. > Vectors and maps. > Suddenly, I was unable to read the source-code clearly. Compare that to Hal's [description of his early involvement](https://cointelegraph.com/news/the_search_for_satoshi_nakamoto_on_memory_mind_and_brilliance): > As for your suspicion that I either am or at least helped Satoshi, I’m flattered but I deny categorically these allegations. I don’t know what more I can say. You have records of how I reacted to the announcement of Bitcoin, and I struggled to understand it. I suppose you could retort that I was able to fake it, but I don’t know what I can say to that. I’ve done some changes to the Bitcoin code, and my style is completely different from Satoshi’s. **I program in C, which is compatible with C++, but I don’t understand the tricks that Satoshi used.** We know that's true, since Hal's RPOW was all [C code](https://github.com/NakamotoInstitute/RPOW/tree/master/scc), his [Bitcoin key extractor](https://github.com/halfinney/bc_key/blob/master/bc_key.c) was written in C, and even his [Bitcoin contributions](https://github.com/halfinney/bitcoin/commit/dc411b51e0a3cffc4a599382ef0a9b92486f59d5) were practically pure C. * He endorses Craig's [fake blog posts](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) as genuinely made: > He'd pretty much announced the Bitcoin release in this website blog after stating his original attempt was a failure. > From Cracked, inSecure and Generally Broken > "Well.. e-gold is down the toilet. Good idea, but again centralised authority. The Beta of Bitcoin is live tomorrow. This is decentralized... We try until it works. Some good coders on this. The paper rocks" > "Are you [redacted] kidding me ?" I said. "You'd better take that down or remove to post." It's fine if he wants to pretend that Craig made it, then deleted it before it was archived, then undeleted it for some reason, let it be archived, then deleted it yet again. However, one remaining problem is that [one fake post](https://i.imgur.com/hAbPhW3.png) calls Bitcoin a 'cryptocurrency' in August of 2008. That fully contradicts the evidence of when that word was first used **from Satoshi's own description!**: > While Satoshi never discussed anything personal in these e-mails, he would banter with Martti about little things. In one e-mail, **Satoshi pointed to a recent exchange on the Bitcoin e-mail list in which a user referred to Bitcoin as a “cryptocurrency,” referring to the cryptographic functions that made it run.** > “Maybe it’s a word we should use when describing Bitcoin. Do you like it?” Satoshi asked. “It sounds good,” Martti replied. “A peer to peer cryptocurrency could be the slogan.” From: Nathaniel Popper. “Digital Gold.” (That email exchange would have been around mid-2009, almost a year after Craig's totally real blog post.) * The entire section entitled [51% Attack](http://vu.hn/bitcoin%20origins.html#51attack) is absurd. Scronty describes how **Hal** 'discovered' 51% attacks. In the story's timeline, this supposedly happens after the software has been written, yet the **entire whitepaper is premised around the fact that the majority of hashpower is honest**. It's **impossible** that this would be a new problem. If this is just out-of-order in this story, we're to assume that Hal was involved in the writing of the whitepaper, but **that's not part of the story**, either. Bonus hilarity: > On May 29th 2011 I make an archive of my Bitcoin-related emails. > During the archiving process Outlook crashed. > After a computer restart I found that the Bitcoin subfolder no-longer exists and that the archived file was corrupted. > As I was using POP3 at the time, I had no other copies of those emails and they were gone forever from my end. Compare that with how Craig's [excuse](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-1191.1508-1191.1961) for missing emails: > Wright told me that around this time he was in correspondence with Wei Dai, with Gavin Andresen, who would go on to lead the development of bitcoin, and Mike Hearn, a Google engineer who had ideas about the direction bitcoin should take. Yet when I asked for copies of the emails between Satoshi and these men **he said they had been wiped when he was running from the ATO**. It seemed odd, and still does, that some emails were lost while others were not. How utterly, utterly surprising...

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 4, 2018 14:38:28

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/97t67j/uhigherplane_is_a_serial_banevading_troll/

His latest trolling behavior is to try to spread ridiculous [conspiracy theories](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/959tbe/amaury_creator_of_bitcoin_cash_has_been_banned_from_the_bitcoin_cash_slack/e3rz92t?context=3) about Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet, while simultaneously [supporting](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/96p5e5/csw_effect/e425djs?context=3) nChain/Craig Wright. This username is at least his sixth incarnation in this sub. Here are his previous ones, in order from oldest to newest: * /u/bitcoincashuser * /u/Contrarian- (LOL) * /u/wobsd * /u/apresents * /u/bchworldorder Each of those usernames was banned from /r/btc for one reason or another. Now he's back under the username /u/higher-plane. He was **slightly** more careful this time. He managed to not call anyone a "troll cuck" this time, which was his normal signature move. However, he's still been incredibly sloppy: * He always frequents the same subs (/r/btc, /r/CryptoCurrency, and /r/nba) * [He uses](http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/96w0at/daily_discussion_megathread_-_august_13_2018/e44vie3?context=3) "lmao" [frequently](http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/94a5q3/new_starbucks_partnership_with_microsoft_allows_customers_to_pay_for_frappu/e3jz8h6?context=3) (and always [lowercase](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/80upri/we_do_accept_btc/duyytoi?context=3)) * He [admits](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/96p5e5/csw_effect/e425nho/?context=3) he's been 'in bch' for about as long as his first username existed, despite his current account being much younger than that. * Nearly identical average words per comment in each account (14 in his last account, 16 in this account, both *much* less than the average for this sub) * All accounts indicate the same timezone (see [here](http://www.redditinvestigator.com/) for instance) * His post submissions are usually from coingeek or twitter * [Frequently](http://www.reddit.com/r/nba/comments/8vodgd/wojnarowskiceltics_were_among_final_teams_cousins_considered_joining/e1p0jle?context=3) talks about ["dick sucking"](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/81y32y/andreas_antonopoulos_caught_having_misled_the/dv64vr4/?context=3) * He created this new account **the same day** his last username (/u/bchworldorder) was banned from /r/btc. I can easily go on if there are still any doubters, but honestly, just skim some of the comments from each of the accounts I listed; it's obvious.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on August 16, 2018 11:17:52

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8aznnp/was_dave_kleiman_involved_in_bitcoin/

I've noticed that even generally skeptical members of this sub seem to [take it as an assumption](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8avoa3/psa_i_have_been_down_the_sm_rabbit_hole_for_weeks/dx26lwp/) that Dave Kleiman was an early bitcoiner, to be mentioned in the same breath as Hal Finney. It made me wonder if there's any evidence that I'm unaware of. The only shred of 'evidence' I could find is from the [lawsuit](https://www.scribd.com/document/372445546/Bitcoin-Lawsuit) that Dave Kleiman's brother, Ira, brought. In it, it's claimed: > On Thanksgiving Day 2009, Dave told Ira he was creating “digital money” with a wealthy foreign man, i.e., Craig. This strikes me as incredibly weak, due to the fact that it: 1) is in Ira's interest, 2) is an 8-year-old recollection, and 3) does not even mention bitcoin (or Craig) by name (there were a lot of people working on 'digital money'). Literally *all* of the other 'evidence' is connected to (or provably fabricated by) Craig Wright. Can anyone find a single, legitimate shred of evidence that Dave Kleiman ever contributed to bitcoin, owned a bitcoin, even said the word bitcoin, or even *heard* of the word bitcoin? Until there's evidence, can we leave Dave Kleiman out as one of the 'early bitcoiners'? As far as I can tell, Craig's just using his dead friend as convenient cover for his ridiculous story, which, if true, is utterly abhorrent.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 9, 2018 12:15:14

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8a05rx/here_is_a_selfish_mining_analogy_that_everyone/

Imagine a mom has two children. She gives her daughter $6 per week and her son $4 per week (for whatever reason). The son therefore has 40% of the weekly allowance. He doesn't like this and wants more. So, he figures out a plan to burn two of the daughter's dollars per week, but it costs him $1 to do it (this is basically what selfish mining is). So, each week, he ends up with $3, and she has $4. Now he has about 43% of the weekly allowance! Success! However, he has *less actual cash* than he started with! Failure! **But**, the mom responds to this behavior by giving out **more money per week** (difficulty adjustment), so they both end up with $10 total *after the burning*. So she gives them $13 total (60% to her daughter, $7.80, and 40% to her son, $5.20). He does the same thing again and spends $1 to burn two of her dollars. So she ends up with $5.80 and he ends up with $4.20. **This is an actual increase for him now compared with the beginning!** Remember, she used to get $6 and he got $4. Notice that the faster the difficulty adjustment happens, the faster the selfish miner will end up profiting. If you change it to a daily allowance, the son's strategy becomes *absolutely profitable* within a week. (With BCH, if a SM controls ~42% hashpower, they'd expect to be *absolutely profitable* in about a **day**.) As this relates to the 'selfish mining debate', basically Craig at first denied that this *could* happen at all for mathematical reasons (and was wrong, as Peter Rizun pointed out), then denied it would actually happen because everyone would realize what would happen and quickly put a stop to it somehow (which may be true, but is not proven). (Note: this is a highly simplified scenario, and the son's 'magic plan' to destroy $2 for the cost of $1 is detailed in the SM paper and only works under certain conditions (he controls > 1/3 of hashpower in bitcoin mining). The bottom line is that it actually does work.)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 5, 2018 10:30:25

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7a65ek/sockpuppet_detection_tool_beta/

Due to interest in my [recent submission](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/) that showed /r/btc's /u/williaminlondon is /u/btcnewsupdates, I decided to spend a couple hours coding up a tool to help anyone find sockpuppet accounts. This only applies to a certain subset of sockpuppets: those where a single user is posting on two accounts *within the same time period*. That is, **it will not work with barely-active sockpuppets, or serial sockpuppet accounts**. Further, it's only effective if the poster is fairly prolific. Basically, the idea is that it takes a brief period of time to switch to a different account and post something. So, **it would be** *rare* **to see two accounts controlled by one user post something at almost the same time.** We can calculate what we'd **expect** the time gaps to be if they were *genuinely different users*. If the expected time gaps are *much smaller* than the actual minimum time gaps, then it's likely that it's a single user controlling two different accounts. For example, take two prolific /r/btc posters: /u/poorbrokebastard and /u/williaminlondon. They each post about 40 unedited comments per day. Just by random chance, we'd expect them to post within a second or two given about 1000 posts (reddit's API limit). And if we compare their *actual* minimum comment time difference, it's less than a second, so we can conclude that they're likely not controlled by the same user. However, if we compare /u/williaminlondon to /u/btcnewsupdates (who *also* post about 40 unedited comments each per day), we **expect** a minimum gap of only about 1 second. **However, the** *actual* **minimum gap is 55 seconds**. This happens in less than 1 in 1000 simulations. (Of course, this evidence is *in addition* to the [evidence here](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/).) I wouldn't blindly accept the results of this tool. **If it comes out positive, you should do some other checking.** Also, don't just randomly check users. It's bound to give false positives every now and then. It's likely that there are bugs, and it's very slow because it doesn't cache comments. **Anyway, if you'd like to compare any two redditors (in any sub), you can try out the tool [here](https://83m6a1f16h.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/prod/redditsockdetector/dectect/u/u).** No guarantees on how long it'll be available. Source code available upon request. (Before /u/williaminlondon responds quickly to a post by his other account to try to trick this tool, [here is a screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/kfwn2ay.png) of its current output.)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on November 1, 2017 16:00:30

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7a60za/sockpuppet_detection_tool_beta/

Due to interest in my [recent submission](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/) that showed /u/williaminlondon is /u/btcnewsupdates, I decided to spend a couple hours coding up a tool to help anyone find sockpuppet accounts. This only applies to a certain subset of sockpuppets: those where a single user is posting on two accounts *within the same time period*. That is, **it will not work with barely-active sockpuppets, or serial sockpuppet accounts**. Further, it's only effective if the poster is fairly prolific. Basically, the idea is that it takes a brief period of time to switch to a different account and post something. So, **it would be** *rare* **to see two accounts controlled by one user post something at almost the same time.** We can calculate what we'd **expect** the time gaps to be if they were *genuinely different users*. If the expected time gaps are *much smaller* than the actual minimum time gaps, then it's likely that it's a single user controlling two different accounts. For example, take two prolific posters: /u/poorbrokebastard and /u/williaminlondon. They each post about 40 unedited comments per day. Just by random chance, we'd expect them to post within a second or two given about 1000 posts (reddit's API limit). And if we compare their *actual* minimum comment time difference, it's less than a second, so we can conclude that they're likely not controlled by the same user. However, if we compare /u/williaminlondon to /u/btcnewsupdates (who *also* post about 40 unedited comments each per day), we **expect** a minimum gap of only about 1 second. **However, the** *actual* **minimum gap is 55 seconds**. This happens in less than 1 in 1000 simulations. (Of course, this evidence is *in addition* to the [evidence here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/).) I wouldn't blindly accept the results of this tool. **If it comes out positive, you should do some other checking.** Also, don't just randomly check users. It's bound to give false positives every now and then. It's likely that there are bugs, and it's very slow because it doesn't cache comments. **Anyway, if you'd like to compare any two redditors (in any sub), you can try out the tool [here](https://83m6a1f16h.execute-api.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/prod/redditsockdetector/dectect/u/u).** No guarantees on how long it'll be available. Source code available upon request. (Before /u/williaminlondon responds quickly to a post by his other account to try to trick this tool, [here is a screenshot](https://i.imgur.com/kfwn2ay.png) of its current output.)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on November 1, 2017 15:42:39

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/

After he [accused me](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/75isx4/psa_the_amount_of_trolls_in_this_sub_has_spiked/do6t0lq/) of having multiple accounts without any evidence, I realized that /u/williaminlondon was likely projecting. I found his sockpuppet: /u/btcnewsupdates. The two accounts have this in common: * [Both](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/77t9uj/is_rbitcoinmarkets_also_censored_or_just_land_of/dooxmbq/) use [British spellings](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79a7z8/93.1_of_blocks_mined_today_support_segwit2x/dp0cz1q?context=3). * [Both](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/787n43/the_worlds_first_bitcoin_cash_conference_focused/dorr4qt/) used the [phrase](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79dlx9/if_by_pairing_he_cant_decide_craig_wright_has/dp1ppl6/) "Mummy said [he] lied to his Doctor" (with a capital D, which is **highly unusual**) * Both big fans of the interrobang, but [both](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79gxg2/blockstream_vs_miners_-_looking_at_the_incentives_around_the_segwit2x_fork/dp1trqq?context=3) use it **exclusively** in [the less common form](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7823kh/coinbase_the_bitcoin_gold_fork_has_already_privately_occurred._question_is_/doqg36h?context=3): exclamation question (!?) instead of (?!). * Both have generally good (British) spelling and grammar, **BUT YOU [BOTH](https://i.imgur.com/iZJOBMG.png) MAKE THE TYPO "DON;T" [ALL THE TIME](https://i.imgur.com/VYakUii.png)!** * [Compare](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/btcnewsupdates) their top 5 [most used words](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/williaminlondon). **4 are the same! Try to find another user where 4 out of 5 match!** * Both **frequently** use colon-capital-D smiley :D * Both frequently call Charlie Lee "good boy" * Both [call people](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/77q461/roger_ver_nothing_attracts_trolls_like_telling/dooasmi/) "boy" as an [epithet](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/78proq/why_blockstream_cores_propaganda_strategy_failed/doytski/) in general * [Their](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/btcnewsupdates#by-hour) 'activity by time of day' is [practically identical](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/williaminlondon#by-hour). * [Both](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79fjcg/block_the_stream_a_censorship-driven_artificial_network_constraint_to_drive/dp1r19w?context=3) call people "thugs" all the time ([specifically](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/77jd9a/craig_wright_you_talk_about_skin_in_the_game_but_its_just_talk._you_and_ver/don5opx?context=3) "Core thugs", capital-C, of course) * [Both](http://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/77smk7/how_to_obtain_b2x_safely_upon_the_segwit2x_hard_fork_in_november/dop6tyr?context=3) use the word "Sigh" as a [full sentence](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoMarkets/comments/796kng/a_guy_called_francois_pretending_to_speak_for/dozjlww/). * [Even their](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/btcnewsupdates#corpus-stats) 'unique word percentage' is [practically identical](https://snoopsnoo.com/u/williaminlondon#corpus-stats) * [Compare](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hzt2/why_rbitcoin_censors_are_disabled_here/dp22kfb/) these [comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/75ow6c/remember_when_ubashco_pushed_the_narrative_that/do7vkv7/?context=3). After confronting him with the evidence, he [deflected and did not deny it](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79dlx9/if_by_pairing_he_cant_decide_craig_wright_has/dp1zkjn/?context=5). I encourage everyone to check both user histories yourself. It's fairly obvious that they're the same user. Please add any confirmatory **or disconfirmatory** evidence if you find any. They're also both Craig Wright apologists (shocking, I know). **Edit: [It appears](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/79hsfl/ubtcnewsupdates_is_uwilliaminlondon/dp21c7a/?context=2) that he just accidentally confirmed it.**

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 29, 2017 13:28:10

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/75bhme/bitcoin_cash_block_size_soft_limits/

I've seen a lot of claims that Bitcoin Cash has 'soft limits' on block size and that a hard fork is not needed to raise the block size over 8MB. For example, [here](https://www.yours.org/content/understanding-the-implications-of-restricting-capacity-in-a-peer-to-pe-76ed09e51c84/), in a recent editorial by /u/poorbrokebastard: > Important to note that the 8MB limit on the Cash fork is not a hard limit, meaning miners can scale above 8MB **without needing another protocol upgrade (hard fork.)** The original Bitcoin protocol that Satoshi built scaled all the way to 32MB, before the 1MB spam protection limit was added. > Bitcoin Cash is the original protocol with the limit removed so it scales all the way to 32MB **before another hard fork (protocol upgrade) is needed.** I'm not sure this is the correct characterization. To the best of my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong!), the default configuration of 8MB block sizes limits what the miner will **produce** AND what they will **accept as valid**. In other words, if a miner produced a 16MB block, it would be rejected if other miners did not *actively and by consensus change the default*. Isn't this basically the same situation as a normal hard fork? The only significant difference I can see is that the limit can be changed via software configuration in Bitcoin Cash, whereas it would require a code change and recompile in Bitcoin. Is this an accurate characterization? If it is, is it fair to call it a 'soft limit' and pretend it's not *much* closer to a typical hard fork? Compare this with the 'soft limits' that were in the bitcoin client, which only put a default configuration limit on what miners would **produce** rather than what they'd **accept as valid**. It did not require any consensus to make a bigger block size (up to 1MB).

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on October 9, 2017 15:25:09

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/7387gq/craig_s_wright_facts/

I’ve seen several people claim that Craig S. Wright (Chief Scientist of nChain) has been unfairly smeared and libeled lately. Let’s stick to the facts: * Fact: Craig's businesses were [failing](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-721.1590-721.1706) and he needed money in 2015 - yes, 'Satoshi' needed money! * Fact: Craig signed a deal with nTrust that [bailed out his companies](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-729.989-732.0) in exchange for his patents and him agreeing to be 'unmasked as Satoshi’. [see note 1] * Fact: Craig [claimed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/02/i-was-the-main-part-of-it-australian-computer-scientist-steps-forward-as-bitcoins-creator/) to be “the main part of [Satoshi]” * Fact: Craig *[literally admitted](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou/?context=3)* lying about (fabricating) that [blog post](https://futurism.com/have-we-finally-found-the-creator-of-bitcoin/) claiming he was involved in bitcoin in 2009. * Fact: Craig lived in Australia during the Satoshi period. The [time zone](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=802869.0) means that, to be Satoshi, Craig would have *almost never* posted between 3pm and midnight, local time. His **peak posting times** would have been between 2am and 9:30am. This is practically the *opposite* of what one would expect. * Fact: Craig lost a bet on a [simple technical question](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6q2uak/peter_rizun_and_craig_wright_just_bet_1_btc_on_a/) related to bitcoin mining * Fact: I’m aware of *no evidence* that Craig could code at all, let alone had excellent C++ skills, despite many (*highly* detailed) [resumes](https://archive.is/Q66Gl) available online * Fact: Craig [traded bitcoins on MtGox in 2013 and 2014](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hx3q9/according_to_the_mtgox_leaks_from_early_2014_our/) - [2] * Fact: In early 2008, Craig [wrote](http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Mar/42) this: "Anonymity is the shield of cowards, it is the cover used to defend their lies. My life is open and I have little care for my privacy". [3] * Fact: Craig produced a [‘math' paper](http://archive.is/6C3C9) recently - [4] * Fact: Craig’s own mother [admits](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-1655.0-1655.94) that he has a habit of fabricating stories. [1] - This [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_scam) may be relevant. [2] - Why would Satoshi do this? [3] - Sounds like Satoshi, huh? [4] - I *urge* you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s [whitepaper](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on September 29, 2017 10:39:09

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7386vx/craig_s_wright_facts/

I’ve seen several people claim that Craig S. Wright (Chief Scientist of nChain) has been unfairly smeared and libeled lately. Let’s stick to the facts: * Fact: Craig's businesses were [failing](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-721.1590-721.1706) and he needed money in 2015 - yes, 'Satoshi' needed money! * Fact: Craig signed a deal with nTrust that [bailed out his companies](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-729.989-732.0) in exchange for his patents and him agreeing to be 'unmasked as Satoshi’. [see note 1] * Fact: Craig [claimed](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/05/02/i-was-the-main-part-of-it-australian-computer-scientist-steps-forward-as-bitcoins-creator/) to be “the main part of [Satoshi]” * Fact: Craig *[literally admitted](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou/?context=3)* lying about (fabricating) that [blog post](https://futurism.com/have-we-finally-found-the-creator-of-bitcoin/) claiming he was involved in bitcoin in 2009. * Fact: Craig lived in Australia during the Satoshi period. The [time zone](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=802869.0) means that, to be Satoshi, Craig would have *almost never* posted between 3pm and midnight, local time. His **peak posting times** would have been between 2am and 9:30am. This is practically the *opposite* of what one would expect. * Fact: Craig lost a bet on a [simple technical question](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6q2uak/peter_rizun_and_craig_wright_just_bet_1_btc_on_a/) related to bitcoin mining * Fact: I’m aware of *no evidence* that Craig could code at all, let alone had excellent C++ skills, despite many (*highly* detailed) [resumes](https://archive.is/Q66Gl) available online * Fact: Craig [traded bitcoins on MtGox in 2013 and 2014](https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4hx3q9/according_to_the_mtgox_leaks_from_early_2014_our/) - [2] * Fact: In early 2008, Craig [wrote](http://seclists.org/basics/2008/Mar/42) this: "Anonymity is the shield of cowards, it is the cover used to defend their lies. My life is open and I have little care for my privacy". [3] * Fact: Craig produced a [‘math' paper](http://archive.is/6C3C9) recently - [4] * Fact: Craig’s own mother [admits](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-1655.0-1655.94) that he has a habit of fabricating stories. [1] - This [link](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance-fee_scam) may be relevant. [2] - Why would Satoshi do this? [3] - Sounds like Satoshi, huh? [4] - I *urge* you to read the thread and look at the person doing the critique. Compare it with Satoshi’s [whitepaper](https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf) Now, before the deluge of comments about how **”it doesn’t matter WHO he is, only that WHAT he says aligns with Satoshi’s vision”**, I’d like to say: Is it of **absolutely no relevance at all** if someone is a huge fraud and liar? If it’s not, then I hope you’ve never accused anyone of lying or being a member of ‘The Dragon’s Den’ or a troll or of spreading FUD. I hope you’ve never pre-judged someone’s comments because of their name or reputation. I hope you’ve **only ever considered technical arguments**. That said, *I am not even directly arguing against anything he’s currently saying* (other than random [clear lies](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6zulfs/csw_at_esliv_paris_conference/dmy9uhe/)). I’ve never said anything about Blockstream, positive or negative. I’ve never expressed an opinion about what the ideal block size should be right now. My account is over 6 years old and I post in many different subs. Compare that with these (very popular!) users who frequently call me a troll or member of the ‘dragon’s den’ (with zero facts or evidence): * [/u/poorbrokebastard](https://www.reddit.com/user/poorbrokebastard) (joined September 1, 2016, almost always posts in /r/btc) (frequently [straight-up lies](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmzy73h/) about me) * [/u/williaminlondon](https://www.reddit.com/user/williaminlondon) (joined August 1, 2017, almost always posts in /r/btc) (reputation seems to mean *almost everything* to this person - yet he [just fabricated](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/70atwg/oped_searching_for_satoshi_an_el5_explanation_of/dn1zs4v/?context=3) lies about me) * [/u/evilrobotted](https://www.reddit.com/user/evilrobotted) (joined March 3, 2016, almost always posts in /r/btc) ([this](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/71gp8x/a_guys_asks_craig_wright_what_he_believes_to_be/dnb80y1/) is a good example of his ‘discussions’ with me)

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 29, 2017 10:36:39

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6y1e5t/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/

(Note, [this](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6y1bnz/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/) was mostly for the benefit of /r/btc (and subsequently buried, of course), since this sub is generally much more critical of Craig Wright. However, if anyone is not familiar with the situation, maybe it can be illuminating.) I'll start out with why it matters. It looks like [Craig](https://np.reddit.com/user/Craig_S_Wright) is active on reddit again, and his company (nChain) is applying for patents in the bitcoin space. I hope we can all agree that if CSW is not Satoshi, then CSW is a fraud and a liar. Some may consider this an *ad hominem* attack, but that's not the case, since I'm not trying to refute any one specific argument of his. I'm saying that *his word should have less credibility by default*. If your retort to that is "we should take all arguments **solely** by the merits", then I assume you trust everyone exactly the same and don't give 'experts' **any** additional weight. It is true that *arguments* should generally stand apart from the *arguer*, but it's not true that the credibility of the arguer is a **completely irrelevant** piece of information. Anyway, on to the issue of whether Craig is Satoshi or not. I'll put aside the obvious things (no evidence of Craig having C++ programming skills, writing style completely different from Satoshi's, being in practically the opposite timezone that Satoshi is suspected to have been in, etc. (because the common objection is that he was *part of the Satoshi team*, despite there being *no evidence* that there was more than just one person)), and focus on the timeline. According to the [London Review of Books author Andrew O'Hagan](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-2505.0-2505.153): > Wright had founded a number of businesses that were in trouble and he was deeply embedded in a dispute with the ATO ... After initial scepticism, and in spite of a slight aversion to Wright’s manner, MacGregor was persuaded, and struck a deal with Wright, signed on 29 June 2015. Here's a significant part: > Within a few months, according to evidence later given to me by Matthews and MacGregor, the deal would cost MacGregor’s company $15 million. ‘That’s right,’ Matthews said in February this year. ‘When we signed the deal, $1.5 million was given to Wright’s lawyers. But my main job was to set up an engagement with the new lawyers … and transfer Wright’s intellectual property to nCrypt’ – a newly formed subsidiary of nTrust. ‘The deal had the following components: **clear the outstanding debts that were preventing Wright’s business from getting back on its feet**, and work with the new lawyers on getting the agreements in place for the transfer of any non-corporate intellectual property, and work with the lawyers to get Craig’s story rights.’ **From that point on, the ‘Satoshi revelation’ would be part of the deal. ‘It was the cornerstone of the commercialisation plan,’ Matthews said, ‘with about ten million sunk into the Australian debts and setting up in London.’** So Wright had a financial motivation for claiming to be Satoshi. Some time passed, and eventually the company had a big 'reveal', which included privately 'signing' a message from the genesis block for Gavin Andresen and others, leaking supposedly 'hacked' documents (including a 'Tulip Trust' [document](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html) that **so conveniently** states that *no record of this transaction will be filed in the US or Australia*), and a [very clearly faked and post-dated](https://futurism.com/have-we-finally-found-the-creator-of-bitcoin/) blog entry 'proving' that CSW was involved in bitcoin from the very beginning. ([Here's](https://web.archive.org/web/20091120191009/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com:80/2009/02/reasons-why-people-break-copyright.html) the archive link showing that blog post never existed.) When people were skeptical of Andresen's and Matonis's claim that CSW signed messages from early blocks, CSW said 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. He then went on to provide a [completely bogus](https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/) 'proof' on his blog. When he was called out on it, he initially blamed others: > ‘I gave them the wrong thing,’ he said. ‘Then they changed it. Then I didn’t correct it because I was so angry. It's **only here** where his story changes from *I am Satoshi*, to *I've all along been trying to tear down the image of Satoshi*. First, let's note that the latter claim *does not require CSW to be Satoshi*. Second, note that it's been completely inconsistent with everything that's happened up to this point. As far as I know, there's no evidence that CSW had even *heard* of bitcoin before around 2014 or so. If that's not enough, please read this part of O'Hagan's story carefully: > We spoke about Wright’s possible lies. I said that all through these proof sessions, he’d acted this like this was the last thing he ever wanted. ‘That’s not true,’ MacGregor said. ‘**He freaking loves it. Why was I so certain he’d do that BBC interview the next day? It’s adoration.** He wants this more than we want this, but **he wants to come out of this looking like he got dragged into it.’ He told me if everything had gone to plan, the groundwork was laid for selling the patents**. It was a really big deal. **He said Ramona had said that if Wright doesn’t come out you still have this really smart guy who has made all these patents, who knows all about bitcoin**. So there you have it. An [admitted liar](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou/?context=3) who has a strong financial motive to claim Satoshi's identity provides bogus proof and when confronted with it retreats to the excuse that *the plan has been to kill Satoshi the whole time!!*, despite that not making any sense, not fitting with the timeline, *or even helping the proposition that he is Satoshi if it's true.* Finally, I ([and /r/btc mod todu](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wyng5/1900_11th_september_we_will_see_you_at_viabtc/dmcr1z8/) ) think it's sad that [Roger Ver](https://np.reddit.com/user/memorydealers) claims to [have an opinion](https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wyng5/1900_11th_september_we_will_see_you_at_viabtc/dmcqt4p/) on the matter but does not want to share it. Financial ties to nChain? If it's just to 'let people judge for themselves', then I hope this post helps.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on September 4, 2017 12:33:19

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6y1bnz/craig_s_wright_is_not_satoshi_nakamoto_and_why/

I'll start out with why it matters. It looks like [Craig](https://www.reddit.com/user/Craig_S_Wright) is active on reddit again, and his company (nChain) is applying for patents in the bitcoin space. I hope we can all agree that if CSW is not Satoshi, then CSW is a fraud and a liar. Some may consider this an *ad hominem* attack, but that's not the case, since I'm not trying to refute any one specific argument of his. I'm saying that *his word should have less credibility by default*. If your retort to that is "we should take all arguments **solely** by the merits", then I point you to this sub's collective hate of Blockstream. I sincerely doubt that you treat their arguments with the *exact same skepticism* as, say, [Jonald Fyookball](https://www.reddit.com/user/jonald_fyookball) It is true that *arguments* should generally stand apart from the *arguer*, but it's not true that the credibility of the arguer is a **completely irrelevant** piece of information. Anyway, on to the issue of whether Craig is Satoshi or not. I'll put aside the obvious things (no evidence of Craig having C++ programming skills, writing style completely different from Satoshi's, being in practically the opposite timezone that Satoshi is suspected to have been in, etc. (because the common objection is that he was *part of the Satoshi team*, despite there being *no evidence* that there was more than just one person)), and focus on the timeline. According to the [London Review of Books author Andrew O'Hagan](http://archive.is/kjuLi#selection-2505.0-2505.153): > Wright had founded a number of businesses that were in trouble and he was deeply embedded in a dispute with the ATO ... After initial scepticism, and in spite of a slight aversion to Wright’s manner, MacGregor was persuaded, and struck a deal with Wright, signed on 29 June 2015. Here's a significant part: > Within a few months, according to evidence later given to me by Matthews and MacGregor, the deal would cost MacGregor’s company $15 million. ‘That’s right,’ Matthews said in February this year. ‘When we signed the deal, $1.5 million was given to Wright’s lawyers. But my main job was to set up an engagement with the new lawyers … and transfer Wright’s intellectual property to nCrypt’ – a newly formed subsidiary of nTrust. ‘The deal had the following components: **clear the outstanding debts that were preventing Wright’s business from getting back on its feet**, and work with the new lawyers on getting the agreements in place for the transfer of any non-corporate intellectual property, and work with the lawyers to get Craig’s story rights.’ **From that point on, the ‘Satoshi revelation’ would be part of the deal. ‘It was the cornerstone of the commercialisation plan,’ Matthews said, ‘with about ten million sunk into the Australian debts and setting up in London.’** So Wright had a financial motivation for claiming to be Satoshi. Some time passed, and eventually the company had a big 'reveal', which included privately 'signing' a message from the genesis block for Gavin Andresen and others, leaking supposedly 'hacked' documents (including a 'Tulip Trust' [document](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2644014-Tulip-Trust-Redacted.html) that **so conveniently** states that *no record of this transaction will be filed in the US or Australia*), and a [very clearly faked and post-dated](https://futurism.com/have-we-finally-found-the-creator-of-bitcoin/) blog entry 'proving' that CSW was involved in bitcoin from the very beginning. ([Here's](https://web.archive.org/web/20091120191009/http://gse-compliance.blogspot.com:80/2009/02/reasons-why-people-break-copyright.html) the archive link showing that blog post never existed.) When people were skeptical of Andresen's and Matonis's claim that CSW signed messages from early blocks, CSW said 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. He then went on to provide a [completely bogus](https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/technical-proof-craig-wright-not-satoshi-nakamoto/) 'proof' on his blog. When he was called out on it, he initially blamed others: > ‘I gave them the wrong thing,’ he said. ‘Then they changed it. Then I didn’t correct it because I was so angry. It's **only here** where his story changes from *I am Satoshi*, to *I've all along been trying to tear down the image of Satoshi*. First, let's note that the latter claim *does not require CSW to be Satoshi*. Second, note that it's been completely inconsistent with everything that's happened up to this point. As far as I know, there's no evidence that CSW had even *heard* of bitcoin before around 2014 or so. If that's not enough, please read this part of O'Hagan's story carefully: > We spoke about Wright’s possible lies. I said that all through these proof sessions, he’d acted this like this was the last thing he ever wanted. ‘That’s not true,’ MacGregor said. ‘**He freaking loves it. Why was I so certain he’d do that BBC interview the next day? It’s adoration.** He wants this more than we want this, but **he wants to come out of this looking like he got dragged into it.’ He told me if everything had gone to plan, the groundwork was laid for selling the patents**. It was a really big deal. **He said Ramona had said that if Wright doesn’t come out you still have this really smart guy who has made all these patents, who knows all about bitcoin**. So there you have it. An [admitted liar](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xkn24/bcc_bch_are_bitcoin_they_follow_the_whitepaper/dmjcyou/?context=3) who has a strong financial motive to claim Satoshi's identity provides bogus proof and when confronted with it retreats to the excuse that *the plan has been to kill Satoshi the whole time!!*, despite that not making any sense, not fitting with the timeline, *or even helping the proposition that he is Satoshi if it's true.* Finally, I ([and /r/btc mod todu](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wyng5/1900_11th_september_we_will_see_you_at_viabtc/dmcr1z8/) ) think it's sad that [Roger Ver](https://www.reddit.com/user/memorydealers) claims to [have an opinion](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6wyng5/1900_11th_september_we_will_see_you_at_viabtc/dmcqt4p/) on the matter but does not want to share it. Financial ties to nChain? If it's just to 'let people judge for themselves', then I hope this post helps.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on September 4, 2017 12:22:40

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/3ovlew/cmv_the_organ_transplant_scenario_is_a_bad/

The 'organ transplant scenario' goes something like this: 1. A hospital has 5 patients on life support. 2. Each patient needs a (different) organ transplant or they'll die 3. Each patient will make a full recovery if they get their transplant 4. Each needed organ is essential to life (eg - heart) 5. A healthy stranger walks in Opponents of utilitarianism claim that a hospital surgeon would be doing the right thing (according to utilitarian standards) by murdering the stranger and harvesting his organs to save the 5 patients. This is patently absurd to all but the most naive versions of utilitarianism. Just as a baseline, I'll give the definition of utilitarianism that I'm using: 1. The worst possible suffering is 'bad' 2. The greatest possible happiness/wellbeing is 'good' 3. An action's 'moral value' is determined by its effect **on the *long-term* balance of goodness/badness** (for the more mathematically inclined, assume an action produces a function *f(t)* that represents the sum of 'goodness' and 'badness' in all conscious creatures at time *t*. Let *A* represent the set of all possible actions and their resulting functions *f(t)*. An ideal action is the one that produces the function with the greatest integral from time=0 to infinity. Actions can be ordered by their resulting integral, so one can be better than another.) This leaves out a lot of detail, such as 'how do we measure value accurately?' 'how does level of consciousness (eg - an ant vs a human) affect the values?', etc. However, those questions can potentially be answered. Just as we have no perfect definition for the concept of 'healthy', we can still judge certain behaviors as definitely healthy or unhealthy. The same with morality. Back to the organ transplant scenario. **It's clear that people would avoid hospitals if this were to happen in the real world, resulting in more suffering over time.** Wait, though! **Some people try to add another stipulation: it's 100% guaranteed that nobody will ever find out about this. The stranger has no relatives, etc.** Without even addressing the issue of whether this would be, in fact, morally acceptable in the utilitarian sense, **it's unrealistic to the point of absurdity.** It's very easy to stretch a hypothetical to the point where it goes against your intuition and therefore becomes useless. Case in point: most people, especially on reddit, would agree with the tenet that 'torture is wrong.' However, I can easily come up with a scenario that would break that intuition. Imagine a serial child rapist and murderer who you know with 100% certainty has armed a mega nuclear bomb to go off 2 hours. It will destroy all of humanity. He knows the location and won't give it up. Is torture permitted? Of course! *Is this scenario in any way useful in justifying the use of torture? No. The same with the organ transplant scenario.* _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/changemyview on October 15, 2015 12:54:38

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/vr5jf/circumcision_isnt_the_villain_that_ratheism/

Is r/atheism the bastion of rationality it thinks it is? Here's some counterweight to the polemics against medical circumcision we've seen recently. First, let's start out with the patently bad arguments on both sides. Patently bad arguments **in favor** of circumcision: * I'm cut and I don't remember it and don't mind it now. (Anecdotes are not data) * God commands it. * Women prefer it this way. (This would probably be equally likely for an intact person in an area with low circ. rates) * I want my son to look like me. Patently bad arguments **against** circumcision: * It's unnatural. ([naturalistic fallacy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy)) * It's the same as female genital mutilation. (where the clitoris is removed) * It started as a religious tradition, therefore it's *inherently* bad. (Wrong and irrelevant from a medical point of view) Those out of the way, let's look at some of the medical benefits of circumcision. There is **extremely strong** medical evidence that **circumcision reduces HIV transmission**; so much, in fact, that the randomized controlled trials in Africa were stopped early because it was so efficacious. (Long term follow-up [here](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22210632)). There are several attacks to this result. (Note the trend of attacking the results you don't want.) First, people attempted to discredit the methods or call into question the validity of the studies. This is unconvincing; there were three separate RCTs and a plethora of observational data. The evidence is overwhelming. Second, people have argued that safe sex (eg - condom use, education) is more effective. This is not disputed; however, the studies' results were **with education on sex and condom use for all participants**. Additionally, this is akin to arguing that condoms shouldn't be used because abstinence-only education is 'more effective' in preventing HIV spread. Circumcision is cheap, permanent, and effective in preventing the spread of HIV, and the WHO [currently recommends](http://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/MCrecommendations_en.pdf) it as a tool to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Finally, it's argued that this result can't be extrapolated to places where HIV is not endemic. Well, that very question was addressed in this [recent paper](http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0008723), which concluded that circumcision was likely cost-saving (and life saving) when applied to *only HIV transmission* in the United States. The paper does not take complications of circumcision into account, though they're unlikely to change the result. **Also, this makes no mention of the other benefits, like [reduced HPV transmission](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119044/), lower [assorted STD rates](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16581731), reduced [penile cancer rates](http://www.springerlink.com/content/t38q2m0679375653/), and potentially [reduced prostate cancer rates](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.26653/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false).** The obvious rebuttal is that this makes no mention of the drawbacks of the procedure. A common argument is that 'we should cut off the breasts of women to prevent breast cancer'. This, too, is unconvincing. First, there are situations where mastectomy is medically indicated for prophylactic purposes. Second, the breasts have significant demonstrable positive health effects for newborns. Finally, the mastectomy procedure is much riskier than circumcision and requires a much longer recovery period. So what are the drawbacks? It's claimed that it has significant sexual effects, but there is [little medical evidence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_effects_of_circumcision) for that claim, with an equal amount of evidence for the contrary. Opponents cite figures like 'half the sensory nerves are lost,' but again, without evidence of **actual effects**, this is irrelevant. It's also claimed that there are significant psychological side effects, but again, [there is no medical evidence of long-term adverse effects](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10930942). There is also the potential for complications from the surgery itself. These are generally considered extremely low (~0.2%) and most studies find that the short-term risk/benefit equation is fairly balanced considering the positive effects circumcision has on prevention of UTIs, phimosis, epididymitis, balanitis, etc. See, for example, [here](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1794670). Note that this analysis, and several others were done before the effects on HIV/HPV transmission were known. Another common argument against circumcision is that it should be left up to the child to decide when he comes 'of age'. However, this has some fatal flaws. First, most of the protective benefit comes with sexual activity, so the procedure should be done by age 11 or so (as with the HPV vaccine). Children that age are not capable of giving informed consent. Second, it's [much more costly](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469634) to circumcise post-neonatal infants. Ten times, in fact. Third, childhood amnesia prevents the memory of the procedure's pain for neonates. This is not the case in children or adults, who will most likely carry painful memories through the rest of their lives. An apt comparison can be drawn with vaccination. In fact, circumcision could be called a 'physical vaccine.' All vaccines come with risks and benefits, including initial pain with administration, severe complications, and even death. There is a 'tipping point' for any vaccine that makes it 'worth it'. There is mounting evidence that *routine medical infant circumcision* has more positives than negatives. **It has undeniably saved thousands of lives**. Anti-circumcision activists may also point out that the AAP's policy (along with several other countries medical associations) is that there is no medical reason for circumcision. I would like to point out that this policy was enacted in 1999, well before this new data on HIV, HSV, and prostate cancer risk was available. Even if you're unconvinced that circumcision is a 'good thing', you must admit that there is a tipping point where you'd support its routine administration. If not, you're guilty of ignoring evidence and clinging to dogma. Who do we know does that?

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/atheism on June 28, 2012 14:45:24

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/heht6/hey_ratheism_why_the_hate_on_sam_harriss_views_on/

Why do so many atheists treat questions of morality with such deference? Neither science nor mathematics are self-justifying, yet they are both considered universal, and nobody would hesitate to say that someone is doing something mathematically 'wrong.' Morality is basically the only realm of knowledge that religion still has a stranglehold on, and we are just letting it continue. Before someone trots out the Hume's is-ought problem, consider this: you can't even get to 'is' without 'ought.' Science's values (of parsimony, logic, evidence, etc.) are built-in. Second, Hume said that you couldn't get there *deductively*, which is true, but we *inductively* reason all the time! The position of atheism is reached inductively. Just because we don't have a completely agreed-upon definition of morality shouldn't prevent us from making progress. Nobody has a perfect definition of health, but we still have medicine, and we're still making objectively positive progress. Anyone who doubts that maximal, unending suffering for all conscious creatures is 'objectively bad,' and that movement away from that state is 'objectively good' is deluded, in the same way that someone claiming that 2+2=5 is. Why should we listen to them? Why should we give them such deference? Why not take a stand? Extreme, terrible suffering is on the line, yet most scientific leaders continue to say that science has *nothing* to say about what is right or wrong.

posted by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/atheism on May 18, 2011 16:45:40
Top
/r/btc/comments/hkd9om/marc_is_right_bitcoin_abc_has_done_an_excellent/fwty5bh/

> I said copy them Copy what? The code to actually do these checks has been in Bitcoin since before the BCH fork happened -- see, for instance, [this commit](https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/698c6abb25c1fbbc7fa4ba46b60e9f17d97332ef). Basically the only thing ABC did was to change the `MANDATORY_SCRIPT_VERIFY_FLAGS` to add the existing flags (and make sure they activated after a certain time). > Them being mandatory is also a pretty big difference For BCH, yes, since there was no other way to guarantee that a TX would not get unintentionally malleated. There was (and is) no other option. SegWit already gave BTC users the capability.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 15:02:57
/r/btc/comments/hkd9om/marc_is_right_bitcoin_abc_has_done_an_excellent/fwtru6c/

> However, the later acceptance of BIP147 indicates there still is some desire to fix things like these despite SegWit. Maybe, but it seems there's very little impetus, especially since it's been about three years since it activated and there's been no talk about making any of the other ones consensus changes as far as I know. It's possible that this one was just low-hanging fruit (the reference client never didn't produce the correct element, no incorrect element had been there for years, etc.), so in terms of compatibility, it was almost a no-brainer. > BIP147 activated along with SegWit and its motivation also explicitly considers SegWit. Sure, but for SegWit it's a different concern (not-as-efficient transmission of blocks) rather than pure TX malleability concerns.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 14:07:05
/r/btc/comments/hkd9om/marc_is_right_bitcoin_abc_has_done_an_excellent/fwtmbow/

> I believe Core is mostly waiting to combine this into a future soft fork BIP 62 was withdrawn because SegWit completely addresses it already. There's no need to make it a consensus change. In fact, most (all?) of BIP 62's checks are *already* in the code (did ABC write any of them itself?) but used as standardness checks rather than consensus. It's not like any old user can malleate these legacy transactions on BTC without colluding with a miner.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 13:19:44
/r/btc/comments/hkd9om/marc_is_right_bitcoin_abc_has_done_an_excellent/fwti8o3/

Huh? First, these would all be soft-fork changes. Second, most (if not all) are *already in the code*, but they're treated as standardness checks rather than mandatory. That is, in general, third party *users* won't be able to malleate these transactions unless they collude with a miner. Third, unintentional malleability was addressed completely and permanently by SegWit, including any unknown sources of signature malleability. This is not the case with BCH.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 3, 2020 12:44:37
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwqz28b/

No, they weren’t. I just explained why they weren’t. Do you think “SegWit blocks” look like the example I gave? If not, can you make what you think they look like?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 18:55:13
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwqo0d9/

What is entirely accurate? That example block I just wrote out?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 17:19:40
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwqiz0u/

Yes, because saying it's the "extension part" of the block implies that it's a specific "part" shunted off from the rest of the block, like: BLOCK HEADER Tx1Tx2Tx3Tx4Tx5 Tx6Tx7Tx8Tx9Tx10 ...... Tx1091Tx1092Tx1093Tx1094 BEGIN "EXTENSION BLOCK PART" Witness1Witness2Witness3Witness4Witness5 ..... Witness1091Witness1092Witness1093Witness1094 Calling it an "extension block" at all is very misleading in and of itself, too. So go ahead and pretend that you meant what I said all along. But please be more precise in the future.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 16:38:57
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwqck2o/

> I already know how Segwit works. If you did, you wouldn't say obviously wrong things like, "the witness data for segwit transactions go into the extension part of a segwit block". Where is the "extension part" of the block?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 15:47:20
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwq8sr9/

> No, old nodes simply do not acknowledge the extension part of the block. They don't even **receive** the witness data, since the transactions and blocks they get have a [different serialization](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki) if they are SegWit. > Ask yourself, what if legacy nodes receive blocks directly from a miner...? A legacy node wouldn't ever **ask** for a block with the new serialization rules, so they'll never even see the witness data of SegWit transactions. Miners won't just send them the witness data on their own, and if they did, the old nodes would reject it as invalid. Do you think that the old nodes receive witness data but just don't know what to do with it so they ignore it? Because that's absolutely not how it works. Familiarize yourself with the difference between `MSG_BLOCK` and `MSG_WITNESS_BLOCK`. Old nodes would never request the latter, so they won't receive the new serialization format: if (inv.type == MSG_BLOCK) connman->PushMessage(&pfrom, msgMaker.Make(SERIALIZE_TRANSACTION_NO_WITNESS, NetMsgType::BLOCK, *pblock)); else if (inv.type == MSG_WITNESS_BLOCK) connman->PushMessage(&pfrom, msgMaker.Make(NetMsgType::BLOCK, *pblock));

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 15:17:05
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwq1gxd/

> False. This illustrates your lack of understanding, regarding segwit. Sorry, it's absolutely true. > How do you think Bitcoin blocks are able to be bigger than 1MB and be backwards compatible at the same time? New nodes deliver a customized version of the block to old nodes. This customized version does not include witness data for SegWit transactions. The real block is sent to upgraded nodes.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 14:19:21
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpztsa/

> I too bold words when I laugh. **LOL**. It's hilarious how furiously you change the subject when you've lost an argument. I thought this would get old, but it doesn't. It's funny every time.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 14:06:18
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpzcth/

Tea doesn't help laughing fits, unfortunately! Not that I'd want the laughs to **stop**! Come on, keep telling me how the upgrade is **mandatory**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 14:02:30
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpz62x/

> It is mandatory, otherwise you're making objectively less money than other miners and will be pushed out of the game sooner than miners playing by SegWit rules. LOL, "objectively less money"! Where's the line where this transforms into "mandatory"? If a miner is "penalized" one satoshi per block if they don't upgrade, does that constitute a "mandatory" upgrade? Two satoshis? You seem entirely convinced that, whatever this "penalty" actually is, it's so bad as to be absolutely untenable currently. Then you try to move the goalposts to say **eventually** it'll become untenable, which somehow means that it's **currently** mandatory. You've given zero actual data about how much a miner loses by not upgrading, nor have you given any objective standard where a penalty becomes a "requirement". You're a laughingstock, and I love it!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 14:01:00
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpww19/

I think you think you're talking to someone else. Why don't you go look up the serialization of a SegWit transaction. The witness data is still 'in' the transaction. The transactions are 'in' the blocks. The witness data is not shunted off to some 'extension' part of the block. Here is a [comparison](https://i.imgur.com/fb7g8PV.png) between a SegWit block and a legacy block.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:43:08
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpw2ma/

Haha, quite the opposite. You're admitting that it's not mandatory, but now you claim that they're mildly disincentivized to not upgrade and pretending that's your original claim. **That** is moving the goalposts. (The onus is on you to prove how much a non-upgraded miner is *forced* to lose.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:36:50
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpv0rq/

> You should add "for now" with a big asterisk. How about: likely for at least a few years? Having practically no penalty for years seems totally fair to call something optional.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:28:42
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpu1fz/

It's quite literally optional. Fees are still miniscule compared to coinbase rewards (something like 4% of the total), and there are still plenty of legacy transactions to add to a block, so it's not like they're going to lose anything significant any time soon.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:20:57
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwptiry/

> but the witness data for segwit transactions go into the extension part of a segwit block. This isn't true. The witness data stays in the individual transactions. Here's an [illustration](https://i.redd.it/2whr7wofiyqy.png) of a "segwit block".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:16:49
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpsnqy/

> A miner MUST treat some p2sh transactions under SegWit rules otherwise their block will be orphaned. Is this not true? They don't have to accept any txes that spend P2SH UTXOs or they could specifically filter P2SH-wrapped SegWit txes if they wanted. Or they could mine empty blocks. So, no, technically, it wasn't a requirement to upgrade.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:09:59
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwprshw/

>> A miner who doesn't upgrade their node and treats SegWit transactions as pay to anyone will have their block orphaned and receive no mining reward. > This is 100% true. and your response is: some nodes don't even understand SegWit. lolwut He didn't write that in response to your assertion that "a **miner** who doesn't upgrade their node..." He wrote it in response to your assertion that, "Once SegWit was activated it was a mandatory update." He's talking about non-mining nodes; you're talking about mining nodes. It wasn't a mandatory update for non-mining nodes. It wasn't even *technically* mandatory for mining nodes. They could simply refuse to process nonstandard (or P2SH) txes or mine empty blocks. However, it was *practically* mandatory.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 13:03:04
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpq08p/

> And when a user doesn't use SegWit everyone suffers But users are incentivized to use it. From a previous comment of yours, you seemed to express confusion about why the witness "discount" is there in the first place. Its primary purpose is to prevent UTXO bloat.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 12:48:58
/r/btc/comments/hjx2az/after_years_of_resistance_bitpay_adopts_segwit/fwpkrjo/

> Segwit is a dirty hack that is essentially a tumor on btc network. Even its most vocal detractor has [admitted that it's only a 'wart' on Bitcoin](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/71rgwv/bu_members_remember_to_vote_on_the_current_round/dnf7nay/). > Defending segwit technically just shows your ignorance, best case. LOL, how's that? "Dirty hack" and "segwitcoin" aren't arguments; they're just name-calling.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 12:07:38
/r/btc/comments/hj57cp/whats_up_with_btc_cash/fwphcj1/

It's pretty undeniable that at least three of the five non-bot mods have or have had direct financial ties to Roger. /u/BitcoinXio [writes for bitcoin.com and his company was purchased by Roger](https://news.bitcoin.com/author/david/). /u/MemoryDealers is Roger. /u/BeijingBitcoins is (or was) an "advisor to Bitcoin.com" and "produces [or produced] a Youtube channel with Roger Ver on promoting Bitcoin Cash." I'm not going to directly link this, as I don't want to risk breaking dox rules. Three out of five is a majority. You're free to nitpick on the word "employed", but the point remains: the majority of the mods have or have had significant financial ties to Roger. Edit: And the only two mods with full permissions are Roger and /u/BitcoinXio.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 2, 2020 11:43:19
/r/btc/comments/hj79y2/bitcoiner_tries_to_ask_reddit_directly_to_censor/fwmitn8/

> That's either really funny... It’s been absolutely hilarious, believe me.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 17:02:29
/r/btc/comments/hj79y2/bitcoiner_tries_to_ask_reddit_directly_to_censor/fwmidv2/

LOL, that’s a joke, right? Seriously, what’s the uncertainty?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 16:59:09
/r/btc/comments/hj79y2/bitcoiner_tries_to_ask_reddit_directly_to_censor/fwmbfkh/

I don't think your concerns make any sense, which is why I'm trying to get you to clarify. Here's what you said: > with SW the signatures can be verified then discarded by the node (convoluted with transaction pruning but not the same) and from that point forward the signature can not be verified back to uxto origin since it is now discarded Why do you need to verify the signature back to the UTXO origin? You *just* verified it, so you know it's correct. You also know you previously verified the other signatures in the chain back to the coinbases, so you know *those* are also correct. > sure nodes are not required to remove SW signatures, but it is now an uncertainty that did not exist before, even with transaction pruning that has been possible for a long time What, precisely, is this "uncertainty"?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 16:07:22
/r/btc/comments/hj79y2/bitcoiner_tries_to_ask_reddit_directly_to_censor/fwmasca/

Can you tell me where I'm wrong or be more specific about your concern?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 16:02:32
/r/btc/comments/hj79y2/bitcoiner_tries_to_ask_reddit_directly_to_censor/fwma3y5/

So your concern is that *every* node will permanently delete signatures once they've verified them, and therefore, if a new node tries to sync, it will not be able to trace signatures for new transactions back to their origins? Have I got that right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 15:57:38
/r/btc/comments/hj79y2/bitcoiner_tries_to_ask_reddit_directly_to_censor/fwm9krl/

> Accounts can be bought, sold, stolen, given away, shared, or traded... Sure they can. However, there are certain biographical details I've shared on reddit that are quite verifiable, going back a number of years, so it'd be *quite something* if those just happened to match the current user of this account (ie - me). > On top of that reddit itself is not a system to pin cryptographic proof to a single identity. Ah, so maybe Greg just *shares* this account? He just manages to write perfectly in my voice (which has been unchanged since I registered the account) and follow my usage patterns perfectly? Quite a feat! > Hell, my own RES only has you as maybe Greg Yet you write with such conviction that I'm actually Greg. > Because of the level of manipulation available... What does that mean? That Greg could sell this account to an imposter? There are a few well-known Bitcoin and crypto people who've met me IRL who could vouch that I've been the sole owner of this account for at least the past two years, one of whom is practically revered in this sub. > I'm willing to bet precisely nothing. Of course, you fucking coward. Nobody ever wants to back up their accusations. However, I don't mind. The entertainment of knowing how complete the bamboozlement worked is sufficient compensation. > At the same time, its really fucking stupid how often you appear to white-knight Greg. It's funny, when I first started posting here (primarily as a largely-unthanked public service to rid the community of a charlatan), I knew basically nothing about Greg other than he was a (former?) Core dev and generally treated as a boogey-man. Shortly after I started my thankless effort, I started being accused of being Greg. That led me to looking into him a bit, and, lo and behold, I discovered that many of the accusations were utterly baseless. When there was actual 'smoke', it was almost always exaggerated so much as to be a ridiculous caricature of the original accusation. Ironically, thanks to the hostility of this sub, we've actually ended up becoming friends. Mind you, he's never had any control over my account (or mine his), or asked me to comment, or anything that could be remotely construed as sockpuppetry, with the sole exception of our pre-planned joke post, which you helpfully linked. So, thanks, I guess, for growing my circle of friends.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 15:53:46
/r/btc/comments/hj79y2/bitcoiner_tries_to_ask_reddit_directly_to_censor/fwm32tq/

How much are you willing to bet that I'm Greg?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 15:05:07
/r/btc/comments/hj79y2/bitcoiner_tries_to_ask_reddit_directly_to_censor/fwm18sr/

> While Greg may be dishonest and he may be trying to respond to 2 week old threads to disingeniously "improve" asicboost-related search results LOL, can't waste another opportunity to accuse Greg of malicious behavior, huh?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 14:51:30
/r/btc/comments/hj79y2/bitcoiner_tries_to_ask_reddit_directly_to_censor/fwm11xx/

> since the foundation of Bitcoin is the verifiability of every transaction back that makes up a uxto, and signature removal (that he likes to convolute with pruning) breaks this foundation of certainty and security I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you think signatures aren't verified by nodes? Can you go into detail about your concern?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 14:50:09
/r/btc/comments/h8p45p/what_exactly_is_the_controversy_regarding_bitcoin/fwlzeod/

PSA - Warning: Jokester /u/nullc located in parent comment. ------------- Use [Reddit Enhancement Suite](https://redditenhancementsuite.com/) and [DYOR](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=DYOR). Be safe from humor.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 14:37:58
/r/btc/comments/h8p45p/what_exactly_is_the_controversy_regarding_bitcoin/fwkzrax/

http://api.pushshift.io/reddit/search/comment/?sort=desc&size=500&author=nullc&q=antble* Error rate... rising!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on July 1, 2020 09:49:25
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwi8smh/

> The title says bitcoin, yet when you look at the article, its clearly talking about several digital currencies The title **specifically mentions 'cryptocurrencies'** after it calls out the specific Bitcoin boom, meaning it's making a distinction. And, as before, this is my last message on **this** topic, because I've had my fun. You may have the last word. > Youre an idiot. LOL!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:23:28
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwi8ktp/

> Didnt happen here, because the money was returned. A block reward was taken. > punitive penalties imply that the primary goal is to punish. Yup, exactly as what happened here. The miner was punished for not following the secret plan. > what matters is that now that they have recieved it, they're linked. You're implying that, without the bike, they wouldn't have gotten the reward. Unless you're not, in which case it's an even more terrible analogy. > What a sad waste of life you are then. How pathetically boring. You found the salt mine again!! Hooray! > Again, that there arent explicit rules isnt relevant to whether or not its an attack. Of course it is, silly! > I'm not laughing, I'm just shaking my head. In disappointment in yourself, I presume, at coming up with terrible excuses and projecting all your insecurities about adhering to a narrative at all costs. > You've made probably 100 posts now and failed to come up with a logically consitant explanation for how this would be an attack and the value overflow incident isnt. You can lead a horse to water... I've tried my best and had lots of fun, but I'm afraid you're beyond help. This'll be the last message from me on this topic. I'll give you the last word. Adios!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:21:44
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwi713h/

> I just have to show an example of them not specifically meaning BTC tokens. Heres an example: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/after-the-bitcoin-boom-hard-lessons-for-cryptocurrency-investors.html Every example seems to mean Bitcoin in the way I use it. The headline seems to refer specifically to the Bitcoin boom, too. > they even use the term to refer to crytocurrencies as a whole Not true. > So like I said, you coming here and whinging about the use of the term bitcoin is an absolute joke. Get a life. Hahaha!! This is amazing. You **really** think you're right, huh? Hilarious. > Just means you're an idiot for using something thats not ever trying to be good at what you're using it for. Man, you gotta get back to the salt mine.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:09:17
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwi6ijw/

> The loss of block reward was incidental to returning the funds. Wrong. It could have been prevented. > No they couldnt. The only people who imagine such a thing are just trying to justify a predetermined opinion. Projection. > intention of the miner isnt relevant. Hahaha! Wow, now you've *completely* lost the plot. > You could also claim the police are attacking the person who had the bike simply because they suffered some inconvenience or loss in the course of the bike being returned. Nonsense. The police took that miner's block reward. The miner followed the rules, so blaming 'inconvenience' is ridiculous when they could have fixed the issue themselves earlier. > Theres no reasonable way to describe the BCH funds being returned to their rightful owners as an attack either. I **just did**. You're hilariously blind, though. > Youre just grasping at straws since you are an anti-BCH troll. Tell yourself whatever you need to keep believing your narrative! I've had enough fun.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:05:10
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwi5z2v/

> The definition of attack literally does not mention anything about being pre-planned and non-public. The vast majority of 'attacks' are pre-planned and non-public, especially in crypto. So if we're trying to characterize an action as an attack or not, those are relevant qualities, even if not 100% dispositive. > There was no punitive penalty. The loss of the block reward was just incidental to the miner returning the stolen property. It was effectively punitive, as they lost the reward completely without fair warning, and it could have been prevented. > Just as the loss of delivery revenue from using the bike would be incidental to returning the bike. Not true. The bike was not germane to the delivery revenue. The miner would have received it without the bike. The bike didn't help him get it in any way. > Says the moron Now, now. Calm down and take a deep breath. > comes to this forum to argue with people about how they're using the word bitcoin I mostly come to laugh, actually. > whether or not miners returning 3K BCH to their rightful owners was an attack Let me reword that for you: whether or not miners (who could have insisted on code changes preventing this) 51%-ing a fellow miner who broke no rules was an "attack". I spelled it out quite clearly for you. I'm sorry you don't get it. > You're a joke and you know it. Well, I *am* laughing!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 15:00:50
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwi4mf1/

> what I said is undeniable. It's completely deniable. Show me all the instances of mainstream news referring to Bitcoin but specifically meaning BCH or BSV or Bitcoin Gold or Bitcoin Diamond. > Bitcoin very often refers to the system as a whole rather than a specific fork or token. I'm open to evidence of this happening in mainstream sources. > The purse.io example proves that the term can be used logically to mean something besides BTC tokens specifically. Sorry, it doesn't prove it. You don't know that they knew BCH was used with purse.io. Usually when the media refers to multiple chains, they use "cryptocurrencies". > We've already crossed it at least once, sorry. Sorry, I still used it as P2P cash.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 14:50:12
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwi3fuc/

> Just as with stolen property in reali life, it can be confiscated regardless of if you claim to have intended to return it. There's literally codified laws around that, you know? > Its a pretty good analogy. Whats do you think is wrong with it? I gave a much more accurate one in another comment. This one makes it sound like the 'police' acted publicly and didn't have a secret plan to punish anyone who even touched the bike. > Irrelevant as to whether what happened was an attack. They're all absolutely relevant to whether the actions could be characterized as an "attack". I made an edit that you didn't see, and I'll repeat it here. I'm bored with this thread, as I expect you are. I'm going to attempt to sum up the conversation in a somewhat fair way just to put a cap on it. I understand that you think the BCH miners did the 'right' thing, and that it could not be fairly characterized as an "attack", since they 'returned the coins'. However, I highly disagree, and reasonable people absolutely could come to the conclusion that there was malfeasance (or at least gross incompetence, but that's a fine line) involved. The ability to fix the bug in the code and prevent any intentional 51% re-org is completely relevant to that point, as is the fact that you don't know the intention of the miner who originally collected the outputs. The lack of an explicit rule *not to take* those outputs unless you **immediately** reassign them to the new owners, or else you lose your block reward, is gross incompetence in my opinion, and can be seen as the 'benevolent' miners attacking the rule-following miner. Why wasn't this fact made public when it easily could have been? If it were there, I would readily concede that this wasn't an "attack", though I'd still criticize the bad methodology. This situation bears no resemblance to the overflow bug in those critical ways. There's no fair or reasonable way to characterize that as an "attack".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 14:41:01
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwhxyec/

> You dont have to prove maliciousness when confiscating stolen property, sorry. Absent any direct way that owners could retrieve their lost property, how do you know the miners didn't intend to take it only to prevent any other malicious miner from running with it? You don't. > If you miss your UberEats delivery because the police confiscate your stolen bike, you're not getting compensated for that either. Another terribly inapt analogy. Why am I not surprised? You are congenitally incapable of reasonable argument, it seems. > Lol, OK. if you're going to keep pushing "code is law" bullshit but then claiming you don't believe code is law I believe that the code is the best effort at codifying the agreed-upon rules, and that it should only be overridden in **exceptional circumstances** where code did not accurately capture the agreed-upon rules. That is, code *is not always law*, but we ought to make the code reflect the law to the best of our ability. > If you cant accept that the fix involved planned miner action rather than giving the devs blacklisting power It didn't require blacklists. It just required them to be more strict about the form these "segwit recovery" transactions could take. Why wouldn't the miners *want* this? Why wouldn't *everyone* want this? I do accept that this was the *plan*, but a deliberate, months-long plan to 51% attack your own chain, when you had the opportunity to fix it in a much better way, is a terrible plan.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 13:58:52
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhwf0l/

> Bitcoin could refer to the system as a whole, a token on a specific fork, or all tokens on all bitcoin forks. Objection, lack of foundation. > Your irrational insistence that bitcoin can only mean BTC specifically I'm merely pointing out that it almost always does in practice. > Then why'd you feel the need to pretend you didnt know in the first sentence? I'm pointing out the irrationality of this sub. > Likely because it proves that the term bitcoin can be used to describe things other than BTC tokens. I mean, it literally *can* if any person tries, but just because I always call walnuts "toothpaste" doesn't "prove the term toothpaste can be used to describe walnuts". > Only possible while it stays niche and outside of bullmarkets. Then you'll have to switch to lightning network or liquid, neither of which are even really "bitcoin-as-a-system". Sorry. Ha! So it's Bitcoin until it's not, huh? Why don't we cross that bridge if we get there?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 13:47:03
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwhvrjt/

> So did the value overflow fix...sorry. How many times do I have to delineate the *very relevant* differences? Keep plugging your ears. > Attacks are not inherently pre-planned and non-public. Yes, they are. > Police returning a stolen bike is intentional too, doesnt mean its an attack against the person that has the bike LOL. Let's run with this analogy for a bit. There's a bike left in the street (intentionally) that the 'police' are watching. Someone goes up to it and touches it (the miner) and the 'police' (the cabal of colluding miners) immediately take the bike and fine the person $10k. Meanwhile, that bike **could have been** rendered untouchable by anyone but the original owner. Was the 'police' action an "attack" on the person who touched it? **Very arguably so**. Compare that to the situation with the overflow bug, where someone deliberately stole a bike from someone's locked garage and was caught on camera doing so. The police return the bike and fine the person. This situation is far more clear cut, and would never be characterized as an attack. > More of your "code is law" bullshit you claim to not subscribe to. Hilarious. You're such a clown. I explicitly included non-code rules that are universally known, explicitly written, and uncontroversial. Your "implicit" rules, though, are a bridge too far. > Nope, doesnt take much time to blacklist coins if you want your developers to have that power, sorry. It would have taken much more time to do that and keep the code in there forever. Moreover, it wouldn't be nearly as clean a solution, and would still violate the rules, as > 21 million coins would have been created. That situation needed a final fix in a matter of **hours**, not **years** like in this case. > Just like you punished the value overlflow attacker, huh? Read the distinctions again, champ. > Satoshi never said miners cant reject blocks they feel are invalid. Eh, he said, "It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one", but he was using a different definition of "valid" than we are using. He meant, "within a set of validity rules". > And validity is subjective, sorry. You might think its a big deal, but I dont. Of course you don't, because you need to fit your story to the facts. > What is your point even? That I trust miners more than devs to make this decision doesnt mean I have to accept every decision from miners as correct or that I trust miners unquestionably and always. You never had a point to begin with. Besides, it sounds like the devs and miners colluded to produce this attack. You said it was "part of the fix" that the attacking group of miners acted the way they did.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 13:41:57
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhjdgv/

> Why would they be talking specifically about BTC tokens? Because they said Bitcoin. > Nah, we both know you know obviously they're talking about BCH in that scenario. The denial is palpable. Haha, I love the attempts at turnabout! Kudos! However, I said in the next sentence that they probably were talking about BCH. > BTC threw away the peer-to-peer cash function so its not even really "bitcoin-as-a-system" , either. Ha! I'm still using it as P2P cash. Sorry.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 12:03:56
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwhj705/

> irrelevant as to whther what happened was an "attack" Totally relevant. It goes to the "malicious" miner's actual motive, which you haven't proved. > an ongoing bug This **was the fix**. It wasn't supposed to be ongoing. > Social contracts often dont involve any specific words from any specific person or group. Were there any words saying that you cant exploit a value overflow incident for profit? LOL! There were specific and explicit words saying that Bitcoin was limited to 21 million coins. > Irrelevant as to whether or not what happened was an attack, sorry. Declaring "irrelevant" is not sufficient. You're acting like this 51% attack by a colluding group of miners is a common occurrence outside the context of an emergency bug fix. It is not. That is a factor in determining whether it's actually an "attack". Sorry. > It doesnt need to be published. BTC has secret rules as well HAHAHA!! > Whyd you attack him and steal his block reward then? I fully explained why. He broke the explicit, public, well-known rules, so his block was invalid. This is in direct opposition to this case, where a miner followed the public, well-known and deliberated rules and was attacked for it. > Then why do you keep whinging about where the rules are written and implying that the bugfix had to be carrried out entirely in code? Because code is our *codified* method of agreeing to the rules as best we can. If there's a rule that ought to be enforced, it should be made public and explicit. Having these "implicit" rules is insane. > What words? The words describing the "Segwit recovery" method. > Not exploiting ongoing bugs Again, not an "ongoing bug". It was supposed to be fixed. > Yes there is. Theres no law in bitcoin saying you cant exploit an overflow bug, yet it wasnt allowed. As I said, there's an *explicit* rule that says Bitcoin can't have more than 21 million coins. That was broken. > Whether or not you think it was "required" or not is irrelevant as to whether it was an attack, sorry. Haha! Again, despite you simply declaring things "irrelevant", that doesn't mean they actually are irrelevant. As I've said, there are mitigating circumstances to determine whether something ought to be considered an "attack", exactly like justifiable homicide. The two situations you're trying to equate could not be more different, yet you persist in this ridiculous charade. It's really amusing.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 12:02:29
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhh22d/

> With no additional context we could assume BTC. Obviously. > If they say, "Bitcoin is being used to launder money on Amazon!", what are they refering to? Bitcoin. But you know this. > If someone on r/btc says "good thing bitcoin routed around blockstream's attempt to capture it by crippling blocksize" In this sub, anything goes, so who can really say? However, they probably mean Bitcoin Cash, since they have a non-standard definition. > Obviously bitcoin can be used to describe BCH as well, sorry. Not really. BCH threw away the consensus mechanism with the automated 'checkpoints', so it's not even really "Bitcoin-as-a-system" any longer, either.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:45:19
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhgslu/

> Fact of the matter is that BCH is a type of bitcoin It's a fork of Bitcoin. > If you were talking to random news anchors with no further context, obviously you should specify exactly which token you're talking about if you're talking about a specific token My point is **you wouldn't have to**, because it's universal. But you know that. Sorry.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:43:12
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwhgopd/

> Not an attack, sorry. They attacked the other miner's block. Sorry. > "Secret plan" is irrelevant as to whether its an attack, sorry. Completely relevant, as the attack was intentional, pre-planned, and non-public, exactly the qualities an attack would be expected to have. > So did the BCH attacker, sorry. LOL! Good one! You're really hanging your hat on this "implicit" contract. Sorry, though, he played by the explicit code and written rules. You don't get to post-date rules. See ex-post-facto laws. Sorry. > Nah, could have invalidated the extra tokens with code and let him keep the block reward rather than attacking him....lol Great example of the kind of changes that developers could make with extra time to actually address a bug rather than using an emergency fix! Thank you for that. > Doesnt matter in reference to it being an attack or not, sorry. Absolutely does. It has relevance to the "benevolent" miners punishing the "nefarious" miner. As before, you're hanging your hat very strongly on the "bad" miner breaking some obvious rule, when it was a bug that affected a tiny minority of users *who made mistakes*. Arguably, the coins were legitimately *lost*. It's nowhere near as clear-cut as you're making it out to be. > Theres a difference between transaction ordering and a quick bug fix by orphaning 2 blocks, and protocol level decisions that I dont agree with. On the contrary, defying Satoshi's consensus mechanism to enforce a controversial change that was unpublished and totally private is a pretty big deal! > If it was undeniable and malicious, obviously not. This wasnt though, sorry. Ah, so you trust their judgment only if it aligns with your judgment. Totally logical!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:42:20
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwhfltc/

Haha, that's a lie, once again. When they say, "Bitcoin hit a price of...", what are they referring to?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:33:36
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwheeaf/

Obviously BCH is a fork of Bitcoin. However, "Bitcoin" is a proper name that refers to a specific chain in its actual every-day usage, so saying "Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin" is intentionally misleading (and pretty amusing, for that matter). Your comparison with the word "dollar" is inapt, as "dollar" does not have a universally accepted meaning when it's said by itself anywhere. Sorry.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 11:23:50
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwgrv8l/

> due to screwy user experience caused by autistic bitcoin core devs LOL, of course it’s everyone else’s fault. BCH knew about SegWit for a *long* time and could have had a fix in from the beginning, but didn’t. > Clearly not an attack. Again, just because they didn’t keep the money doesn’t mean nobody was attacked. A miner followed the rules and was attacked for it. > even if the code technically allowed it. Code isnt law. Were there any *words*, then, that said any miner not immediately paying back to the sending address (even that’s not required — funds could have been delivered to control of the recipient’s private key) would be an invalid block? Where are all the other cases of this happening not due to newly discovered bugs? > The fix involved a miner spending Where was that published? What other secret rules are there? > As certain as I am the overflow incident miner was out for financial gain, yes So not certain at all? The overflow bug may have just been exploited as a lark or a troll. Bitcoin was practically worthless at the time, and they knew they wouldn’t get to keep it. > Even if you dont claim it explicitly, your argument implies it. You keep whinging about the attack following the "intended rules", as if its in the code allows it and its not a new bug (I know you’re realizing your argument is bad when you keep accusing me of whining.) I explicitly don’t follow ‘code is law’, otherwise I wouldn’t have supported the value overflow reorg. Not only did the code allow it, the words did, too. Relying on an “implied” contract is crazy, since there was every opportunity to make that explicit, yet it never was. > Doesnt matter if its newly discovered or not, still cant steal it, sorry. Ah, I thought so. There are no comparable “implicit” contracts where this has happened. You’re just making excuses for this specific situation even though it’s unprecedented. > and its not a new bug (gotta throw in a no true scotmans arguement to shield BTC from your logically inconsistant stance), Yes, emergency actions are typically only required in emergencies, like how justifiable homicide is only a valid defense in certain circumstances. This situation, as you know, doesn’t even come close to an emergency. There were months (years!) to put in a fix to the issue that would require no miner to be attacked as part of a plan.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 07:36:17
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwgqipo/

> If an anonymous miner that DID take them for themselves (even if you claim theres a chance he was going to return them....lol) loses 12.5 BCH block reward, too bad for them. So what if they were attacked? It was part of the secret plan to attack all along. > Just like you dismiss the overflow incident attackers block reward. Not even remotely similar, as usual. There was no secret plan. That miner mined a block that was undeniably against the rules. It was a completely unknown bug that required an emergency fix lest everyone in bitcoin would have been irreparably harmed. This situation, on the other hand, only affected a very small minority of users who made mistakes that were *preventable* by BCH. > miners incentives are more closely aligned with the success of the chain than developers, so i better trust them to make such a decision If you trust their judgment, why don’t you use the coin where ~90% of the hash is? Also, it’s a bit circular. If an undeniably malicious 51% attack occurred on BCH, would you say, “oh, the miners know best. I trust their decision.” I’d hope not.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 07:16:18
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwgpnei/

If a mainstream news person (anywhere on the planet) mentions Bitcoin without any qualifiers, what are they referring to?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 07:03:11
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg9zrh/

> Lol, you gonna cry about your downvotes now? Haha, if you haven’t noticed, I quite enjoy them, actually. It’s hilarious to imagine you furiously downvoting my comments. > In the real world, miners have the power to reject blocks Sure, they have the power to 51% attack. Doesn’t mean they should. > If the community disagrees with the miner, they can reject those miner's blocks Or sell their coins, like I did (though I sold them all after the automated checkpoints were added, so not entirely applicable here). > Bitcoin is full of economic incentives and social contracts outside and beyond the code Who needs code that could make clear what the rules are when you can have secret mining cabals enforcing social contracts, right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:48:58
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg9i91/

> Not attacking, because the miners didnt intend harm They intended to revoke the block reward of a miner who followed all the rules. That’s an attack. > Now you know how I feel when you hilariously worry about the block reward of the miner who took all this money, huh? Apples and oranges, as always. The inflation bug was an undeniable exploit that didn’t follow the intended rules. This miner followed the intended rules (well, except for the secret, non-public “inherent” one). > No it was clearly ongoing because the situation of stuck segwit funds had not yet been resolved. This was the fix. It was supposed to no longer be an issue. It **could** have no longer been an issue and had no miner lose a reward. > There is a social contract to not exploit bugs for financial gain. And you’re **certain** that miner was out for financial gain, eh? > The value overflow incident already broke your "code is law" BS. Lol, putting words in my mouth now. You really would fit in on /r/bitcoincashsv. Their focus on “code is law is bullshit” is right up your alley. > He missed the part where theres a clear history in bitcoin of attack blocks being orphaned. Other than newly discovered bugs, can you point out some?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:41:28
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg8gxn/

“Australian dollar is dollar!” Lol.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:26:01
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg8duj/

It’s a made up lie to make yourself feel better. Just keep mashing the downvote on my comments and soon you’ll be feeling good as new.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:24:47
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg896x/

> it was made by a miner An attacking mining cartel. > Why'd bitcoin miners attack his block reward then? LOLOLOL. > an ongoing bug A ‘fixed’ bug. > the fix wasnt entirely carried out by the dev in code Got it. The ‘fix’ was an attacking cartel who picked off the block reward of a miner who followed the published rules. But he missed the, what was it, “inherent” something?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:22:55
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg7zy8/

> Nope, because this fix inherently involved sending those coins from the anyone-can-spend to the correct address. Lol, straight up lying again. It’s been fun, but I’m not going to keep engaging with a liar. “Inherently involved”! LOL!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:19:14
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg7tps/

> Yea because you're a troll. Because it has a widely used definition, and this sub doesn’t adhere to it. The fact that you’re so cloistered in this group makes it difficult for you to see the humor.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:16:49
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg7n4i/

> you'd rather let a miner make the decision themselves. You’d rather let a miner get their block reward stolen for producing a perfectly valid block that adheres to the fix? Ok... > What matters is if you took it and it doesnt belong to you /r/bitcoincashsv is that way. Welcome to law. (You’re ignoring that the miner could have returned it almost immediately after.) > Same as if you buy stolen property, the police have a right to take it away from you without compensation They lost the block reward, too. You ignore that. > Doesnt change the meaning of the words 51% or attack. It does, indeed, have relevance to the word attack, as I just explained in a recent comment. > The bug was ongoing and obviously their fix didnt fully address the issue. But could have, and thus prevented an attack. > So was this. False. This was the *fix* for the bug. > go mine BTC then. we dont care. Lol

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:14:19
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg6osk/

> Again, thats relevant to neither the terms 51% or attack I’d say it has relevance to ‘attack’, because if a known and longstanding bug has a ‘fix’, you’d think that any block that meets that ‘fix’ is a valid, non-attack block, right? > only that they should be spent from the anyone can spend address to the intended address. And this was publicized where? Ought it not have been in code lest a miner who wasn’t aware of this unspoken rule get their block reward attacked? > Given that it did happen Given that the miner was attacked and his block reward unfairly taken?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 02:01:05
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg6fn7/

I honestly couldn’t care less, to tell the truth. I’m not even a ‘core maximalist’. In fact, if I categorized myself, I’m like a quarter in /r/buttcoin. It’s just amusing to me to see the ‘bitcoin cash is bitcoin’ posts.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:57:39
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg66zw/

> the block he mined proves that he took possession of other people money. So any block that didn’t pay to the spend address for those txes was invalid? Or an attack? This doesn’t make sense, since it would have been trivial to put that in the code or *at least announce it*. Again, you have no idea whether that miner intended to restore the txes. > Consensus rules dont apply as some unbreakable bond, because we're dealing with resolving the effects of a bug. A bug that could have been completely fixed by changing consensus rules in the code rather than attacking a miner who followed the rules. > Like I said, if a miner wants to orphan you because you're exploiting the effects of a bug, they can. They weren’t. This was the bug **fix**, not the bug. > but BTC did it with the overflow incident too. That was the bug! > but who cares? The miner who lost the block reward despite following the rules and not exploiting any bugs. Future miners who may lose block rewards due to unpublished rules on BCH where mining cartels can 51% them.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:54:23
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg5i2m/

I think you’re just sensitive about it. I don’t see any more “bitcoin cash is bitcoin” posts. Maybe you’re just upset about that.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:44:59
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg5cio/

> Intention isnt relevant here Intention is utterly relevant. The intention was to fix a bug. It’s not relevant where the bug came from if you have plenty of time to fix it. > The devs obviously prefered for miners to make the decision rather than themselves The devs wanted the miners to have unpublished rules about which mining cartel could spend those coins? Weird. > it isnt relevant to the point of whether or not it or the BTC incident were 51% attacks. It absolutely is. There would not have been an attack on that miner if the code was there.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:42:58
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg5066/

> The attacker used the block and the effects of a bug to take possession of other people's money. Now you’re just lying. Did he follow the publicly announced rules or not? He did. Were his block rewards intentionally taken or not? They were. Did the miner who took his reward follow **different consensus rules**? No. > You arent entiteld to a block reward in such scenario Huh? He mined a perfectly valid, non-bug-afflicted block, no? He followed the rules announced ahead of time. Were there any announcements about miners not taking those except for a pre-approved cartel? I don’t remember that.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:38:23
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg4bju/

Lol, crying about it!! 😆

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:29:21
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg47tw/

Faaaalse. I already showed you that the BCH scenario could very plausibly be construed as an attack, while the Bitcoin scenario could not. Please keep your tribalism in check.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:28:00
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg43z4/

> Having a large backlog of segwit transactions available immediately after a hard fork was never part of the "intended rules". No, the intended rules were the ‘SegWit recovery’ rules. The miner adhered to them and was punished for it. They were attacked despite following the rules. > Nothing stopped you from taking them either, technically speaking. Lol, except for the planned 51% attack, right? Of course, code would have sorted this out nicely and resulted in nobody getting attacked.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:26:37
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg3w65/

> Depends on how you define bitcoin, doesnt it? You’re free to use non-standard definitions, just like you’re free to call cool-whip “mayonnaise”. You’ll just be out of sync with almost everyone else.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:23:46
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg3qr5/

> You're simply trying to shift the conversation to comparing in other ways that are irrelvant as to whether its a 51% attack. You’re desperately trying to excuse bad behavior (or incompetence) by narrowly defining a term and using a completely different scenario to compare it to. It’s disingenuous and you know it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:21:49
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg3gh2/

> Hilarious that you'e 'worried' about the block reward for this miner. He shouldnt have taken control of other people's funds. He operated 100% within the **intended rules**. You have no idea whether their plan was to return it or not. In fact, they may have planned just that because of the shitty, non-code “fix” for the problem. > Maybe the value overflow attacker wasnt actually going to spend the funds so he deserves his block reward too. LOL, more idiotic apples and oranges. That was undeniably an exploit, and, again, **it wasn’t known ahead of time**. That person wasn’t playing by the publicly-agreed upon and intended rules like the miner in question was. > They never took custody. But nothing stopped them, technically-speaking. Code could have.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:18:04
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg2hox/

> Poorly On the contrary, you addressed it poorly. > I never said the BCH and BTC incidents were directly comparable You just directly compared them. Let’s check the tape: > No different from BTC miners rejecting the BTC inflation bug transaction, sorry. No. Different. Strawman my ass.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:05:45
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg25hq/

I mean, it’s not Bitcoin. It’s a fork of Bitcoin, but it’s not Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:01:34
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg22a9/

> Irrelevant to whether or not harm was intended by the orphaning. Not at all. That miner lost the block reward. Were they compensated for it? If their plan was to return the funds, too, that’s **undeniably** an attack against them. > Huh? You can look at the blockchain and see that the funds were sent back to the sending address... No it does't because we can see that the funds were returned. And that was guaranteed to happen how? What if they changed their minds and kept it?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 01:00:28
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg11wy/

> No, thats not relevant to the term 51% attack: I addressed that. > I'm not comparing the incidents on on all levels. I'm specifically comparing them in reference to them being 51% attacks or not. Because all homicides are directly comparable and don’t differ in critical ways that could be totally misleading? Gotcha.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:48:01
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg0sq2/

> You think the BCH incident was intended to cause harm There isn’t enough evidence to determine it for sure. Have all the funds been returned to their rightful owners? Was the ‘attempted thief’ going to return it, too? The fact that the fix could have been public and in the code very easily (yet didn’t) makes this action suspicious, at the very least.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:44:53
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwg0kxh/

BSV, then. Lol. Even worse :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:42:17
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwg0i8j/

> Proof that the empty blocks enabled the attack isnt needed. It isn’t even relevant. You’re just disingenuously using it as a red herring. Again, the only relevant thing is that BCH planned a 51% attack when it had a plethora of other options. > No, the intentional plan was for an honest miner to return the funds before someone else stole them. No, that was the **hope**. The secret **plan** was to 51% the chain to get them if they didn’t get lucky. By the way, how many other secret 51% plans are there in BCH? > The defintion of murder explicitly requires that you were killed by someone else and not old age. How about murder versus justified homicide, then? In certain cases, the difference is only if you have an opportunity to do something else, like retreat. (Or fix the code.) The point is that just because you think it meets a technical definition, doesn’t mean the two ought to be fairly compared. The fact that you insist on comparing them despite their enormous differences is only to suit your narrative.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:41:22
/r/btc/comments/hhd36b/according_to_blockstream_btc_coin_had_a_possible/fwfym7s/

> They just removed a limit preventing bigger blocks. That’s not true. If it were, it’d still sync to Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:19:01
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfy2ys/

> No, I didnt confirm that. You can at least confirm that you’re just speculating about it, and, further, that it had no *direct* relation to why BCH miners planned a 51% attack when they could have fixed it in the code instead. > That they had more time to think of an alternative doesnt suddenly make it a "51% attack" and the overflow incident "not 51% attack". Lol, it makes all the difference in the world. Bitcoin would have been basically irreparably broken had the overflow bug not been fixed quickly and artificially. Here, literally, the **intentional plan** was to 51% the chain! I’m not sure how you can say this with a straight face. It’s like saying, “person A was murdered and person B died of old age, but they’re both dead, so why does it matter how it happened?” Edit: > That you want to apply the 51% attack label to one and not the the other is painfully obvious tribalism. Lol, the projection is palpable. That you’d try to compare these situations is painfully obvious tribalism.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 30, 2020 00:12:52
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfw9so/

> Ask them. It was a pretty sophisicated attack with several things happening at once. Lol, so it has no bearing on the 51% attack. Thanks for confirming. > Obviously then they'd orphan them to prevent them from exploiting the bug, as was done with the value overflow incident. So the **plan** was to 51% the chain? Wow. You’re not getting this. It’s not at all the same as the overflow bug. That was an emergency bug where the *rules* didn’t work the way they were expected to, and the *only* way to fix the problem was to artificially get everyone back on the same chain. Here, the rules acted **as expected** in the recent fork. The problem could have been fixed in a few different ways at the developers’ leisure. There was no emergency. You are comparing apples and oranges. (By the way, I already addressed this twice before in edits. You edited in your original comment.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:52:26
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfu9sw/

So the “plan” was just to hope a specific benevolent miner would get the SegWit funds? What if another miner got them first? Also, what does it matter that several empty blocks happened?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:30:47
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfsr46/

> Immediately after the fork a bug was exploited that had existed since before the fork. Wait, there was a new bug? What was the plan all along for how the new fork was *supposed* to work but didn’t? Because, from what I can gather, the spec was published well before the fork, and what happened was completely by the spec. Edit: Again, it’s completely relevant. An emergency bug fix is an exceptional circumstance, and was made because the rules didn’t actually work the way we thought and hoped they would. The 51% attack that BCH did was against fully known and agreed upon rules that were working as expected!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:14:39
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfrpxz/

How so? The ‘fix’ for the SegWit mis-spends was planned for months, IIRC. How long was the overflow bug known before it was fixed? Edit: you added in an edit: > or whether or not it was avoidable is irrelevant as to whether or not 51% hashpower rejecting a transaction was used as part of the fix to the problem though. It’s completely relevant. An emergency bug fix is an exceptional circumstance, and was made because the rules didn’t actually work the way we thought and hoped they would. The 51% attack that BCH did was against *fully known and agreed upon rules that were working as expected!*

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 23:03:50
/r/btc/comments/hhzta2/the_emperor_has_no_clothes_why_proof_of_work_does/fwfr72f/

> Once the bug was fixed The ‘fix’ was terrible. They could have made those funds spendable only with the private keys of the intended recipient or even the sender. > . No different from BTC miners rejecting the BTC inflation bug transaction, sorry. Big difference. This was foreseeable and fixable ahead of time.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:58:28
/r/btc/comments/hhup0z/bitcoinorgs_secret_owner_kicks_out_the_sites/fwfnp7l/

Lol, they definitely fit a narrative.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 22:22:44
/r/btc/comments/hhzgi0/blockstreams_liquid_at_its_finest/fwfaqph/

LOL. I thought this would get old, but it doesn't. I still smile when I think how easily and thoroughly you guys can get bamboozled.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 20:17:41
/r/btc/comments/hhzgi0/blockstreams_liquid_at_its_finest/fwf945o/

Except Greg literally “admitted” that it was a bug: > Apparently the system **has some calculation error** where sometimes coins would be moved right after the deadline instead of before if there weren't other outgoing transactions to trigger the move. This caused some coins to be briefly spendable via the emergency mechanism. Blockstream reports they had delays in updating to fix this issue due to covid19. It looks like he didn’t go into more detail because he explained it pretty thoroughly in his other comment. But don’t let this stop you from ascribing the worst possible motive you can come up with to him.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 20:02:22
/r/btc/comments/hhup0z/bitcoinorgs_secret_owner_kicks_out_the_sites/fwf02zr/

Lol, that’s not going to stop these nuts.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 18:41:41
/r/btc/comments/hhup0z/bitcoinorgs_secret_owner_kicks_out_the_sites/fwdz1bw/

Oh god I love all you morons.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 13:45:00
/r/btc/comments/hhup0z/bitcoinorgs_secret_owner_kicks_out_the_sites/fwdlxrv/

That prank will never not be funny.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 11:59:32
/r/btc/comments/hhup0z/bitcoinorgs_secret_owner_kicks_out_the_sites/fwdlvkb/

This is fantastic analysis. Anyone Greg defends is Greg. Wow, such insight!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 11:59:01
/r/btc/comments/hhup0z/bitcoinorgs_secret_owner_kicks_out_the_sites/fwdijay/

> Also thought 'we' knew who Cobra was. Not Greg Get with the [program](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/hhup0z/bitcoinorgs_secret_owner_kicks_out_the_sites/fwcddos/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 11:30:22
/r/btc/comments/hhup0z/bitcoinorgs_secret_owner_kicks_out_the_sites/fwd8kuu/

You sound exactly like a BSVer.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 29, 2020 09:58:31
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw46n8y/

> Miners cannot attack the chain, because they don't have any power. They are irrelevant. I think we're done here.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 19:37:05
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw2wldu/

> The blocksize limit does not change this. It most certainly does. It gives stability and predictability to the chain. Maybe you're unfamiliar with the [arguments](https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/how-bitcoin-unlimited-users-may-end-different-blockchains) against [getting](https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/686.pdf) rid of the block size limit. > Users do not accept chains that are attacks. How so? Magic? Everyone simply agrees that an attack is ongoing and just *knows* the right chain to follow? Why even run node software at all, then? > If they cannot distinguish an "attack" from a valid chain, then the "attack" is probably a valid chain. So the [exploits](https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/686.pdf) described that can result in permanent, unintentional chain splits are not attacks? Or are they? Which chain is the right one? Is it immediately obvious? If not, it's an acceptable risk to have giant re-orgs when people eventually realize the "correct" chain to follow? > But this split was going to happen whether the blocksize limit was explicitly defined or not. You haven't read the paper, have you? > True, but the risk of an unannounced contentious split still exists. Explicitly defining the blocksize limit does not remove the ability for an unannounced contentious split. "People can still break into my house even if my doors and windows are locked, therefore locking them is a bad idea." > You will assert that if there is no explicit blocksize, then the network may accidentally split due to disagreement. Accidentally or from an attack. Also, you may want to read the paper and see how they concluded: *"Analytical Result 1. When BVC [explicit block size limit] is absent, BU is not incentive compatible even when all miners follow the protocol."* > If they split over disagreement, it was going to happen anyways. The blocksize limit does not prevent this. This ignores attack-driven splits, as well as the incentive-driven strategies described in the paper. >"Analytical Result 2. When BVC is absent, double-spending in BU is often more profitable than the optimal combined attack on Bitcoin of double-spending and selfish mining. Unlike in Bitcoin, in BU even a 1% miner can launch double-spending attacks with nonnegligible success rate."

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 13:08:26
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw2sory/

> The fundamental assumption of my thesis is that if the users generally agree on the blocksize, then they will be able to stay in consensus. You're putting the cart before the horse. "If people agree on blocksize, then they'll stay in consensus" is immediately broken by the fact that people *do not* agree on block size, which is the entire point of trying to find the "right" block size! If they agreed on block size, just put it in the code! > If the users are at a 50-50 tipping point, they are going to fork anyways. A blocksize limit is not going to prevent this fork. Proof of work certainly isn't going to prevent it either. Again, the risk is that this split could happen at any time with no warning, permanently harm both sides of the fork, and could be due to an attack or simply natural. > The blocksize was explicitly defined at 1MB at the time of the split, and yet the two sides were still unable to reach consensus. Which is okay, especially since everyone enjoyed an announced, intentional, and explicit split, without risk of replay attacks, etc. That's taken away if you just 'float' the limit and let the wind take it where it may.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 12:37:28
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw2k7ya/

I don't agree with that framing at all. "Generally agreeing on the consensus rules" is not applicable in this case (nor is it well-defined), as there is not agreement on what constitutes a valid-sized block. Indeed, the entire point of your thesis is predicated on the fact that there is disagreement on the "right" block size limit. Specifically, there may be a point at which 50% would think a block is too big, and 50% think it's okay. Your assumption is that this would just magically work out. Further, it ignores the chance of *active attacks* to try to exploit the uncertainty. Calling these chainsplits merely "accidental" is misleading, too, since they're foreseeable and preventable. Nothing is stopping "efficient" communication and agreement *right now* on an ideal block size limit.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 11:29:51
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw2dodf/

> If the chain technically splits, the winner is the one with the most users, regardless of hashpower. Again, missing the point. Why unnecessarily risk an unintentional chain split that could harm both sides of the split? > No one cares about proof of work. I know that's a common sentiment on this sub, but many do care, and it's the way Bitcoin actually works. > Proof of work is only useful for when people contentiously disagree Not at all. It's the basis for Bitcoin's consensus mechanism given a set of validity rules. > People fork off, regardless of the proof of work. So? > Hypothetically, if BCH in 10 years has more users than BTC (thus implying more accumulated proof of work than BTC), by both your definition and Satoshi's definition BCH would be considered the longest and valid chain. This isn't even close to what I said, nor what Satoshi said. Hashpower determines the correct chain *within a set of validity rules*. Satoshi was clear about PoW not being able to do an end-around past validity rules ("even if this is accomplished..."). He used a different definition of "valid" than we are using, though, in the quote I previously gave. > Hashpower followed the users to BCH. The users enforced the longest chain, hashpower simply followed them. I don't disagree. > You are the one that is ignoring the uncertainty and permanent split risk. The 1MB limit caused a contentious split. Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. That split was *announced, foreseeable, intentional, and explicit*. The splits I'm talking about are the opposite in practically every way. > The BTC/BCH chains have been split for 3 years, and everyone is still waiting to see which one will be considered valid. Incorrect. Bitcoin is Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash is Bitcoin Cash. The names will not change even if hashpower flips. > because you believe the 1MB chain is valid and is not at risk of being orphaned off by BCH 10 years later. They are completely separate chains (different validity rules) and will have different fates. "Orphaning off" doesn't apply, as that implies that their validity rules are the same. > The market is explicitly pricing in this uncertainty cost by giving BCH a 2.5% chance of regaining the lead over BTC. It seems that the market has decided that 8MB blocks are worth significantly less than Bitcoin's blocks.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 10:33:52
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw2785f/

> BTC has thousands of permanently split chains that were never able to remerge, you recognise these chains as orphans. An orphan is a non-contentious accidental chain split. They are not permanent, and they're almost always one or two blocks. This is not at all what I'm referring to and you know it. We have a well-known and proven method for determining which is the "correct" chain in that instance. > If 50% of the network incidentally splits to differing sides of a fork, they will realise this and come to a solution in a matter of seconds. No, they will not, unless you're talking about PoW-style consensus where "ties" among valid blocks are broken by PoW. Suggesting that users or miners being able to pick different limits that they consider blocks "valid" or "invalid" is completely different, and there's no guarantee they'll *ever* come to consensus on a single chain, let alone do it "in a matter of seconds". > They aren't going to have a war over which side is the "true" chain because neither side cares. Zero evidence for this claim, and [quite a bit of counter-evidence](https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/686.pdf) that you utterly ignore. In fact, Satoshi says: > It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU power proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what. That would not apply to "pick whatever block size you want". > Orphans are non-contentious chainsplits. No matter how many times you repeat it, it'll still be an irrelevant example. There's no chance that these types of orphans would ever be permanent splits, whereas your example can absolutely lead to permanent splits. > Correct. Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero are all competing to be considered "Bitcoin." And there is basically zero chance that they'll ever be Bitcoin, even if they become the most popular crypto, which is still incredibly unlikely. Again, you're utterly ignoring my points about uncertainty, permanent split risk, and attack vectors that come out of the "let's just throw away the limit and see what happens" approach.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 09:34:27
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw1yram/

> There is no need for an "explicit" blocksize limit, because blocksize is not an urgent consensus rule. There are plenty of other non “urgent” consensus rules using your definition. However, once a chain splits for any significant amount of time, there’s no way to merge them. One will just die. It’s difficult to “undo”. I’d say any change that significantly raises the risk of splitting is an “urgent” matter. > If BTC miners hypothetically mine a month's worth of 8MB blocks on the BTC chain, it's not like the chain is forever broken for the 1MB camp. Switching to a different explicit limit is not the same as what you’re suggesting, and my objections have been around the difficulties presented when there’s **no** explicit limit — things like uncertainty and new attack vectors, which you haven’t addressed at all or even recognized. You pretend like it’ll just magically work great. > This is impossible to do with an arbitrary binding blocksize limit. I thought you said rules weren’t real. Anyone is free to make a chain with a higher limit. The free market will determine whether that chain gets overwhelming consensus and is still considered “Bitcoin”.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 26, 2020 08:00:29
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw0rwz7/

Ah, thanks, another good point: new attack vectors. /u/guyfawkesfp

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 22:21:39
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw0p2r2/

> I am making an observation of how there is no explicit blocksize limit in Bitcoin today. Nothing exists. Deep. > If 90% of the ERNs on the BTC chain decided tomorrow to increase the blocksize to 24MB, it would be done. I never said otherwise. > By your definition Ethereum Classic is the original chain. What definition? You are arguing against a position I have not taken. You still haven’t explained why getting rid of the block size limit in the code would be useful. How about this? When you install a node, it asks you what number of total coins you want, what the reward schedule is, what the block size should be, what the coinbase maturation number should be, what the sighash algorithm should be, etc.? That makes much more sense than having them all built in so that nodes can operate in lockstep. This wouldn’t be a problem at all. Not. One. Bit.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 21:53:04
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fw06z6f/

> The BTC code represents the already-agreed consensus of the users still on the 1MB chain. Right, though calling it the "1MB chain" is disingenuous. However, I'm not sure what your point is. You still haven't given an argument why the block size limit should be thrown out or not part of the code. > So these users reconfigured their node to 8MB blocksize limit. Again, I'm not arguing against this, and I would explicitly agree that anyone is free to fork whenever they'd like. My problem is that you are jumping to the conclusion that taking a consensus variable **out of the code completely** is a good idea, and that it would just work itself out somehow. It seems like it's *been* 'working itself out' by existing on other chains already as different values. In fact, I'd argue that it's simply a bad idea, as it causes significant uncertainty. Who knows whether the next block will be rejected due to its blocksize. How many extra confirmations ought a user wait? How often would the chain split? What happens if it's a close split? What should *users* set the limit to, if anything? There'd be no replay protection, etc. Like I said, this "let the 'market' decide" mentality is already represented by the existing consensus values. There is significant value in knowing with a high degree of certainty beforehand what will be valid and what will not.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 18:57:21
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzxxxo/

Just fantastic projection. Chef’s kiss.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 17:39:03
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzxotf/

Your projection is always incredibly amusing. Do you use simple formulas to do it? > user consensus trump POW. To be sure, this has nothing to do with the conclusions in the article, so enjoy whacking that strawman! Get out the hate!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 17:36:56
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzvgdc/

You’re acting like proof of work and consensus have no relationship whatsoever and are completely separate. They are linked more closely than you imply. Also, your examples are inapt, as you don’t list the times that proof of work *influenced* user consensus. More importantly, the main flaw in your argument is that the current code **already represents consensus** no matter how you look at it. I’m not sure how you’re getting from “users decide consensus” to “let’s get rid of the consensus block size limit”.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 17:18:43
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzusep/

Ah, nothing like whacking strawmen and declaring victory.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 17:13:35
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzuo0g/

> You joke, but this is actually how these limits are enforced. They are enforced because the **code** represents the already-agreed consensus. You’re suggesting throwing away the code and letting it work itself out. Why? We are already in consensus. > Why don't you support a defined maximum miner fee in sats/byte? Because it makes no sense. It doesn’t affect other users or nodes. It doesn’t make my coins worth any less, nor does it force my node to download junk.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 17:12:39
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzpmbo/

We're talking about Bitcoin, though. Only 4. applies to Bitcoin, and that's not even really applicable, because, in almost every case, no rules were actually violated when upgrading.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 16:32:49
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzpbtc/

> Nodes will still communicate to each other how large of a block they are willing to accept, but they will not necessarily orphan/fork if their intended limit is not satisfied. This limit will also be inclusive of a nodefee/byte calculation. Nodes will communicate to each other how large of a coinbase reward they are willing to accept... No need for **coded** caps! > the key distinction being, BTC's 1MB blocksize limit was not determined through economic calculation, but instead arbitrary declared out of fear of the unknown. Bitcoin has had a hard block size cap from the **alpha** version. Almost nothing in Bitcoin was determined through sheer "economic calculation". > By removing the explicit hard-limit, the network can benefit from economic calculation in determining the right blocksize limit. By removing the explicit 21 million bitcoin limit, the network can benefit from economic calculation in determining the right maximum issuance limit.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 16:30:28
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzk9sg/

> Previous rules were valid Previous rules **are still valid**. There are just additional rules now. > new rules were added Satoshi himself added the ability to easily soft fork the code using OP_NOPs to add rules. > SegWit showing that human consensus > Bitcoin rules Obviously human consensus would trump any code in the end, as Bitcoin only gets any value from human use. However, that's a far cry from saying that the code is unimportant or consensus rules are more like guidelines. They represent the *current human consensus*. Throwing out code and saying, "it'll work itself out" is a terrible idea, and Satoshi knew that. > "So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network." The conclusion that "a blocksize limit is not helpful/useful/important" does not follow from the idea that human consensus ultimately decides the rules. > My experience with you bolding words is again you showing your letting your emotions cloud your judgement LOL! I **love** your armchair psychology. I really **do**. > I'm not here to manage your emotions. Have a good day. And he turns tail again. Not a surprise. By the way, how are those "simple formulas" serving you these days?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 15:50:19
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvziv54/

> Code is user consensus. Code is how users communicate with each other. So why not have a block size limit in the code? > Usually the concern among small-blockers, is that if there is no explicit blocksize limit defined in the protocol, then miners can just mine humongous blocks that no one can afford to receive/index and eventually centralize the network into 5 nodes. I think that's somewhat of a strawman. There are more reasons than just that to want an explicit block size limit, and you just admitted one. Code is how users communicate with each other.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 15:39:07
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzhv48/

Even more disingenuous. No rules were **violated** when SegWit activated.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 15:31:00
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzhaua/

> And that's all that's required to override Bitcoin's rules. Human consensus overrode what was Bitcoin's code and rules, invalid or valid. Comparing what was undeniably a bug to consensus rules is disingenuous.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 15:26:28
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzh9ql/

> Bitcoin had rules that decided the 0.7 fork was valid, but again humans decided to override Bitcoin's rules. Comparing what was undeniably a bug to consensus rules is disingenuous.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 15:26:13
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzgjji/

> We already had such an event in 2013 with Bitcoin between version 0.7 + 0.8. Simply put people will need to break the tie and decide on consensus. That was an exceptional circumstance. It was an unforeseen bug, not the expected behavior of the system. Having no block size limit would make this part of the system. > Proof of Work is non-binding. Meaning no one has to follow the longest chain.. ..We've had examples of all 3 in Bitcoin. Are there any examples of this behavior not due to bugs? Also, I'll remind you of Satoshi's thoughts on this: > It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU power proof-of-work vote must have the final say. **The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.**

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 15:20:21
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvzfv44/

> If a block contains valid proof of work and also contains a double spend, it would get "orphaned off." No it wouldn't. It would never get accepted in the first place due to the code rejecting it. > In Bitcoin, there are no actual rules. Oh boy... > it will be easy to pick a side and move forward as long as everyone still agrees to the same ruleset. But you're suggesting that an explicit block size limit is useless. Why not throw out all the rules in the code and let the 'emergent consensus' guide us? Double-spending an input? No need to put that in the code. Reward of 1,000 coins for solving a block? No need to be in the code. > If both sides do not agree to the same ruleset, and the split is over a contentious new ruleset, then the chains will fork into two distinct blockchains as both sides are now incompatible with each other. Sure, and this process is almost always cleaner when people know what the rules are. > Proof of work is and always has been secondary to user consensus in Bitcoin. There's a big difference between this and saying that having an explicit block size limit in the code is useless.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 15:14:54
/r/btc/comments/hflwdw/but_who_will_build_the_nodes_how_does_bitcoin/fvyj0ut/

> The specific concern to node size, is if a blocksize limit is not hardcoded directly into the protocol, then an adversarial miner can spam the chain. This is perhaps the most ridiculous unopposed argument of the century (that surprisingly even most big blockers believe), **because the same argument can be made with respect to double spends. Any adversarial miner can include a double spend at any time… This never happens because the other miners orphan off doubles spends. Double spends are orphaned off not because miners give a damn about double spends, or because proof of work prevents double spends, but because the miners know user consensus will not accept blocks containing double spends**. Huh? Double-spending makes blocks invalid due to the code. Or are you asserting that a re-org could be a "double spend", and that they are impossible somehow, or that they'd get "orphaned off" automatically? > The same property of orphaning blocks with doublespends (regardless of proof of work) applies to orphaning blocks that are too large. Even if there is no artificially defined blocksize limit, the miners can only submit blocks that will be accepted by the rest of the network. No amount of proof of work can overcome this barrier. The idea that miners can submit spammy blocks against the will of the rest of the network, is no less ridiculous than the idea that miners can submit doublespends against the will of the rest of the network. What if a block is accepted by 50% of the network, and the other 50% rejects it as invalid? What will break the tie? Let me remind you of Satoshi's opinion: "So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep ..."

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 25, 2020 10:47:05
/r/bsv/comments/he4ion/craig_is_still_really_bad_at_math_and_cryptography/fvvvsf0/

> Aren't there? 2^255.9999999999999999999999999999999999999946123197932893157...

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on June 24, 2020 15:56:38
/r/btc/comments/hds9yc/bitcoin_is_not_decentralized_if_its_controlled_by/fvmzsz2/

Do you admit that you're also Jstodd_ and ClarenceBCH?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 22, 2020 10:11:16
/r/btc/comments/hcmt3p/psa_warning_shilling_activity_on_rbtc_increased/fvjk375/

You're killing your made-up accuracy rate!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 11:03:32
/r/btc/comments/hcmt3p/psa_warning_shilling_activity_on_rbtc_increased/fvjcgb6/

Yeah, **I**’m the ‘evil champ’, when you spread lies about me at every chance you get. That’s some mighty fine projection, Lou.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 09:39:43
/r/btc/comments/hcmt3p/psa_warning_shilling_activity_on_rbtc_increased/fvj5vy1/

> But I very rarely make mistakes, I remember making about 3 mistakes in total, which I corrected after review/new information. What is your "gold standard" for determining the truth? You boasted that your methods are "99.99%" effective in [another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/hcmt3p/psa_warning_shilling_activity_on_rbtc_increased/fvgg2vm/). What number is that supposed to represent? It looks like you've done [approximately 600](http://api.pushshift.io/reddit/search/comment/?sort=desc&size=500&author=shadowofharbringer&q=shill%20psa&metadata=true) of these "reports" with many duplicates. "99.99% effective" gives the impression that you're talking about positive predictive value. In other words, if you make a call, then there's a 99.99% chance that you're correct that the person is a shill (a 1 in ten thousand chance you're wrong). That's pretty strange given that you *admit* making three mistakes in total, which would imply a PPV of less than 99.5%, which makes your error rate go from 1 in ten thousand to 1 in two hundred. That's a big jump. And, again, these are the mistakes you *admit*. You still haven't given a gold standard test. Is [this report](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/do6rpf/calls_everyone_else_a_liar_and_scammer_with_no/f5l6nrg/?context=1) one of the ones you made a mistake on? If not, can you give the barest shred of evidence that it's true? Overall, you're pretense of objective reporting is just that, a pretense. The truth is that you just call out people you don't like and modify your definition of "shill" to be so squishy as to give yourself cover to make any claim you'd like. You conclude with, "or there may be different reasons." Admit it: a "shill" is just what you feel in your heart.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 21, 2020 08:13:11
/r/btc/comments/hcmt3p/psa_warning_shilling_activity_on_rbtc_increased/fvhqej6/

There is, in fact, more evidence that you are a shill than there is evidence that I’m a shill.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 20, 2020 20:35:26
/r/btc/comments/hcmt3p/psa_warning_shilling_activity_on_rbtc_increased/fvhfwqv/

> You are right, shill - I am much better than you think Doubly wrong right off the bat. Saying you’re better than **I** think has nothing to do with my assertion. And I’m not a shill. In fact, I’ve probably helped this sub more than you ever have.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 20, 2020 18:52:10
/r/btc/comments/hcmt3p/psa_warning_shilling_activity_on_rbtc_increased/fvhdups/

You’re not as good as you think.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 20, 2020 18:32:35
/r/btc/comments/hcmt3p/psa_warning_shilling_activity_on_rbtc_increased/fvhdkls/

Then why do you call me a shill?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 20, 2020 18:29:53
/r/btc/comments/hbb70k/dont_repeat_the_past_united_bicoin_cash_is/fva2a5p/

> It was decided that it is premature to do this as BCH is still in the position of low hashrate and exchanges depend on security against deep re-orgs BCH has had a minority hashrate ever since it split. The "feature" was undeniably added in response to an empty threat by someone known for his lies and empty threats. Further, the "feature" doesn't even necessarily fix the issue, and it opens up a host of novel attack vectors that no other coins are susceptible to.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 18:34:46
/r/btc/comments/ha2a88/question_why_does_btc_want_to_rewrite_the/fva1l3n/

> BCH carries on the original social contract. "Social contract"? What drugs are you on? The assertion is that "BCH [is what is] described in the Bitcoin whitepaper". That is demonstrably false. There is no denying that, so you come up with strange claims about social contracts and what the world needs. > And here you are gaslighting lies You are projecting. I've been extremely clear in my claims and have backed them up with direct quotes from the whitepaper. You've gone on tangents about the 'world's needs', 'vandals', and 'social contracts'.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 18:28:30
/r/btc/comments/hbfbei/operation_freeze_what_if_we_freeze_the_protocol/fv937ah/

> I don't see why we can't deploy an uncontroversial protocol upgrade Or controversial ones for that matter if you already inherited it, right? ;)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 13:31:11
/r/btc/comments/hbb70k/dont_repeat_the_past_united_bicoin_cash_is/fv8rpu1/

> and we decided against it Any justification? Seems strange that a "feature" snuck in at the absolute last moment with zero public discussion that breaks the consensus mechanism described by the whitepaper should just stay. The responsible thing to do would be to first remove it, given its untested and "never properly specified" nature, *then* evaluate whether it should be added. You're rewarding bad behavior by leaving it in. > so if you want to turn it off, it is now easier to find how to do that I already made my vote when I sold all my BCH after I found out about the change, thanks. Not getting back in until this "feature" is gone.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 11:58:02
/r/btc/comments/hbb70k/dont_repeat_the_past_united_bicoin_cash_is/fv8pejf/

Still no discussion about removing the automated rolling 'checkpoints', huh?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 18, 2020 11:38:47
/r/btc/comments/ha2a88/question_why_does_btc_want_to_rewrite_the/fv6levw/

We’re not talking about the world’s needs or filling needs. We’re talking about whether BCH adheres to the whitepaper. It does not, because the whitepaper describes a different consensus method.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 20:31:31
/r/btc/comments/hanzrv/the_bchn_team_seeks_to_collaborate_with_other/fv59xsm/

> while today it simply always follows the longest chain I don't think an ABC node is guaranteed to do this. If a chain gets auto-finalized by nodes 1 to 100, but nodes 101 to 105 see a (perfectly valid) longer chain and follow that, when your node 106 comes online and (initially) connects to only nodes from the former set, won't it auto-finalize itself to their chain and reject blocks from nodes 101 to 105 *even if they eventually see them*? Here's a relevant quote from Satoshi: > It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. **We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU power proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 14:09:04
/r/btc/comments/hanzrv/the_bchn_team_seeks_to_collaborate_with_other/fv4zlae/

> I thought I got rid of you Failing to answer simple questions and running away is getting rid of me? Weird. > What you seem to miss is just "users changing node software" which you seem to suggest is trivial I think this actually perfectly illustrates **your** lack of comprehension. I was making the point that changing node software *is not trivial and ought to be avoided if possible*, and it doesn't even perfectly prevent miner enforced soft-fork changes! However, to even have a *chance* at stopping or (more likely) preventing miner-enforced soft forks, a large section of the economic actors in the space ought to run full nodes. Also, when you say, "which you seem to suggest is trivial", aren't you implicitly admitting that it's non-trivial, and hard forks ought to be avoided, especially at frequent intervals?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 12:47:35
/r/btc/comments/hanzrv/the_bchn_team_seeks_to_collaborate_with_other/fv4xffi/

Hmm... was it right about the time you decided to throw out the consensus mechanism described in the whitepaper? > **Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it**. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. **The tie will be broken when the next proof of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other branch will then switch to the longer one.**

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 12:30:04
/r/btc/comments/hanzrv/the_bchn_team_seeks_to_collaborate_with_other/fv4x1ug/

> In Mike's brilliant article describing the difference between hard and soft forks, and why hard forks are better The article has several problems, one of which I'll illustrate below. Here is what Hearn said: > It’s worth noting that Satoshi did not use the phrase “hard fork”; presumably the notion that any other kind of fork might exist didn’t occur to him. The idea of a soft fork wasn’t around back then, and rightly so, as the concept is itself deeply flawed: in a correctly functioning Bitcoin network no soft forks should ever happen. This is wrong. In reality, Satoshi **actively changed the code to make it easy and straightforward to soft-fork**. Look at [all these OP_NOPs](https://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/code/119/tree//trunk/script.h?diff=515630145fcbc978e39dbaa5:118) with the comment "expansion". Why would he put them there if not to use them to soft fork in the future? A hard fork could use any unassigned value, or even use double-byte opcodes, like Satoshi built some support for. Also, there is nothing stopping forced soft forks from miners anyway, except users changing node software in response to it. Then it becomes a game of whack-a-mole. Here I'll note big-blockers' general distaste for the value of non-miners running full nodes.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 12:27:03
/r/btc/comments/ha509k/loopnester_is_an_anti_bitcoin_and_anti_peer_to/fv4e9dw/

LOL, I give a devastating takedown of your accusations of 'shilling', and you just retreat and yell, "shill" with your tail between your legs. Classic.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 09:45:35
/r/btc/comments/ha509k/loopnester_is_an_anti_bitcoin_and_anti_peer_to/fv4d1wt/

> Right now you are in karma-building/opinion building mode. This is nonsense. If anything, the exact opposite is true. I *used* to have a decent reputation on this sub due to my (still underappreciated) efforts to rid the community of a certain charlatan. However, I willingly participated in a practical joke that I knew had the potential to destroy my karma on this sub. And that's exactly what happened. I don't mind at all. If I were trying to 'build karma/opinions' for some nefarious purpose (curiously, you still haven't actually said what that purpose is...), I'd have discarded this account and started a new one. Yet here I am, getting downvoted in almost every comment, including undeniably innocuous ones. > You will linger in this sub for long time I've *been* in this sub for a very long time now. > to make it look (for unsuspecting noobs) that you are just one of Bitcoin(Cash) users I've stated multiple times now that I've sold all my BCH after the automated rolling checkpoints were added. While I no longer hold any BCH, that doesn't mean I absolutely never will in the future. I'd prefer to see BCH take a sane route, especially since its main competition seems to be BSV. > until it is time to attack And what, pray tell, does this "attack" entail? You have not explained what I'm shilling. Even if you think I'm pushing Bitcoin, you admitted that a shill is only someone who pushes something that they don't honestly believe in: > A "shill" is somebody who doesn't honestly believe in something, yet he is promoting it (for money, power or other gains). No, really - check the dictionary definition. You don't even have good evidence that I'm 'promoting' something. Worse, you have zero evidence that I don't believe in whatever it is I'm promoting. > Even if your employers stopped paying you That'd be strange, since I've been self-employed for over a decade now, and answer to nobody except myself (and my wife). Your harassment campaign is entertaining, but it's entirely fictional.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 09:33:46
/r/btc/comments/ha509k/loopnester_is_an_anti_bitcoin_and_anti_peer_to/fv40urr/

Look at all that ‘shilling’ I’m doing. So much shilling. (Remind me what I’m shilling again?)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 07:06:31
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fv40q7w/

Who’s the asshole? /u/jtoomim? Disagree.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 17, 2020 07:04:36
/r/btc/comments/ha2a88/question_why_does_btc_want_to_rewrite_the/fv2maui/

> Yet somehow apparent consensus in this 4-7 BILLION dollar valued ecosystem is that they should stay. BSV has nearly the same. Tons of shit coins have big market caps. And if you’re measuring good ideas by market cap, why not support Bitcoin? The current block weight limit is the current consensus. Are you admitting it’s a good idea? > I get the feeling no matter how may replies I write you'll have some counter-reply When you give poor arguments, shouldn’t you expect rebuttals? What kind of bizarre statement is this?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 20:24:09
/r/btc/comments/ha2a88/question_why_does_btc_want_to_rewrite_the/fv2khaj/

> It was just good (and timely) enough that Amaury/ABC implemented it. That is not proof that it was good. > BCH might not exist without them... Zero evidence for this claim. You could have switched BCH to pure PoS and said the exact same thing. Also, I have this [anti-tiger rock](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSVqLHghLpw) that you may be interested in... > Saying that, I'll leave the "improvement" ruling up to others. And here we are, arguing whether or not it's an 'improvement'. The thing is, that's still rather beside the point. The original point, which is still undeniable, is that the 'checkpoints' *quite literally* violate the whitepaper. There's no denying it. The best you can do is to say it somehow meets the "spirit" of the paper, a rubric under which you can sneak nearly any claim. > BCH commands only around 3-4% of the SHA256 crypto ecosystem hashrate. BSV has even less hashrate, and is still stinking away. Also, while this change may be a band-aid on one problem (and it's not even certain that it solves that problem), it opens up the potential for a host of new attacks. And if you were that worried, why not switch PoW functions? That addresses the problem much more directly and still keeps the same consensus mechanism. There's nothing particularly important about SHA256. It's even *explicitly* mentioned in the whitepaper as *just an example*. However, it didn't list "maybe follow the longest chain, but maybe not" as an option.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 20:06:49
/r/btc/comments/ha509k/loopnester_is_an_anti_bitcoin_and_anti_peer_to/fv2ef3p/

I'll pass it along to Greg. Oh, look, I have a mirror handy. Perfect.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 19:10:16
/r/btc/comments/ha509k/loopnester_is_an_anti_bitcoin_and_anti_peer_to/fv2d24z/

That **is** funny, but not why you think it is! You’ve failed the “critical thinking” part.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 18:57:49
/r/btc/comments/ha2a88/question_why_does_btc_want_to_rewrite_the/fv2biwx/

> The ability to fork doesn't mean BCH nodes don't follow longest relevant chain I'm not sure you understand what can happen with these rolling "checkpoints". A node can get a few blocks quickly (it doesn't even have to be an attack), and "finalize" a chain that subsequently gets overtaken by another chain. These otherwise-perfectly-valid and higher-work blocks are just rejected, in complete contradiction to the whitepaper. > I'd argue the consensus mechanism was the biggest discovery. I agree, and it's exactly what BCH fundamentally changed with the rolling 'checkpoints'. > Again, read my sentence about allowed improvements above. Calling these automated rolling 'checkpoints' an *improvement* is a giant, unwarranted stretch. You could call "proof of stake" an "improvement" just as credibly, and you'd be laughed out of the room if you said it was following the whitepaper, but just a 'spiritual improvement' or something. The checkpoints were not a needed emergency change, but even if you believed they were, why are they still there?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 18:44:13
/r/btc/comments/ha2a88/question_why_does_btc_want_to_rewrite_the/fv26ckw/

> You must first answer the question what is the ideology and intent of the white paper. So substitute the objective description that the whitepaper gives with your subjective interpretation of its intent. If you don’t like the Ripple example, pick your favorite proof-of-stake coin. Is that “Bitcoin” as described by the whitepaper? > BCH nodes still follow the longest chain (most PoW) Not true. They could fork indefinitely from the longest chain. > Well, the white paper says nothing about allowing changing of algorithms... The whitepaper leaves out a LOT, including Script, the total number of bitcoins, *and* the specific proof of work function. However, the consensus mechanism was important enough to explicitly describe.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 17:59:46
/r/btc/comments/ha2a88/question_why_does_btc_want_to_rewrite_the/fv2366w/

First, did I say anything about Bitcoin? The claim is that the whitepaper describes BCH. Second, I assume you’re talking about SegWit and are trying to spread the usual misinformation about it. It’s been debunked so many times I’m not even going to bother again. Third, I’ve never made any claim that Bitcoin can only have certain size blocks. My position all along has been that “Bitcoin” is whatever it is that people mean when they say “Bitcoin”. For now, it’s very obvious what that refers to.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 17:33:38
/r/btc/comments/ha2a88/question_why_does_btc_want_to_rewrite_the/fv21zfk/

> the 'rolling checkpoints' don't conflict with the clear ideology and intent of the white paper That’s like saying “Ripple doesn’t conflict with ‘clear ideology and intent of the whitepaper’” despite it being totally unalike what the whitepaper actually describes. The rolling checkpoints very clearly violate the whitepaper.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 17:24:06
/r/btc/comments/ha509k/loopnester_is_an_anti_bitcoin_and_anti_peer_to/fv1zimq/

I’ve won a wonderful prize, in fact. I can immediately tell who lacks critical thinking skills, and who has a functioning sense of humor.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 17:04:10
/r/btc/comments/ha509k/loopnester_is_an_anti_bitcoin_and_anti_peer_to/fv1ouhl/

I fear you have been bamboozled, my young-account-age friend.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 15:39:28
/r/btc/comments/ha509k/loopnester_is_an_anti_bitcoin_and_anti_peer_to/fv1o2bn/

I'm about 80% sure that /u/ClarenceBCH is /u/LoopNester. In his very few posts so far, "Clarence" has used an [expletive with an asterisk](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/h8t9j7/bitcoincoms_appeal_letter_to_youtube_over_the/fusqyj0/), just like LoopNester [used to do](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gp37yv/some_practical_problems_faced_by_bitcoin_cash_bch/frk4n1i/) (before he deleted his account). His [opinions on Roger Ver](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ha4uls/bitcoincom_is_a_scam_site/fv0htb4/) are [almost identical to LoopNester's](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gp37yv/some_practical_problems_faced_by_bitcoin_cash_bch/frk4n1i/) as well. Since they have practically identical opinions, why would Clarence call out LoopNester as "anti bitcoin"? I'm pretty sure this post was just cover to be reborn in this sub anew. I expect that he'll delete his new username shortly.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 15:33:08
/r/btc/comments/ha509k/loopnester_is_an_anti_bitcoin_and_anti_peer_to/fv0yllc/

No need. He deleted his account.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 12:28:50
/r/btc/comments/ha2a88/question_why_does_btc_want_to_rewrite_the/fv0cwr3/

1. Roy Murphy is a former BitConnect scammer and current BSV scammer. 2. I don't remember the section in the whitepaper describing rolling 10-block "checkpoints" with penalties starting around 2 blocks. In fact: > nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone ... **Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one** and will keep working on extending it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 16, 2020 09:33:25
/r/btc/comments/h8s676/technologywise_bitcoin_cash_won_we_now_need_more/futn728/

Dvorak. I’ve never used LN.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 14:34:52
/r/btc/comments/h8s676/technologywise_bitcoin_cash_won_we_now_need_more/futb2w6/

> The Dvorak keyboard was also great, but no one uses it Funny. I use it exclusively.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 14, 2020 12:44:48
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftl0etv/

Jesus Christ, *another* Greg sock?! This guy is a pure psycho. I mean, he [might be right](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/ftj28de/?context=3), but we [users](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6nzpiw/dave_kleiman_is_satoshi_nakamoto/dkemfxb/) of /r/btc care [more](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6ocrgb/rbtc_moderator_makes_unsubstantiated_allegations/dkgq2yh/) about [credibility](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DOZraZBXcAAM4Rz.jpg) than [anything](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7jirrc/when_is_cnbc_going_to_invite_craig_wright_for_an/) else!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 09:27:12
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftkp4t8/

When the “lack of understanding” is as pervasive, deliberate, and continual as this, there’s not going to be a “resolution” anyway. The lies continue. He has only received positive reinforcement for this behavior.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 10, 2020 07:16:15
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/ftj4g1x/

This sub is a cesspool. Only engage if you enjoy the idiocy for one reason or another.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 19:39:01
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/ftj3lg0/

Credibility on this sub has a negative correlation with the truth, unfortunately.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 19:31:13
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftj3gu1/

Your lies will make a fine addition to my collection.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 19:30:02
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftixvn6/

Funny, he’s refuting a lie in a thread predicated on a lie, that’s chock full of lies. And you say **he** has no credibility? I guess that makes you a fucking joke.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 18:40:06
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftiwzka/

Another quality /r/btc comment.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 18:32:19
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftipbw2/

Note, /u/nullc, that’s his [go-to line](https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftffcsf/?context=3) when he loses an argument.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 17:27:42
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftioanm/

> and stop playing games You’re adding an implicit statement as much as Greg is. Also, you are rather silent on the outright lies in OP’s headline.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 17:19:20
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftinl4j/

> Check my multi-year reddit history. Hahaha! How naive. That doesn’t stop these morons from thinking you’re Greg.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 17:13:34
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/ftijeax/

> you are saying that the rolling-checkpoints avoids splits now? Quite the contrary, actually. The checkpoints are being run by the majority.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 16:39:34
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftibffp/

> Well, at least I have been shagging your mom all weekend - so not all that time was wasted. Dude, shagging a corpse is not something to brag about.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 15:36:33
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftib3a5/

> when he participates more in /r/bsv which is rife with cryptorebel socks actually spamming that idea Lol! This part illustrates your confusion very well.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 15:33:53
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/ftiav5l/

Wtf? I’ve been nowhere near your mom recently.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 15:32:05
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti949j/

Lol, it really does get funnier and funnier over time!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 15:18:11
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti6i4a/

/u/jtoomim, see? Valuable [compendiums](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7eil12/evidence_that_the_mods_of_rbitcoin_may_have_been/) of "evidence" that can be trotted out whenever needed. It's useful to have all this propaganda at the ready. (By the way, I'm only joking around with you specifically because you're one of the few in this sub who appears to have a functioning bullshit-detector. I appreciate that you are pushing back and genuinely enjoy the majority of your comments even when I disagree with them. /u/markblundeberg seems to have gone dark, and I can understand why given the cesspool this sub's become.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:57:30
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti469t/

True, it was an unsound argument.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:39:12
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fti40ty/

And risk being an even tinier minority split? Not interested. In fact, the addition of the code prompted me to sell all of my BCH.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:37:57
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti3rlb/

You asked me not to, and I'm here to please.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:35:57
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti3ejk/

That's wonderful! One of us is laughing and lying, and the other is laughing.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:33:05
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti2y7z/

Fully agree! (So much so that these comments sound [very familiar](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foz7pxy/?context=6)!)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:29:31
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti2gyz/

Just pinky-promise that you won't whine and moan about me 'harassing' you, okay? Then we'll have a deal.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:25:42
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti250e/

LOL, in this sub, it's **most definitely** intended to be a burn.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:23:03
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti2128/

Happy to oblige! However, I'm a bit worried that you'll change tack soon and accuse me of "harassment". Am I Greg or am I a paid associate of Greg's? (Those are obviously the only two options.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:22:10
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti1ny1/

> I too have several day dormant accounts I don't doubt it, considering the very rapid vote-count jumps. > Watching you bend over backwards for Greg makes me laugh! I thought I **was** Greg?!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:19:18
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti14jq/

Maybe, just maybe, having a 'toxic' sense of humor is better than making up lies for the purposes of a catchy headline on this sub?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:15:01
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fti0se3/

This is the way. Well, it's **been** the way for a long time.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:12:19
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fti0myk/

> That's a great way to lose respect and not be taken seriously and probably why you aren't receiving a response. I love hearing lectures from bad-faith actors on how to not act in bad faith. For example, I gave a fully [good faith response](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftdehjp/) to your confusion about transaction malleability and SegWit, and your response was to accuse me [of bad faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftdz447/), then tell me to "get a life".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:11:06
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthzgeg/

There's some [discussion here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin_abc_0185_has_been_released_this_release/). I think [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin_abc_0185_has_been_released_this_release/ea527mh/) is a decent comment, and [another](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin_abc_0185_has_been_released_this_release/ea52rsj/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 14:01:43
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthyidf/

Gets funnier and funnier. You **really** think I'm Greg, huh? Wonderful.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 13:54:15
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthy6sp/

> Let it go. And miss the cheap opportunity to go to number 1 in /r/btc? LOL, as if. This will eventually get added to a compendium of "Greg crimes", which will, again, be blindly upvoted in the future and include [valuable comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthtnh7/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 13:51:41
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthwqmy/

> I'm mean you'd have too. LOL.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 13:40:07
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthvum4/

I don't even want to be slick, so I don't care. I'm just laughing at you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 13:33:06
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthsrco/

So now that your histrionic post has been called out as obviously wrong, you just move on, completely unhindered, to a new claim: that he's harassing you. Never change, /u/500239.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 13:08:46
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthsga1/

How dare you? He was clearly using a PAID SHILL ARMY like he did at [BLOCKSTREAM-CORE](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthhsec/) to [edit](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fths7vl/) WIKIPEDIA entries and create a [PONZI](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthj9vq/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 13:06:19
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthrxpn/

If you read [the comment in question](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gx2v3q/whats_wrong_with_segwit_they_ask/fteukgm/?context=1), it was obviously a joke mocking /u/500239 and his frequent referencing of the "New York Agreement".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 13:02:16
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthrlcw/

It's a band-aid meant to protect against *one* attack vector (and it's arguable whether it actually even succeeds at that), at the cost of introducing many more vulnerabilities and throwing away the basic consensus mechanism.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 12:59:35
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthprh8/

1. That was a bug. The automated rolling checkpoints were not created to stop "bugs". 2. There is zero evidence that the automated rolling checkpoints would help with this at all. In fact, it seems like it would be *strictly* harder. 3. It still introduces new attack vectors. 4. And it breaks the consensus model.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 12:45:24
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthp8jt/

['True stories'](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7jirrc/when_is_cnbc_going_to_invite_craig_wright_for_an/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 12:41:20
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthnlng/

Why did you skip this: "The majority decision is represented by the longest chain"? Manually switching branches goes directly against this. Also, any comment on this? > **It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one**. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU power proof-of-work vote must have the final say. **The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what.** Kinda says the exact opposite of what you're saying. Nodes don't come to consensus merely because they're "honest". As I said, the process of deciding which is the "correct" branch is exactly what Bitcoin solves already.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 12:28:29
/r/btc/comments/gzp9ou/greg_maxwell_caught_brigading_with_paid_accounts/fthn085/

Can you post all the evidence you have that these accounts are "paid", rather than just friends of Greg's? Also, a "brigade" of three is a *bit* histrionic, no? Cue the "here's another paid Greg sock coming to defend him". By the way, it's rather cute that you're playing the naif, when you know very well what they're all talking about. I'll even highlight the parts to pay extra attention to: > **Can I propose a deal?** If we can establish you are right, I'll delete my reddit account and never post here again, and if we can establish that you're wrong you'll delete your account (and presumably continue posting through your other accounts). > Deal? Does anyone else want to accept this deal **for** /u/500239? > **We can call this the Boston Agreement, and I'm going to hold you to it so long as anyone else agrees that it's a good idea**, no matter how publicly and vocally you disagree with it, **even if you're not a party to it at all**. **Exactly as you're doing with NYA**. It's crystal clear that he's just mocking you. Edit: Haha, holy shit, from +1 to -6 in 20 minutes! Looks like you've got your own paid brigade. Maybe I should make a post about it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 12:23:48
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthjs77/

> They are an opt-in soft-fork. I think it defies characterization as a hard or soft fork, since it completely breaks proof of work. Block validity now depends on external factors. > Reorgs deeper than 2 blocks are extremely rare: and indicate either an attack Does it bother you that the automated rolling checkpoints actually make it easier and cheaper to mount an attack? > Once economically relevant parties decide which side of the split to support This is precisely what Bitcoin is designed to *not have to do*. Also, you're assuming this would work quickly and have a definitive outcome. That is far from guaranteed.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 11:57:59
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthiwga/

Removing a 'temporary fix' that completely breaks the proof of work consensus mechanism that Bitcoin created is **not an immediate issue**? Well, I guess that does answer my question, but it's a pretty poor answer, in my opinion.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 11:50:56
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthij1g/

No you didn't. Edit: You [eventually did](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthii1b/?context=3) after you made that comment.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 11:47:56
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthi9l3/

While I think that's a terrible excuse, that's not my question. It was: > Why is there almost no discussion about **removing** the automated rolling checkpoints?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 11:45:48
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthi195/

> Dipshit, those weren't questions. I already asked a question which is being completely ignored. Thanks for your additional non-question, though!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 11:43:55
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthfkcx/

> tribalism, social attacks, politics, astroturfing This is very funny coming from /r/btc's chief propagandist. > being gullible ... certain actors are too gullible And speaking of gullible, [perhaps you'll remember this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7jirrc/when_is_cnbc_going_to_invite_craig_wright_for_an/). And look at the top comment! It's been a while since you 'cryptocheck'd me. I think I'm due for another.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 11:23:38
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fthd1xe/

So as long as things are 'untheatrical', you don't mind developers sneaking in fundamental changes to PoW?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 11:02:12
/r/btc/comments/gzmzvh/ask_a_big_blocker_ask_anything_and_we_try_our/fth657h/

Why is there almost no discussion about removing the automated rolling checkpoints? They're antithetical to how Bitcoin is supposed to work.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 10:01:16
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/fth26pk/

Just for laughs, do you honestly think I'm Greg?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 09:23:34
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/fth0kss/

You still don’t get it. Not a surprise. Carry on.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 09:07:19
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftgsy7k/

Ah, /r/btc members. Absolute masters of telling who’s really who. Quite a track record you’ve all got!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 9, 2020 07:35:09
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftfnfmf/

Ah, there’s the /r/btc I know and love.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 22:07:16
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftf904c/

Where's all the snark and assumptions of bad faith?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 19:49:43
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftels0z/

What an obviously good-faith response.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 16:28:44
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftek1sr/

Is that the sound of you conceding the argument? I'm honestly trying to help you, but you seem desperate to ascribe bad faith to me.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 16:14:46
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/fte7xqy/

> A lot of times in your replies you mention a few topics to give your responses freedom so you can frame future responses any way you want regardless of how the other person responds. > > It's cool. I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Please give concrete examples if you'd like. > A Bitcoin transaction would show a different txid if the inputs or the order changed but this Segwit transaction shows the same txid. The inputs or order *didn't* change. And if they did, a SegWit transaction would *also* change the txid. > Manually verifying the txid is different would work for a Bitcoin txid. The Segwit txid would be the same. It **would not** work for a "Bitcoin txid" (I note your disingenuous distinction). As I already mentioned, the txid would not be "different" for a non-SegWit transaction, since there would only be **one** transaction. The "hack" would end on tx1, since it would be a valid transaction. That is, the signature would be valid, since signatures for pre-SegWit transactions didn't cover input values. > Fix The fix is straightforward — we need to deal with Segwit transactions in the very same manner as we do with non-Segwit transactions. That means we need to require and validate the previous transactions’ UTXO amounts. Yes, the "fix" is to treat them basically the same as non-SegWit transactions. That is, just act like the signatures don't cover the input values. I think you're not fully understanding what this exploit really is. It has just about nothing to do with txids. I'm trying my best to hold your hand through it, but your constant assumptions of bad-faith argument are clouding your understanding.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 14:35:35
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftdq14o/

I just said you won't get a different txid if this attack occurred with pre-SegWit transactions, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 12:08:08
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftdneey/

But the same ‘attack’ wouldn’t even need to be interactive with a pre-SegWit transaction! Tx1 would be valid. No need to prompt the user to sign again, and the txid would not change. And **any** new signature would change the txid, so noting whether a txid changed wouldn’t even be useful anyway.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 11:46:08
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftdjq8h/

> Wow what a downgrade from a standard Bitcoin tx. Huh? Why? >> A third party can't do that in BTC transactions. > You can for your own. I believe this Segwit vulnerability includes doing it yourself and third parties? I'm not sure what you mean. A third party asking you to re-sign a transaction that has a different TXID would be immediately detectable by the wallet. Transaction malleability normally involves a third party modifying your transaction with zero involvement from you. > Yes but they don't have to be. If I have a malware wallet I could just not broadcast tx1 and tx2 and still make tx3 from the sigs from tx1 and tx2. Yes, that's exactly what the vulnerability describes. The TXIDs would still be the same for all txes, which is my point. The fact that tx1 and tx2 would be invalid is just something I noted. > yeah, then I agree. This is far more insidious than tx malleability since this Segwit vuln allows you to malleate the transaction and the txid doesn't change. It requires *interactivity* that isn't required with transaction malleability. Further, the transaction never really changed. The point was just that the malware was lying to you from the beginning about the values of the inputs. And, as you note, the 'requirements' to pull it off are very specific and easily fixable either from the wallet side or another soft fork chain-side. Compare that to real transaction malleability, which cannot be *actually and thoroughly* fixed in BCH without something like SegWit.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 11:14:36
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftdgk9u/

> How are you defining "in the normal sense" A party modifying the transaction so that it remains valid but has a different TXID than it originally had when the user created it. > Are you referring to a standard BTC transaction, reordering the inputs and getting a new txid? A third party can't do that in BTC transactions. > Also, I do not believe tx1 and tx2 have to be invalid transactions. They do. The signatures have at least one mismatch on input values. > I don't know enough about how Segwit txids are/are not to say if all versions of the tx would have the same id. I'm [pretty sure](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#Transaction_ID) they would. > On regular Bitcoin they would not. Correct, because normally the signatures (which would be different for each version of the transaction) are part of what gets hashed to make the TXID. In SegWit, the signatures and scripts (witness data) are *segregated* from that hashing process.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 10:46:44
/r/btc/comments/gyzjyg/so_wait_segregated_witness_was_supposed_to_fix/ftdehjp/

You'll have to detail what you mean by "it has malleable transactions by design". The scheme from the link you provide isn't 'transaction malleability' in the normal sense. All versions of the transaction would have the same TXID, if I understand correctly (though the first two signed transactions would be invalid due to bad signatures).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 8, 2020 10:27:57
/r/btc/comments/gx2v3q/whats_wrong_with_segwit_they_ask/fsz4k8x/

I don't think it's perfectly clear that it *is*. It appears to be no less "secure" than pre-SegWit transactions. In fact, their fix is to treat them the same as pre-SegWit transactions, if I understand correctly. I guess the argument was that it gave a false sense of security, in which case it probably would be considered a vulnerability, but I still think it's at least arguable.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 5, 2020 10:25:58
/r/btc/comments/gx2v3q/whats_wrong_with_segwit_they_ask/fsywiq7/

Isn't BCH's [sighash algorithm](https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/replay-protected-sighash.md) (for all transactions) the same as BIP-143, and therefore just as 'vulnerable' to this?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 5, 2020 09:11:09
/r/btc/comments/gtrlsv/btc_supporters_what_does_the_perfect_endgame_look/fsmvuyg/

> That non-technical people will see the phrase "anyone can spend" and think their funds are in danger. The reality is, these ARE anyone can spend They are decidedly not, as I said before. They only *appear* to be "anyone-can-spend" to un-updated nodes. You could try to spread the same misinformation about P2SH, too, if you wanted, by saying that you just have to find *any* valid preimage to the given RIPEMD-160 hash. That would be a *lie*, and a dangerous one, since any actual spends of P2SH could be sniped if it were true. > these are special "anyone can spend" and won't actually allow them to be spent by anyone. No, they're not just "special anyone-can-spends"; they're an entirely separate class of transactions that don't even necessarily rely on Script. The fact that you keep insisting on calling them "anyone-can-spend" is purposeful misinformation. They **may have been** considered "anyone-can-spend" prior to SegWit, but now they're undeniably no longer anyone-can-spend. This is a critical fact that you ignore. > A transaction whose locking script is "OP_TRUE" is by definition an "anyone can spend". The fact that it cannot be actually be spent in practice is different issue. Except a transaction whose locking script is simply "OP_TRUE" **can** be spent by anyone (any miner) in practice... > What do you suggest we call transactions whose locking scripts are "OP_TRUE"? Anyone-can-spend?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on June 2, 2020 09:56:04
/r/btc/comments/gtrlsv/btc_supporters_what_does_the_perfect_endgame_look/fsf1guh/

> I just called them "anyone can spend' because technically that's what they are. Nah, more misinformation. That's merely what they **appear to be** to un-upgraded nodes.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 31, 2020 08:40:47
/r/btc/comments/gt1v4d/btc_coin_user_quite_unhappy_about_btc_coin/fsbsh2t/

> he's definitely no dummy. He’s been doing his damnedest to try to prove you wrong.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 30, 2020 13:43:38
/r/btc/comments/grwu4j/gavin_andresen_on_twitter_more_plausible_btc_was/fs5l1eb/

You’ve yet to explain what I’ve been “shilling”.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 21:46:30
/r/btc/comments/gsdddx/the_many_facts_pointing_to_adam_back_being_satoshi/fs529yy/

/u/homopit, got another data point for you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 18:52:15
/r/btc/comments/grwu4j/gavin_andresen_on_twitter_more_plausible_btc_was/fs37t5v/

True, but those with integrity would explicitly admit that they'd been fooled and speak out loudly about it lest others use their words to continue the con. Also, "world class"?! LOL.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 28, 2020 09:56:06
/r/bsv/comments/gjvvoa/lol_3_addresses_moving_coins_that_were_supposed/frlzq5s/

If that’s what comes out of a case where both sides **agree** he’s Satoshi, just imagine what would come out of one actually on the subject.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on May 23, 2020 22:40:17
/r/btc/comments/gp134o/avalanche_would_not_only_improve_0conf_security/frlkz01/

Just kidding. I’ll keep adding socks ‘til my opinion is the majority.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 23, 2020 20:07:45
/r/bsv/comments/gjvvoa/lol_3_addresses_moving_coins_that_were_supposed/frli0p4/

> but still i think generally other than "genie" gotchas it is the case that there is more difficulty in proving a negative than a positive in human matters. Maybe, but I'm still not sure I agree with this. In some ways, it's even difficult to rigorously define what we're talking about. Is this a 'positive' or 'negative' claim: "x is a member of the set of people who are are not the creators of Bitcoin"? > but he seems to be suing people for saying he is not satoshi. that turns out to be somewhat difficult to prove because it's all circumstantial. Many criminal cases (with the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt") are decided with *only* circumstantial evidence. DNA evidence is circumstantial. A "smoking gun" -- the archetype of solid proof -- is circumstantial. There are far more pieces of evidence than you're suggesting, by the way. I don't have any interest in litigating the issue here. It's basically moot at this point. Further, if we're talking about the *potential* of proving it, a criminal case (or even a civil one for that matter) would open up the person to investigation or discovery, which would likely evince evidence not currently known.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on May 23, 2020 19:38:25
/r/bsv/comments/gjvvoa/lol_3_addresses_moving_coins_that_were_supposed/frlelr7/

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, it’s possible. > however it would be quite hard to steal Satoshis keys given no one knows who or where he is. Prove it! ;)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on May 23, 2020 19:05:05
/r/bsv/comments/gjvvoa/lol_3_addresses_moving_coins_that_were_supposed/frlb3oo/

Still disprovable. Were they in a coma? While less certain on their own, are they technically competent? Do they have good command of the English language? Inasmuch as you could object, “well, they could have had help, could have been faking bad grammar in their everyday life...”, you could make the same objections to someone making a positive claim with strong evidence. “He stole the keys or the real Satoshi hired him to stand in...” Proving someone is not Satoshi is just as possible as the opposite in theory and practice. Neither requires the other.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on May 23, 2020 18:31:54
/r/btc/comments/gp134o/avalanche_would_not_only_improve_0conf_security/frla95n/

The Greg works in mysterious ways.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 23, 2020 18:23:55
/r/bsv/comments/gjvvoa/lol_3_addresses_moving_coins_that_were_supposed/frky8r5/

> but in human terms proving someone is not Satoshi would logically require proving someone else was Satoshi Also false. I can prove that my 9 year old nephew is not Satoshi.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on May 23, 2020 16:29:56
/r/btc/comments/gp134o/avalanche_would_not_only_improve_0conf_security/frkpj9y/

It's halfway out the door on BCH as it is.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 23, 2020 15:08:19
/r/btc/comments/go8nbo/debunking_the_propaganda_against_bitcoin_cash/frgx606/

> So you could prove that X is coinbase of block Y and that the output total exceeds what is allowed for the block height of block Y. The coinbase output includes the block reward **plus all transaction fees**. How do you know that the reward **plus fees** doesn't add up to the amount in the coinbase output?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 22, 2020 13:49:28
/r/btc/comments/go8nbo/debunking_the_propaganda_against_bitcoin_cash/frgj78p/

> 2 can be easily proven already to an SPV wallet How?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 22, 2020 11:56:14
/r/btc/comments/gllw4e/amaury_here_explains_how_avalanche_would_solve/fr0mq0m/

You’re right. Any comment from Greg, regardless of whether it’s serious or a joke, ought to be immediately downvoted. Thank you, comrade, for your reminder.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 18, 2020 07:22:00
/r/btc/comments/gllw4e/amaury_here_explains_how_avalanche_would_solve/fqypk5n/

> Pervert incentives Calvin officially on-board.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 17, 2020 17:53:56
/r/Bitcoincash/comments/gjktof/were_bitcoin_abc_the_leading_full_node_software/fqmxrow/

Thanks! It would be great if you could link to a timestamp.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoincash on May 14, 2020 15:41:42
/r/Bitcoin/comments/gjmqmo/ecdsa_how_does_bitcoin_chooses_the_elliptic_curve/fqmfm07/

> If only I'd written 'any point on the curve' Too late. I'm submitting this to /r/btc as irrefutable evidence of your intention to cripple Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on May 14, 2020 13:17:20
/r/Bitcoin/comments/gjmqmo/ecdsa_how_does_bitcoin_chooses_the_elliptic_curve/fqm8w9t/

> Any point will do for G so long as everyone uses the same G. Not the point at infinity. Checkmate. ;) Edit: BRB, submitting a patent to see if I can sell it to a billionaire.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoin on May 14, 2020 12:24:42
/r/Bitcoincash/comments/gjktof/were_bitcoin_abc_the_leading_full_node_software/fqlo3b0/

> nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone ... > It is strictly necessary that the longest chain is always considered the valid one. Nodes that were present may remember that one branch was there first and got replaced by another, but there would be no way for them to convince those who were not present of this. We can't have subfactions of nodes that cling to one branch that they think was first, others that saw another branch first, and others that joined later and never saw what happened. The CPU power proof-of-work vote must have the final say. The only way for everyone to stay on the same page is to believe that the longest chain is always the valid one, no matter what. How much longer will ABC include the automated rolling checkpoints?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Bitcoincash on May 14, 2020 09:25:03
/r/btc/comments/giuzf9/btc_coin_the_block_production_has_begun_to_slow/fqijdhd/

> while you're attempting to relabel it as FUD with no grounding, when we have precedent. That's how dishonest you are So now you're relying on "precedent" to explain your "formulas"? Would that precedent take into account price changes to Litecoin, or was that all just 'halvening' effects? Given enough time, I'm sure you'll be able to cherry-pick some piece of data that you think justifies your previous position, but, alas, people can see through your FUD now, and see you for what you are: a disingenuous snake.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 15:06:20
/r/btc/comments/giuzf9/btc_coin_the_block_production_has_begun_to_slow/fqi93uc/

> I'm sure you've never made predictions that were wrong nostradamus. LOL, lying again. It wasn't a mere *prediction*. You cast it as an undeniable *certainty*. "Just basic formulas." By all means, though, continue to show your true colors and keep up the lies. They're entertaining, at the very least.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 13:57:17
/r/btc/comments/giuzf9/btc_coin_the_block_production_has_begun_to_slow/fqi67u7/

I'm making no claim either way **that I know for certain what will happen**. I may have *some* belief (enough to wager something), but feel it's insufficient to make any outright claim of truth about it. If I think there's roughly a 66% chance something will happen, I certainly wouldn't say, "**IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN!!!**" Unlike others, I save my truth claims for things I'm **actually** certain about.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 13:30:05
/r/btc/comments/giuzf9/btc_coin_the_block_production_has_begun_to_slow/fqi5rbs/

> Last person I discussed the halving effects with was /u/contrarian__ > and he didn't want to bet this or that way. That's another lie, /u/rattie_ok. I [explicitly said](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpk8v11/) I was happy to wager. > If you care to wager about it, I'm happy to do so, What I *didn't* want to do was act like I was *certain* about the outcome.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 13:24:39
/r/btc/comments/gilvez/open_discussions_on_rbitcoin/fqh9zru/

> He says one thing and then another. Kinda like: > this is true. Unless price is expected to double in the next 7 days, hashrate will get cut in half and therefore blocks will come in 3 per hour instead of 6. then > One can say BTC miners are centralizing around cheap power sources where other miners are not. Litecoin's halving got it's hashrate cut in half, but BTC miners are surviving thanks for cheap power sources. Like that?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 13, 2020 08:16:28
/r/btc/comments/gi9zp0/btc_coinbase_data_nytimes_09apr2020_with_23t/fqf3tje/

You spelled /u/jstolfi’s name wrong.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 17:17:32
/r/btc/comments/gi6qwm/hashrate_change_in_btc/fqebiwh/

Ah, is this your [excuse for your FUD last week](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpk8872/)? > this is true. Unless price is expected to double in the next 7 days, hashrate will get cut in half and therefore blocks will come in 3 per hour instead of 6. > Last week mempool was clogged for 24 hours+ and now it'll be much worse. ... > At half the block rate it'll take 8 days or more to clear assuming the same volume. No need to wait. > And yes hashrate and therefore Bitcoin's security will get cut in half unless you expect BTC's price to double in the next 6 days. **Again no need to wait to know this information. Just basic formulas.**

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 13:34:06
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fqe4y63/

How certain was he? We'll never know, because /u/500239 evaded the question every time it came up. > if it doesn't do exactly what he predicted To be clear, thus far it's done practically the opposite of what he 'predicted'. Of course, it wasn't framed as a prediction, but as an inevitability. > And this is true. Unless price is expected to double in the next 7 days, hashrate will get cut in half It looks like he was just mindlessly spreading FUD. It's a shame he doesn't have the integrity to admit when he was wrong. Again, I'm happy to wait a few days to be sure, but if there's no apology by then, it'll be a telling piece of evidence about his character.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 12:43:42
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fqdjw7u/

While I'm willing to wait a couple more days to be absolutely certain, do you, /u/500239, admit that your statements appear to have been FUD at this point?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 12, 2020 09:47:09
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkn00e/

RemindMe! 8 days "Did /u/500239 apologize if he was wrong about his much-narrowed halvening claims?"

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 12:52:27
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpklwvi/

> I laugh to post and call out trolls with double standards. Sure, but what's that got to do with this? How about agreeing ahead of time to apologize if you're wrong about your halvening claims?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 12:43:34
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpklk89/

> "almost guarantee" is fake certainty No, I was expressing my genuine amount of certainty. Furthermore, it was a much more specific claim, and contingent on things that wouldn't necessarily happen, unlike the inevitable halvening. I would absolutely have apologized if I turned out to be incorrect. As I've already shown with you, you don't even believe your own claims. You've been continually backing down from them since we started this conversation. > I love posting and laughing at trolls Me too, troll! :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 12:40:40
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkeuxa/

I wasn't faking certainty. If you're not faking certainty, then you will have no problem agreeing ahead of time to apologize if you're wrong. Right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 11:43:27
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkejyt/

> You've made predictions in the past which were misleading and irresponsible. I totally disagree that they were misleading or irresponsible. And I certainly would have apologized if I were wrong. > Rules for me not for thee Tu quoque is a logical fallacy. Can you try to stay on topic? How certain are you of your newly-narrowed prediction?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 11:40:48
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkdl1y/

I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you before it sinks in: I'm making no claim either way. It's certainly possible that your prediction will come true, as with almost any prediction. You still haven't answered my clarifying questions. Can you restate your exact prediction and express how certain you are about it? Once you've done that, try comparing it to OP's claims. Hopefully, you'll finally understand why they're FUD.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 11:32:19
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkcfem/

Hmmm... that's a **lot** of hedging, and is quite different from your original claim. Readers, notice the adjustments the claimant makes when pressed. Why would you give a range for "at least" -- is it at least 30% or at least 40%? What does "same price" mean? Within 10%? What if the price is 15% higher? And, again, if you're wrong even in this much narrower claim, will you apologize for the certainty you're expressing about it?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 11:22:13
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkbtlo/

So you're still standing by your prediction that hashrate will be cut by 50% (unless BTC price doubles)?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 11:16:53
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkblmu/

> My prediction is that bitcoin's mempool is going to bloat again I see that you're already backing off on the specifics. That should warn any readers of your *actual* certainty on the topic. See? That's FUD. > Why don't you agree to come apologize if you're wrong. Wrong about what? What claim have I made? I'm expressly saying that I don't know with any certainty what will happen.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 11:14:53
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkb2wr/

> to assume this doesn't change anything is misleading and irresponsible Again, the fact that one can have uncertainty about what will happen is quite different from pretending to know with certainty that **one specific outcome** will happen. If you're so sure about it, how about you agree to apologize if you're wrong?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 11:10:15
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkam9g/

I don't have a strong belief either way, and I think it's irresponsible and misleading to fake certainty.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 11:06:09
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpkadl0/

> Lay out your reasons why hashrate won't be cut Sorry, that's not how this works. You're making a claim. I am not. > Will miners be mining at a loss? Is this guaranteed? Do you have access to their electricity costs? Do you know the exact numbers of each mining rig they have? Again, instead of speculating on imperfect information and pretending to have certainty that we both know that you (and the malicious OP) have, we can see what happens in a few days. Will you apologize if you're wrong?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 11:03:56
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpk9qez/

> At half the block rate Is this definitely going to happen? > And yes hashrate and therefore Bitcoin's security will get cut in half unless you expect BTC's price to double in the next 6 days. You're **sure** about this? In other words, if the hashrate isn't cut in half and BTC's price hasn't doubled, will you come back and apologize for your FUD?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 10:58:10
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpk8v11/

> And this is true. Unless price is expected to double in the next 7 days, hashrate will get cut in half More FUD. How about we revisit this in 10 days rather than just speculate? If you care to wager about it, I'm happy to do so, but pretending to know exactly what will happen in terms of hashrate, etc., is speculative FUD at this point.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 10:50:21
/r/btc/comments/gdv18u/banned_in_rbitcoin_for_sharing_a_video_about_btc/fpk7do5/

"Could spell doom for BTC"... "the pending BTC disaster..." "in what could be the biggest hashrate crash in the history..." Those are just in the first couple minutes. Then he goes on to use some made-up numbers about electricity costs, made up numbers about hashrate-drops, made up numbers about fees, etc. This is, quite literally, just fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Finally, the OP uses the headline: "Reasoning: guy in the video didn't tell viewers that price would surge to $250k+ and we would all get Lambo's." Of course, **guy in the video** is himself, and the reason for the ban has nothing to do with what OP asserts.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 5, 2020 10:36:56
/r/btc/comments/gcivdm/btc_is_by_definition_an_altcoin_segwit_is_the/fpcn9hf/

Funny that Satoshi violated that definition in the very first implementation when he allowed bitcoin to move using any locking / unlocking script users wanted, including those without any signature at all. (More importantly, it doesn’t even apply to SegWit.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 3, 2020 07:53:17
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/fp74i2q/

Your jokes are only marginally better than your tone-reading.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 1, 2020 16:11:39
/r/bsv/comments/gbg8wt/stupidity_of_the_immutable_data_on_chain_idea/fp6cn47/

> Read the white paper. It explains it for you. You don't have to verify old data over and over again that's just not value added. What if the objectionable data is in an unspent transaction output?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on May 1, 2020 12:20:46
/r/btc/comments/gawojr/my_bitcoin_is_still_pending_for_over15_hours_been/fp5s1rp/

How am I working to destroy BCH? I’m perhaps best known as the person who most doggedly chased out a charlatan from this community. Also, I was pretty wealthy before Bitcoin. I just think it’s a fun technology that aligns with my technical interests. I couldn’t care less about its “freedom” aspects, though I generally don’t begrudge people who do care about that, unless they get into insane territory.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on May 1, 2020 09:09:40
/r/btc/comments/gawojr/my_bitcoin_is_still_pending_for_over15_hours_been/fp3fl0j/

Yes, the rubes still believe!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 30, 2020 16:27:22
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/fp3fh06/

I guess you’re just bad at reading tone.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 30, 2020 16:26:28
/r/btc/comments/gawojr/my_bitcoin_is_still_pending_for_over15_hours_been/fp2z9zf/

Sorry [big liar](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/d8p6t3/coming_over_from_rbitcoin/) /u/Alex-Credible, I haven't made any Bitcoin transactions in over a year.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 30, 2020 14:13:20
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/fp04gu8/

[How many times do I have to say it?](https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foz6iig/)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 19:18:30
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foz7pxy/

Haha! Happy to **hear**! The world needs more **humor** and **fun**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 14:47:58
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foz6vld/

See? The fact that you can't understand my point is **highly amusing**, so I continue to post and laugh at you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 14:41:17
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foz6ptz/

Not sure how to make it clearer: I don't care about the **substance** of these arguments about "oNE TruE BiTCOin". I do care about my amusement.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 14:40:01
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foz6iig/

As I mentioned in another comment: I care about it in that it gives me substantial [amusement](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bh2b9i/oops_gregory_maxwell_slips_up_posts_from_nullc/). This [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bh2b9i/oops_gregory_maxwell_slips_up_posts_from_nullc/elqdv96/) still makes me laugh!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 14:38:25
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foz4psb/

I mean, I care about it in that it gives me substantial [amusement](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bh2b9i/oops_gregory_maxwell_slips_up_posts_from_nullc/). This [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bh2b9i/oops_gregory_maxwell_slips_up_posts_from_nullc/elqdv96/) still makes me laugh!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 14:24:09
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foyz9i8/

> That's Stockholm syndrome. You assume I've not always felt this way. Nice try, though, bud! Edit: [More proof](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7386vx/craig_s_wright_facts/dnp6x7k/) that I really don't care, and haven't ever.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 13:38:47
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foyyu9g/

I don't even care. I'm mostly here to point and laugh now, though I still do educate. Together we can laugh at that clown Krawisz. As I mentioned to you [recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjd9o84/): > I personally always have one foot in /r/buttcoin.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 13:35:10
/r/btc/comments/ga9uv4/btc_supporter_at_night/foyq296/

...says the cultist (BSV supporter).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 29, 2020 12:17:57
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/fosippg/

Reminds me of the [toy yoda](https://www.boredpanda.com/toy-yoda-toyota-hooters-prank-gone-wrong-jodee-berry/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=organic) story. CC: /u/nullc

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 19:51:26
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/forq1ju/

I know you did. I know.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 15:41:32
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/forbbw3/

Yes, before that release, and maybe after, depending on how many people were running that particular client. Your claim is that "Satoshi **never** implemented "pure PoW". Again, though, the block was sufficiently back in the chain that Bitcoin would likely have died if it were actually re-orged that far.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 13:42:19
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/for9xs6/

No. The clients prior to that release were, and the recent clients are. The particular releases that contained the checkpoints could have been done for a number of reasons, including optimizations, etc. We don't know how many people ran them, and if someone did make an alternate chain that long, it likely would have killed Bitcoin anyway.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 13:31:07
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/for9ci2/

> But they have one thing in common: they can lead a node the reject a longer valid chain. This is like saying a single drop of water and a giant fire extinguisher can both put out fires. In other words, it's silly, stupid, and misleading.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 13:26:23
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/for8473/

> Where did I do that? You implied it by comparing it to the rolling checkpoints in the context of the discussion. > Satoshi introduced explicit rules that allow node the reject a longest chain. This was a manual effort and, as far as I recall, he didn't even give an explicit reason for it. It could also be considered a (potential) hard fork change that has since been erased. > The argument « pure PoW » doesn’t apply to satoshi work, this is a fact. Again, you're implicitly trying to defend the (**completely different**) ABC "checkpoints" by talking about these. This is a disingenuous move.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 13:16:26
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/for5ybk/

Sorry, no kissing. Nobody knows where your mouth has been...

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 12:58:55
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/for5tju/

Why are you pretending that what Satoshi introduced is even remotely like the automated rolling checkpoints that ABC introduced? To save myself and any others the trouble, you can [read this exchange](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcul0g8/), where /u/Ant-n reveals his ignorance about how the rolling checkpoints worked, and tried to compare them with the "checkpoints" that Satoshi added (and have since been essentially removed).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 12:57:49
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqvni2/

Whatever gets you off! Enjoy!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 11:33:56
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqt1g5/

> Asking Greg to go fuck himself is actually a joyful celebration Man, you guys *really* need help.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 11:11:43
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqpg28/

I appreciate the concern, but it really seems that you are the ones with the anger issues. If you'd take a moment from telling me to "go fuck myself", then maybe you'll realize that.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:40:01
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqou4d/

You're starting to scare me, /u/jessquit. Take your anger fantasies somewhere else.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:34:24
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqopqb/

Ask Peter Rizun. He's got some [good theories](https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1122029057099452416).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:33:18
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqoktw/

> Dude you've gone straight up psycho. Are you hearing voices telling you to post this? > Dude you are seriously off your meds

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:32:05
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqoc6r/

>> and try to cast blame at everyone else > Dude you are seriously off your meds See?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:29:51
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqo6i1/

You're right, it's a very elaborate fantasy narrative including rich backstories, side-quests, etc. My prose of "defending him" carries a lot with it, I guess. Thanks for appreciating me.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:28:23
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqnxkc/

Sorry, you're right: angry dudes who refuse to admit their mistakes *and* try to cast blame at everyone else.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:26:06
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqnozz/

LOL, no, sorry, I don't get off on angry dudes who refuse to admit their mistakes. *If I did, though*, jeez, you'd be a goldmine.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:23:52
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqnj7k/

Ah, like your famous "non-support" of a certain charlatan?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:22:23
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqnaov/

Whatever gets you off, I guess.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:20:12
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqn7dm/

I did, in the hopes that you'd see and learn from your mistakes. I agree that it was a silly idea, though. Cheers.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:19:20
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqmxm3/

Please just downvote angrily and move on. This is getting boring.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:16:46
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqlgz5/

Are you blind? The evidence was right there. Also, calm down, dude. You need to deal with your anger issues.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 10:02:24
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqiw32/

Sorry, was that meant to make sense? Please try again.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 09:36:27
/r/btc/comments/g8q7lp/it_is_over_500_times_more_expensive_to_use_btc/foqc71z/

What do you know, /u/jessquit was there [defending him](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/d8p6t3/coming_over_from_rbitcoin/f1d01rd/) asking "where" it implied he was new to the sub, despite his post making it pretty clear that he was unfamiliar with the sub and BCH (which were lies). Why else would his title be "**Coming over** from /r/Bitcoin"? Now that it's cryptographically proven, will he change his tune? I doubt it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 08:17:36
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/foq7gdl/

I guess I needed an explicit /s in my comment.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 27, 2020 07:08:11
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/fop78ys/

Well, since it was always that reason in the past, surely that guarantees it’ll never happen differently in the future. Case closed.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 22:30:45
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/fop6ajw/

Yeah, I totally remember when Satoshi wrote, “my vision is miners being identified, participants having to register, and most of the chain being cat videos on a criminal billionaire’s LAN.”

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 22:20:27
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/fop5fa1/

What a perfectly meaningless comment.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 22:11:15
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/foojx87/

Ironic coming from a shill for one of the most centralized coins there is.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 18:34:00
/r/btc/comments/g8gusw/bch_is_the_most_legitimate_successor_to_the/fooh16q/

Can’t help yourself, huh?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 26, 2020 18:06:54
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnkojep/

So you aren’t going to answer, huh? I’m not surprised.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 16, 2020 07:01:59
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnjf5u3/

So a couple days’ delay wouldn’t bother you? A family going hungry for two days longer than they needed to would be okay to you as long as Trump’s name is on the checks? (Before the tu quoque objection, there’s a big difference between a delay from two groups negotiating for their constituents and a delay from a unilateral, self-serving individual’s decision.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 20:42:00
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnjbewz/

Hypothetically, if Trump’s self serving demand *were* to hold up the checks being sent out, how much delay would be acceptable to you? That is, what’s the number of days it would take before you said, “you know what, maybe he shouldn’t have done that.”?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 20:06:41
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fni3udc/

> No we're calling Democrats people who make things up and then try to waste peoples time on hypotheticals. Is this better or worse than people going hungry or dying because a narcissist insists on having his name on checks?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 13:58:32
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fni2vsn/

> Mhm, theres the bad faith trap. Can you elaborate, please? Did I misinterpret your words? > Regardless, way less people go hungry if the country is kept out of the hands of socialists. Are you defining "socialists" as those who wouldn't delay sending out checks so that they can put their names on it?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 13:50:54
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fni135o/

> Several days or more is absurd, and the writer of the article knew it when they intentionally concealed the credentials of their "anonymous" source. Do you have any evidence that "several days or more is absurd", or is that just your gut feeling? > Regardless, outside of a death, I really don't care. So, say, some people going hungry for a week is no biggie? Trump's narcissism is more important than that? It's nice to see where supporters' priorities lie.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 13:36:35
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnhydee/

> But when money needs to move, it does with haste. Why didn't the checks arrive two weeks ago, then? > I promise you, if the POTUS wants his name on a stimulus check, it is not taking "several days" Forgive me if I don't accept your promise. > unless someone is intentionally dragging their feet. Is this the birth of a new deep-state conspiracy? > Which senior officials? The deep-state ones, I guess? (I'll note you didn't answer my question about "several days or more". If that's the case, is it enough to consider Trump's narcissistic move morally depraved?)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 13:15:10
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnhwb9c/

> Why on Earth would it introduce delays if the checks had yet to be printed when the change to the template was ordered? Are you familiar with government bureaucracy? > Was the delay ten minutes? A day? Who cares. A month? Did people die due to it? Then yes. What about "several days or longer", as senior agency officials [estimated](https://www.newsweek.com/stimulus-checks-may-delayed-trump-requires-us-treasury-print-his-name-them-1497916)? Is it only important if people died due to its delay?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 12:58:52
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnhtqqp/

> This isn't controversial? It's not particularly controversial or unexpected that a **change** in the existing check-writing system would introduce delays, is it? I think the original controversy was whether Trump insisted on it, and now that is essentially confirmed. My follow-up question is, once this is 'confirmed' to your satisfaction (that a delay was introduced due to Trump's narcissism), will it change your mind about anything?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 12:38:11
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnhqu8g/

Do you always demand that level of proof for things that are not particularly controversial or unexpected? If more evidence comes to prove that the checks were, in fact, delayed by Trump's insistence on having his name on them, will it change your mind about anything?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 12:14:13
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnhpmk4/

Hypothetically, what if Trump's narcissistic actions caused the checks to be delayed for six months? Would that be acceptable to "bitch" about? Can you explain when "bitching" is appropriate for a given amonut of delay?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 12:04:16
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnhp9r2/

How did you conclude that? Please recall the other article's text: > The Treasury Department's order could cause the checks to be delayed by several days or longer, senior agency officials told the publication. Can you explain your reasoning in concluding that there's "no delay"?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 12:01:18
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnhigf8/

Are you aware that the link you posted refers to electronic deposits (ie - not paper checks)? Here is what the article says about paper checks: > People without direct deposit information on file at the IRS may not get checks until as late as mid-August or later, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press. > An IRS spokesperson recently told the Washington Post the first paper check stimulus payments will be issued to people in the lowest-income bracket ($10,000 or less) beginning on April 24.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 11:03:29
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnhc1n9/

> The Treasury Department's order could cause the checks to be delayed by several days or longer, senior agency officials told the publication. Did you skip that part, or are you just waiting for **absolute confirmation** that delays actually happened? If the latter, do you always demand that level of proof for things that are not particularly controversial?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 10:04:55
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnhavyu/

Have you seen [this article](https://www.newsweek.com/stimulus-checks-may-delayed-trump-requires-us-treasury-print-his-name-them-1497916) from yesterday? > Late Monday evening, the U.S. Treasury Department ordered the Internal Revenue Service to print President Donald Trump's name on the stimulus checks it is sending to millions of Americans nationwide, reports The Washington Post. > **The Treasury Department's order could cause the checks to be delayed by several days or longer, senior agency officials told the publication.** > The unprecedented decision will mark the first time in history that a president's name has ever appeared on an IRS disbursement. Usually, presidents' names don't appear on checks issued by the Treasury Department in order to keep such payments non-partisan.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 09:53:36
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnh8rnr/

> what kind of small minded asshole do you have to be to complain about whos name is on the check when someone is giving you money May I remind you that my question was about the **delay** caused by insisting the politician's name is on the check?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 09:32:03
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnh7d24/

So can your philosophy be summed up as, "fuck you; I got mine"?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 09:17:01
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fnh3b2k/

Do you think it’s a problem that the checks are potentially going to be delayed because of this political move?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 08:28:43
/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/g1hx79/what_do_you_think_about_trumps_name_being_printed/fngzrjy/

So, to be clear, you have no issues with the checks potentially being delayed because Trump wanted his name on them?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskTrumpSupporters on April 15, 2020 07:38:54
/r/btc/comments/g0la7o/51_attack/fnatmlb/

What about wallets?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 13, 2020 14:46:54
/r/btc/comments/fxgd37/whenever_someone_warns_you_that_bch_might_be_easy/fn09yw6/

> It's not an "arbitrary" goal. It's the paradigm, the archetype, of what the system attempts to model. Again, it **is** arbitrary to say the "goal" is to model every transaction in perfect real-time "universal" order. The "goal" is to prevent double-spending. He's **explicit** about that. **One** way to accomplish that is to order every transaction in perfect real-time universal order, like a mint does. This is impossible for a distributed system, and Satoshi recognized that explicitly in his email to Hearn. Here's your original goofy argument: > The only transaction ordering feature of Bitcoin mentioned in the white paper is that only the first transaction received by the distributed timestamp server counts. The nail in that coffin is in the rest of the paper, where transactions that are undeniably received **later** still "count". That's mentioned explicitly in "Calculations", and implicitly otherwise (computationally **impractical** (not impossible) to reverse).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 10, 2020 13:01:47
/r/btc/comments/fxgd37/whenever_someone_warns_you_that_bch_might_be_easy/fmzgkle/

> Stay on the model. The model is the mint. The mint only accepts the first transaction that arrives. If the mint reliably and consistently did this, then the result is a token that behaves like physical cash, and we could trust it, even though it was centralized. True enough, but, again, Bitcoin **does** do this at a time-resolution of about ten minutes on average. You keep confusing the reality of the implementations with the effective result. The goal is to prevent double spending. The “mint” does that by accepting the first transaction only in “real time”. Bitcoin does that by accepting the first transaction that makes it into the blockchain. > The problem is that the mint, being centralized, can be coerced into accepting out of sequence transactions. If it couldn't, we'd have no need for decentralization. This ignores the other issues that Bitcoin helps with: privacy, single-point-of-failure, etc. > I'm simply analyzing the desired goal. No, you’re not. You’re picking an arbitrary goal: that every transaction must be accepted in exact *real-time* chronological order, and pretending that’s the issue Bitcoin is trying to solve. That’s false. It very explicitly is trying to fix the *double-spending* problem, which it solves by bundling transactions into blocks about ten minutes apart, thereby creating **a** chronology for the transactions that all participants agree on. The mint solves it differently. I’m not sure why you keep insisting that Satoshi wanted Bitcoin to behave **exactly like the mint in every respect**. That’s disingenuous.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 10, 2020 07:54:36
/r/btc/comments/fxgd37/whenever_someone_warns_you_that_bch_might_be_easy/fmx6110/

Yeah, Professor Einstein would like [a word](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 15:04:58
/r/btc/comments/fxgd37/whenever_someone_warns_you_that_bch_might_be_easy/fmx5g7a/

> If the centralized mint always and reliably minted the first-seen transaction, then there would be no need for a decentralized mint. > > It is the fact that the centralized mint might not mint the first transaction, but might instead be bribed to mint some other transaction, that induces the need for a decentralized mint. You're so close yet so far. Once you realize that the solution involves timestamping **blocks** of transactions and hashing them together to determine the order, you'll see that Bitcoin doesn't have the problem. Pretending that 0-conf transactions are secure because they "arrived first" is simply misunderstanding the security of Bitcoin and its design.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 14:59:54
/r/btc/comments/fxgd37/whenever_someone_warns_you_that_bch_might_be_easy/fmx3sia/

> Right. If the mint was bribable, or preferential, and thus chose any other transaction than the first arrival, the mint would be performing the very behavior that makes us not trust centralized mints. Facepalm. It's a good thing that Bitcoin doesn't do that, since it's the **blockchain** that prevents that behavior. The entire model of how Bitcoin works is different from a centralized mint, so directly comparing their *implementations* is absurd. I'm not sure how to get it through your head. I'll try again: **THE BLOCKCHAIN DETERMINES THE "CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER" OF TRANSACTIONS**. The blockchain is the timestamp server. There is no "transaction ordering" without blocks hashed in a chain. You can't "replace by fee" a transaction that's already in the blockchain. (Without undoing and rebuilding the chain at incredible cost.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 14:45:55
/r/btc/comments/fxgd37/whenever_someone_warns_you_that_bch_might_be_easy/fmwzyv1/

> The model is the centralized mint. How did the centralized mint work? Did it just take a bunch of different versions of transactions and pick one at random? Did it take a bunch of different versions, and pick the highest-fee one? > > No. And you know this. So, stop. LOL, in the text, it even says that the centralized mint "**decided** which arrived first". It doesn't even say that it **actually** arrived first, nor "saw" that it arrived first. The entire section is about double-spending, and Satoshi's solution was to *force* an order on them using the blockchain (**a** single history). Again, I refer you to his email with Hearn where he made this perfectly clear. And, regardless, the fact that he's trying to replicate the **effect** of a centralized mint doesn't mean that he is trying to replicate its **implementation**. There is no *actual* "first" in a distributed system like Bitcoin, and Satoshi was well aware of this. > I think Satoshi believed that his first seen policy was good enough at the time, thus his snack machine example. This has nothing to do with how Bitcoin works as a timestamp server. First, that was written about two years after the whitepaper, which was well after he implemented the transaction replacement code. (By the way, Satoshi said he wrote most of the code **before** the whitepaper.) Second, Satoshi was well aware that unconfirmed transactions are second class citizens. The "Calculations" section in the whitepaper makes that clear, and so do Satoshi's words: > As you figured out, the root problem is we shouldn't be counting or spending transactions until they have at least 1 confirmation. 0/unconfirmed transactions are very much second class citizens. At most, they are advice that something has been received, but counting them as balance or spending them is premature.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 14:13:31
/r/worldnews/comments/fxrbel/obesity_is_major_covid19_risk_factor_says_french/fmws7c1/

Lock a skinny person and an obese person in separate jail cells with running water, vitamins, but no food. Come back in six months. In this *completely uncontrived* hypothetical, the obese person will almost certainly survive, and the skinny one likely will not. Conclusion: obesity gives a survival advantage.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/worldnews on April 9, 2020 13:08:16
/r/btc/comments/fxgd37/whenever_someone_warns_you_that_bch_might_be_easy/fmwk61q/

Switching to my best-looking account. Sorry /u/cryptocached. You really don't get it. Mike Hearn to Satoshi in April, 2009: > The timestamping doesn't have to be actually in parallel with real time does it ... it's merely establishing an ordering of events Satoshi to Mike Hearn: > As you say, it's the order of events that matters. The whitepaper makes it clear that they're agreeing on **a** "single history", not "**the** actual history". That is, it's an **artificially imposed ordering**, which is the only possible way to do it. The "first" or "earliest" transactions are just the ones that made it into a **block** before the "next" one. If you think Satoshi intended the other miners to orphan blocks that published a transaction "after" (in real time) they received a competing one in their mempool, you are dead wrong, and have good company in the BSV technical leadership.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 9, 2020 12:00:35
/r/Coronavirus/comments/fwnmhc/out_of_2000_icu_patients_in_france_83_are/fmpmsn1/

> I'm almost positive that 100% of NBA players would be considered "overweight", even the really skinny guys. You'd be [wrong](https://imgur.com/3hHTfml).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Coronavirus on April 7, 2020 14:20:18
/r/Coronavirus/comments/fwnmhc/out_of_2000_icu_patients_in_france_83_are/fmplb5m/

I wouldn't think that's the 'real' problem, as 95% of men who have non-obese bodyfat have BMI < 30, and 99% of women who non-obese bodyfat have BMI of < 30. Is bodyfat percentage more accurate? Probably. However, it's significantly more difficult to measure accurately, and I don't think any doctor is going to look at their professional athlete patient and say that they need to lose weight because their BMI is too high.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Coronavirus on April 7, 2020 14:07:39
/r/Coronavirus/comments/fwnmhc/out_of_2000_icu_patients_in_france_83_are/fmphcfa/

It actually is generally biased the other way around. It's more often the case that people who are actually obese (as measured by bodyfat) are categorized as 'non-obese' by BMI.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Coronavirus on April 7, 2020 13:34:07
/r/Coronavirus/comments/fwnmhc/out_of_2000_icu_patients_in_france_83_are/fmpgt4a/

In reality, there are probably more people who are 'obese' than their BMI says. BMI as a test of obesity is highly specific; that is, if you consider body fat percentage the gold standard, then if you're 'obese' under the BMI test, you're almost certainly 'obese' under the body fat percentage test (under the generally accepted definitions of obesity). If anything, BMI under-estimates obesity in a given population. Obviously there will be outliers like the example you posted, but high-BMI-low-bodyfat individuals are relatively rare. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2877506/ *"A BMI cut-off of ≥ 30 kg/m2 had an overall poor sensitivity of 43% and a good specificity of 96% to detect BF %-defined obesity. After stratifying by sex, a BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 had a poor sensitivity in both men and women (36% and 49%, respectively) and a good specificity (95% and 99%, respectively)."*

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Coronavirus on April 7, 2020 13:29:35
/r/btc/comments/fw1qst/some_actual_numbers_for_those_spreading_fud_about/fmlsd0h/

If they're "recent layoffs", then surely the time right before the layoffs is the most "reasonable time comparison", no? That is, unless you do annual layoffs or something.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 6, 2020 12:59:00
/r/btc/comments/fw1qst/some_actual_numbers_for_those_spreading_fud_about/fmlquj6/

Isn't February/March 2020 more relevant than last April? It's not like you sell Christmas trees.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on April 6, 2020 12:45:40
/r/Coronavirus/comments/fsexbr/cdc_warns_against_using_aquarium_cleaner_to_treat/fm1t1k3/

I'm not sure if laying out the facts qualifies as a "contrarian" action. While it's true that Trump never said the words "chloroquine phosphate", that's immaterial. The medication "chloroquine" is **normally administered as chloroquine phosphate**. /u/Igoogledyourass seems confused by this point, and is trying to make it look like "chloroquine phosphate" is a different (and more dangerous?) drug, when, in fact, it's just the usual preparation of "chloroquine". Unsurprisingly, his ignorant comment is upvoted significantly. While it's obviously a terrible idea to ingest a chemical made for non-human use, as it's basically unregulated and could have other contaminants, Trump does bear *some* responsibility for implying that chloroquine is safe and saying things like "it's not going to kill anybody" and "what the hell do you have to lose?".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Coronavirus on March 31, 2020 15:54:50
/r/Coronavirus/comments/fsexbr/cdc_warns_against_using_aquarium_cleaner_to_treat/fm15r5h/

> Except he never ever talked about chloroquine phosphate. Don't spread misinformation, please. Chloroquine phosphate is the [normal way](https://www.rxlist.com/aralen-drug.htm) that chloroquine is administered in tablet form.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Coronavirus on March 31, 2020 12:35:01
/r/btc/comments/fdgabh/is_avalanche_pure_speculation/fjvg75w/

...but I save all my best and funniest comments for this account.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 7, 2020 19:20:09
/r/bsv/comments/fezdir/bsv_supporter_ucrazycoder4_cryptoshoppe_glasses/fjvfs8z/

LOL, you don't say that when you lost, you dunderhead!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on March 7, 2020 19:18:00
/r/bsv/comments/ff1bcf/i_make_a_post_in_rbullshitsv_it_gets_upvoted/fjvevfh/

The image of most of the post was there when I commented, so it must have been when you did. Anyway, here's the text: > "I've always liked BSV. BSV scales the biggest and the fastest, and is dominant over all other cryptos (which are all scams). Onchain digital media is also how we can start holding businesses accountable for the things they Tweet online, and incentivize the internet to be better moderated. Everything should go on the blockchain, which is the future of professional data storage systems, so that everyone can be held accountable for everything that ever happens, and so that hackers can't tamper with their histories of hacking. > Genesis is here, and MetaNet is coming, fuckers. No more child porn, because they'll all be caught immediately due to the traceability of the blockchain. No more crime, because everyone will be using the blockchain. Tax evasion is A CRIME, and criminals will be put TO JUSTICE. > We stand for Liberty, we stand for Human Freedom, and we stand for Economic Prosperity. >We are BSV." I hope you understand why it's funny that it was upvoted.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on March 7, 2020 19:14:12
/r/bsv/comments/ff1bcf/i_make_a_post_in_rbullshitsv_it_gets_upvoted/fjutgje/

Nate, you forgot to be funny again.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on March 7, 2020 17:27:35
/r/bsv/comments/ff1bcf/i_make_a_post_in_rbullshitsv_it_gets_upvoted/fjuoj7b/

> Did your post have something dumb in it Did you even read the text?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on March 7, 2020 17:03:45
/r/bsv/comments/fdc0he/looks_like_a_bunch_of_buzzwords_does_that_mean/fji56g4/

You underestimate their incompetence.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on March 4, 2020 17:26:38
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjh52ne/

Nooo, don’t run away now! It was just getting fun. We need to talk about the serial liar Ashton Kutcher. He hosted a show called “Punk’d”, where he’d just **lie and lie and lie and lie**. It was terrible. So many lies. You wouldn’t be able to bear all the lies. It’s practically a never-ending stream of lies from that lying liar.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 12:03:12
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjh4gvg/

> you were caught red handed lying Allen Funt, **you were caught red handed ~~playing a prank~~ lying!!** I’m cAlLInG yOu ouT ON iT!! Please continue embarrassing yourself. This is great stuff.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 11:57:36
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjh34z6/

> And many people who saw a guy in an Elvis costume were in fact looking at Elvis. Lol, you dumbass. We're talking about now, after Elvis died. > just like you're definitely a lying sack of shit I'm a "lying sack of shit" just as much as Allen Funt was. You're just sour that you fell for a funny ruse. > Elvis wasn't lying in the slightest about being Elvis, he was in fact actually Elvis. Your analogy is as stupid as you are. Again, we're talking about after he died. Please keep that in mind when you're constructing your straw-men. > but you're then lying about having pretended to be him Huh? Please give the full extent of my having "pretended to be him". The sum total of my participation in the ruse was to delete a single comment I made. **He** pretended to be **me** by copying my comment. But, again, you're getting confused between a **lie** and a **joke**. You have your panties all in a twist over this. My suggestion is to grow a functioning sense of humor, because yours is dead and rotting. I can't say it more clearly: pretending that an obvious joke was, in fact, a **lie** is just plain sad.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 11:45:19
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjh0yj6/

> "Tricked" assumes that I believe you were actually engaged in a ruse "Tricked" assumes the person wearing the Elvis clothes is **not actually Elvis**. > I still think you're Greg and will continue to do so until proven otherwise I still think it was Elvis and will continue to do so until proven otherwise. > as that's what the present evidence suggests The Elvis clothes were **really authentic**!!! He even did the lip curl! > The simple fact is though no matter which narrative you believe, you're a liar. The simple fact is that, regardless of whether the Elvis-dresser is actually Elvis or not, he's still a liar! Waaaah! I don't like jokes! Waaaah!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 11:27:01
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjgnqfp/

> where you weren't lying your ass off and that's a fact. That guy who dressed like old Elvis was **lying his ass off and that's a fact!** Waaah! I was tricked and I don't like it! Waaah!!!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 09:18:05
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjgg9jf/

Your sour grapes over falling for a harmless practical joke does not make it a “lie”. You must be really fun to watch “Candid Camera” with. “A buncha liars there! All of ‘em! Lies, lies, lies!!” The joke was akin to dressing up vaguely like an old Elvis and attending an “Elvis is still alive” convention. “Lying”! Lol!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 4, 2020 07:41:19
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjek67h/

> your own admission lying your ass off Citation needed. Well, actually, not needed, because I’m sure you’re just putting the cart before the horse as usual.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 17:07:26
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fje8nc6/

"Those accounts" referred to the links in the parent comment [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7eil12/evidence_that_the_mods_of_rbitcoin_may_have_been/dq5cn9q/), not /u/4n4n4 and /u/nullc.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 15:26:07
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fje4svl/

> No the asshole is the guy telling users that craft.cash is spamming the blockchain in a permissionless blockchain. I said I **personally** think it's spam, and is part of the reason why I don't use BCH any longer, but I couldn't care less about anyone else using it. I'm certainly not trying to stop anyone. Jesus Christ you're an idiot. I'm done with this conversation.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 14:54:04
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fje48vg/

> We don't care, if you care, how Bitcoin should be used. Bitcoin is permission less and independent of your views on how Bitcoin should be used. Again, you're lying and pretending that I had some quarrel with this. You're just an asshole.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 14:48:56
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fje2s5o/

Why do you think I want people to ask for permission? You're just making shit up out of thin air. I can't say it any clearer: **I don't care that most transactions on BCH and BSV are extremely-low-value**. I simply don't use those chains. If you want to argue that millions of sub 2 cent transactions show that BCH is "used" as much as Bitcoin was in 2009 to 2012, then be my guest. It's dumb as hell, but I don't need to give you permission to make an idiotic argument.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 14:35:16
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fje2b0m/

> In your profile page. [Nah, you're just lying again](https://api.pushshift.io/reddit/search/comment/?sort=desc&size=500&author=contrarian__&q=coffee%20spam). > Craft.cash is also labeled as spam by you as well, in a permission less blockchain. You *admitted* spam [exists](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdmgc8/) in permissionless blockchains: > Spam is spam, the difference between BTC mindset and BCH mindset is that if you're paying for it, it's OK, as Bitcoin is a permissionless blockchain so you can't stop it. .. > You do understand permissionless right? Yes. You understand that users may not **want** extremely-low-value transactions taking up space on their hard drives, and therefore *prefer* a chain with non-negligible fees?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 14:30:45
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fje1jyy/

> You call using Bitcoin for coffee spam Citation needed.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 14:23:39
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fje17t4/

LOL, you are a liar. People can judge [our conversation](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdavgp/) themselves and see who is arguing in good faith. Your entire thesis is that BCH is growing like Bitcoin did from 2009-2012, and your evidence is raw transaction count. LOL.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 14:20:28
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdwt9u/

> You cannot possibly prove that you are not Greg's close associate. Sure I could. I could give my login information to a third party we both trust, and let them evaluate our communications. The same goes for my phone records, email accounts, banking records, etc. I **could** have secretly been communicating with him through some other channel, but that would mean I was faking other private conversations with him just in case something like this happened. But then that's getting into Russell's Teapot territory. > As for proving that you are not Greg, I would need to know the means by which you believe you can achieve such a proof. It's not hard to find someone to claim to own the account "contrarian". I've made several verifiable claims over the years here on reddit. You could collect them all (unless you think I hacked reddit and went back and changed them, but I think that level of idiocy is reserved for /u/etherael -type people) and I could verify them. I could also Facetime or Skype and answer any questions you have about me, Bitcoin, my opinions over the years, etc. I could also point to a few well-known people in Bitcoin to whom I've already doxxed myself a while ago (in person, even!) and have them vouch for me. I could also send you the username I **used** to have on reddit prior to this one. I gave it up because it was self-doxxing. The tone, subreddits, style, grammar, etc. will be identical. I have a very distinct style, even if you are unable to recognize it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 13:39:41
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdvemu/

LOL, I knew you were scared.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 13:26:48
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdva0o/

> Hahaha you want us to think Apple vs Android is "personality"?? Goddamn, that was a big wooooooosh. > Your personality - like your haughty tone and your proclivity for wagers - positively screams Greg. In fact, we are quite different. I am more of a Puck-like character who's primarily in it for the lulz, while Greg seems more invested in the scene. > I don't have an idea what your real identity is, do I? No, you're not smart enough.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 13:25:37
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdu70p/

Then take me up on it! Or are you too scared?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 13:15:32
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdu5ls/

> But a person's personality is just as ephemeral as a passing cloud. If you were **at all** capable of reading a person's personality from their online comments, 1) you wouldn't have fallen for the charlatan in chief, and 2) you wouldn't think I'm Greg. Our personalities are vastly different. He likes Android stuff, and I like Apple stuff. Case. Closed.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 13:15:10
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdtwft/

> No you magically exonerated him Someone else made a comment about the tool, if you recall. Unless you think that was **another** sockpuppet. > As if Greg or his close associate can't build a sockpuppet detector and then tune his behavior to make sure it exonerates him The paranoia... > But of course, since you're absolutely, positively unrelated to Greg, so I must be completely crazy. I'm still willing to take bets. Everyone shies away.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 13:12:47
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdtm3m/

> Bitcoin is a permissionless blockchain not defined by your personal views, but rather by the usage of the blockchain and how people chose to use it Yes, and Bitcoin Cash is not Bitcoin. > You're getting upset that Bitcoin Cash is performing microtransactions Why would I be upset? I already told you, I'm not even convinced that Bitcoin is a good idea **at all**. 75% of my interest is in the hilarity of crypto. > where users are inflating transaction metrics for user adoption Ah, another caveat. When transactions are *purposely* made to inflate the tx count, they're not genuine. What if there's a "genuine" business model that can equally be implemented with 1 transaction or with 1000 txes. Would choosing the latter implementation make it not "genuine"? What if there were only a *miniscule* benefit to making the tx count *much* higher? > Lastly bolding words in a debate does not replace an argument. Bolding words is **fun** and **helpful**, in my opinion. Let me remind you of your "argument": BCH "grew" more quickly from 2017 to now than Bitcoin did from 2009-2012 because its raw tx count in 2020 is more than that of Bitcoin's in 2011. Holy shit, when it's written out like that in plain language, it's **even dumber** than I initially thought. > Let me know when you find proof of BCH inflating it's transaction count numbers. craft.cash is plenty of evidence that BCH's txes are not equivalent to Bitcoin's early transactions, as you lyingly assert.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 13:10:06
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjds4zh/

Oh come on, it's **entirely based on tone?!** Why would you disingenuously post those **opinion-switching** examples?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:56:25
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdrxb9/

> the guy that built the sockpuppet detector that just happened to magically exonerate Greg of running sockpuppets, **after** Greg got accused of hacking reddit accounts. Wait, you think I made that **after** Greg was accused? LOL. This is the best thread in a long time.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:54:27
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdrg8z/

> raving about how great BTC was, going on and on about the genius of Lightning Network, calling Roger Ver a scammer, praising the 2015 Capacity Increases for Bitcoin plan Can you point to the things the user in question said that you think are the equivalent of those? Surely they must be really big.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:50:05
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdr0xb/

> you brought up craft.cash as not "genuine" despite the transaction count volume being a function of users using that service, not the existence of the service itself. Wrong. I was making fun of your definition of "genuine" by pointing to a very questionable "genuine" usage which accounts for a **massive** proportion of the transactions you think are equivalent to Bitcoin's use from 2009-2012. You keep moving the goalposts of what's "genuine", which was **the point of me making fun of you**. Even now you can't make a coherent argument. > Then when pressed with more questions why you even brought it up, you evaded those. I did not evade anything. I'm addressing it directly. You are just lying. > to even confirm it has a business model. That's **your** goofy criteria. Well, it's **part** of your goofy criteria. You change it constantly. > 1 user running WeatherSV is not comparable to craft.cash with thousands of users, as weatherSV pumps transactions regardless of user count and craft.cash pumps transactions as a function of user count. And they're all equivalent to Bitcoin's usage from 2009-2012? I think not. > and lastly you threw a wide net saying any blockchain or crypto can spam and inflate it's transaction count, but you've yet to identify any sources in BCH doing so Craft.cash **is spam** in my opinion. > despite the network effect reset LOL. More rank disingenuousness. > in the last 2.5 years BCH has matched and surpassed BTC's growth in the same early years. What goofy metric are you going to pull out of your ass to support this assertion? > Do you have any other sources of non genuine transactions or are you just linking the same parroted articles that you don't bother even doing research for? How about you carve out an even more self-serving definition of "genuine" first? I wouldn't want to expend energy just for you to redefine it **again**. Are ten users making 1,000,000 transactions a day "genuine" if it's "sustainable", even if they're $0.00001 each? How long does it have to be sustainable for? Is there a minimum number of users? Does the business model need your personal approval?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:46:07
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdpwik/

> if I was tangled up in any way in a controversy involving hacking reddit accounts The lulz **never** stop, do they?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:35:35
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdpoi3/

> You're here to defend I have zero interest in whether that user was genuine or not. I'm here simply to laugh at bad arguments presented with no evidence.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:33:31
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdp5ay/

We're all out to get you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:28:34
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdp27h/

> I'm sure you didn't have anything to do with this. Hahaha! Now I'm in on it. The fun never ends here.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:27:47
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdoztg/

> They’re so bad at determining this, the lulz are never enough. Correct.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:27:11
/r/btc/comments/fcxe33/we_fell_for_it_uchernobyl169_didnt_capitulate_his/fjdnwn7/

Jessquit is not very good at determining whether or not an individual is actually behind a pseudonym. The same with /r/btc as a whole. This post will likely be heavily upvoted, while this comment will definitely be heavily downvoted. I suggest just kicking back and enjoying the lulz.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:17:08
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdnvqc/

> Spam is spam, the difference between BTC mindset and BCH mindset is that if you're paying for it, it's OK, as Bitcoin is a permissionless blockchain so you can't stop it. If you pay for a transaction than you can use the blockchain, it's a really simple concept. So a blockchain with higher fees will have less spam, right? And nobody can stop me from **not** using BCH or BSV, since they have much more spam (and the potential for it), right? > And yet you linked to craft.cash for some reason as proof of being "genuine". your own words. You are the one trying to make "genuine" whatever you want it to mean. I was making fun of you for that, which is why I put "genuine" in scare quotes. > You already tried framing BCH as not having genuine transactions both in terms of value sent and 1 address tx volume, but both are paid for by users in the end. Aren't WeatherSV txes being paid for by **someone**? And that someone is, by definition, a **user**. > ie not a long term sustainable tx count. Ah, so now the goalposts shift again for "genuine" to mean "long term sustainable tx" count. How long does it have to be sustainable? I bet Calvin's pockets can sustain it for quite a few years, if not decades. And, again, you still apparently think it's okay to compare raw tx count between Bitcoin in 2009-2012 and BCH in 2017-2020!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:16:54
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdlqp5/

> Because no were on their website do you purchase any license or anything. their API is free with no mention of caps or limitations. Show me otherwise and do your damn research. Perhaps someone else is paying for it privately. Is that not "real" if that's the case? Do you decide everything that's "real"? I recall /r/btc asserting that there's no such thing as "spam" or "not real" transactions. Have those goalposts now shifted to only include transactions with "real business models"? > So anyway tell me why you have an issue with craft.cash since you brough it up. I don't have any particular issue other than the blockchain being bloated with unnecessary chaff. But I don't use BCH any longer, so it doesn't affect me directly anyway. > can you expand on why you believe this service should not be counted? As I said before, it's disingenuous to use a raw count of transactions as a generic metric for "usage". If that's true, XRP is a much more "used" coin. You're trying to throw this arbitrary "real business model" concept in to move the goalposts, but it's a transparent dodge. Some "real" business could generate a million almost-zero-value transactions a day with 10 "real users", and that would count exactly as much as Bitcoin's usage from 2009-2012 to you. That's **insane**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 12:03:16
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdk8ws/

> WeatherSV has no clients paying for it's costs. It has no business model. How do you know? > Going back to your article you still haven't explained why craft.cash is not a valid usage of the blockchain or business model, despite you bring it up. You are assuming that WeatherSV has no valid business model, yet you are assuming this does have a valid business model. I have no interest in verifying either claim. There could be a "valid business model" that results in a million transactions a day and makes $20/day, and you'd consider that "real usage" on par with Bitcoin from 2009-2012. Now **that's** disingenuous. Edit: I recall /r/btc asserting that there's no such thing as "spam" or "not real" transactions. Have those goalposts now shifted to only include transactions with "real business models"?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 11:50:33
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdj8jc/

> Can you respond to the actual comment and tell me why you think craft.cash is no genuine as per to your own link? People are paying to use the blockchain. And you have no compunction about comparing that "usage" to Bitcoin's from 2009-2012? The WeatherSV morons are paying, too.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 11:41:40
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdiy3d/

Since 1/1/2020, 1,825,000 of all 2,789,000 transactions on BCH have had outputs that total **2 cents or less**. That is, about **two thirds** of transactions are practically nothing. (That is an even worse ratio than BSV, by the way.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 11:39:05
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdhzu8/

> BSV artificially inflates it's blockchain transaction count from a weather source with no business model. Are [all](https://cointelegraph.com/news/single-address-behind-more-than-50-of-bitcoin-cash-transactions-report) of BCH's transactions 'genuine'? Edit: Since 1/1/2020, 1,825,000 of all 2,789,000 transactions on BCH have had outputs that total **2 cents or less**. That is, about **two thirds** of transactions are practically nothing.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 11:31:20
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdfzyn/

You honestly think that comparing the number of transactions from 2009-2012 to those from 2017-2020 is a good metric for BCH? You must love BSV.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 11:19:33
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjddbcb/

You know that's a terrible comparison.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 10:56:01
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdbd4l/

Unless you're comparing BCH's tx volume in 2020 with Bitcoin's tx volume in 2011 (which is utterly bonkers), **citation needed**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 10:36:42
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjdanb2/

> Watching Lightning's development over the last 5 years is proof Bitcoin is focused on regaining that p2p cash aspect with little success, while creating any uses cases that Bitcoin Core has pivoted Bitcoin into. Similarly, we're coming up on three years post-BCH split, and it's not exactly taking off. I don't mind watching the experiments play out. If I had a strong desire to shape Bitcoin into something I think it ought to be, I'd certainly push for it, but I generally don't. (Though there are certain things that I think are simply unconditionally bad ideas and I sometimes speak my mind about those.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 10:29:28
/r/bsv/comments/fctzp4/chris_pacia_is_now_on_the_dr_craig_wright_diet_no/fjda4dk/

Did you [even look](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fco06j/openbazaar_developers_ob1_company_update/)?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on March 3, 2020 10:24:13
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjd9o84/

> Instead Bitcoin's purpose is up in the air without any tracking nor any attempts by it's current supporters to apply it anywhere useful. It's certainly possible that it isn't, in fact, a particularly useful technology -- or its uses are very niche. One should always keep that in mind. I personally always have one foot in /r/buttcoin.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 10:19:38
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjd8b7x/

I don't know for sure. Possibly a worldwide banking settlement layer, possibly a settlement layer for a more P2P second layer, and possibly something I haven't envisioned. I think crypto in general is way too "close to the metal" for the average user. People are used to the conveniences of fraud detection and reversal, credit, etc. I don't think there will ever be a time when my parents can use a non-custodial wallet.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 10:05:39
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjd6kct/

It's fine for my current purposes, and I doubt we've seen the last of the "layer-2" solutions. My personal point of view is that Bitcoin's "killer feature" is its decentralized nature. I'd rather not risk giving that up by recklessly increasing the block size. That said, I'd be comfortable if there was some responsible plan for block size increases in the future. However, they'd need to have very strong community support. Until then, I have no problem paying 50 cents or less for transactions the vast majority of the time. And while I have great respect for Satoshi, I think keeping "his vision" for its own sake is not helpful. If that's what you want, fine. However, realize that technology evolves, and just because its original *intent* may have been one thing, that doesn't mean it *must* be that thing long-term. Satoshi himself changed Bitcoin a *ton* after the first release, mostly to limit it and prevent it from being abused.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 09:47:05
/r/btc/comments/fcfuor/paul_sztorc_if_btc_layer1_fees_rise_to_28_per/fjd4nf8/

You just [are](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/d3qg1o/so_you_want_small_blocks_with_high_fees_to/f04vnh1/) not [paying](https://reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7jjlym/lightening_network_how_is_it_not_ridiculous/dr6tgzo/) enough [attention](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/dbmkua/if_you_knew_that_the_lightning_network_was_unsafe/f22xyp3/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 3, 2020 09:25:54
/r/btc/comments/fc8nve/has_anyone_raised_this_hashrate_issue_about_the/fjag5hf/

Seriously, you don't know where that came from?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 2, 2020 13:13:36
/r/btc/comments/fc8nve/has_anyone_raised_this_hashrate_issue_about_the/fja8sgt/

I did make a post about the issue, but I didn’t make that particular chart. Do you know where it’s from?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 2, 2020 12:05:01
/r/btc/comments/fbwhx6/this_is_how_toxic_the_disinformation_has_become/fj9m4te/

Yeah, watch out for my username compliments. Very dangerous.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 2, 2020 07:49:18
/r/btc/comments/fbwhx6/this_is_how_toxic_the_disinformation_has_become/fj8i78y/

> It's his public key! It’s almost never his actual public key, just to nitpick.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 20:53:03
/r/btc/comments/fc0mia/history_lesson_032018_mike_hearn_bitcoin_cash_is/fj8a8r9/

Thanks for the stamp of approval, /u/Egon_1!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 19:24:29
/r/btc/comments/fc0mia/history_lesson_032018_mike_hearn_bitcoin_cash_is/fj81p85/

> prescient in predicting the future. Well, you can't exactly be prescient about the past.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 17:52:26
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj3jco5/

You don’t need to find the next 10 consecutive blocks. You’d only need to find 10 before the other chain “catches up” at any point. For example, say BCN finds 3 blocks in a row, then ABC finds 2 blocks, then BCN finds 2, then ABC finds 2, then BCN finds 3, ABC finds 3, then BCN finds 2. This would result in a permanent chain split.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 29, 2020 09:09:44
/r/btc/comments/fayucm/at_what_point_has_abc_been_given_reasonable_time/fj3cqlc/

> But if the IFP is activates, then Bitcoin Cash Node will follow the longest chain, even if that is the IFP chain. Bitcoin Cash Node is therefore some kind of neutral middle ground, that could well be swept along with ABC if IFP activates. Bitcoin Cash Node isn't so much a vote againt IFP as a decision to stay out of the argument (IMO). This [isn’t really true](https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/). BCN won’t necessarily follow the longest chain.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 29, 2020 07:18:41
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fj22wme/

Shhhhh!! They actually ended up upvoting my most recent post to some degree, but I suspect it’s because the data could be used to support a recently-popular sentiment (that ABC is negligent).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 18:40:25
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj1vcg0/

Forgot to ping /u/imaginary_username. He was [skeptical](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy63ia/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 17:23:29
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj1svmf/

> In other words, who would mine in a scenario where the most likely outcome is for you to lose your blocks? You’d only lose a handful of blocks, and you’d “get them back” when the difficulty adjusts down to compensate for the lost blocks and lost hashrate. If a big portion of the community is running BCN nodes, then it’d arguably be foolish **not** to mine on the non-tax chain.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 16:57:01
/r/btc/comments/fb0huo/on_daa_implementation_algorithms_and/fj1ol4n/

It was a fun read, and goes to show the importance of tiny details.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 16:13:16
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj1ohov/

[Better](https://i.imgur.com/ecP3mzH.png)?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 16:12:19
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj1o3jf/

If only it were *my* reputation.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 16:08:23
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj1n3pi/

> Thanks for taking the time to run the math. You're welcome. > I'm not sure why people were arguing with you in the first place. I think you know very well why...

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 15:58:37
/r/btc/comments/fb0huo/on_daa_implementation_algorithms_and/fj1lskz/

If I'm reading this right, the TL;DR is: To calculate the 144-block moving average, the DAA picks one endpoint block as the "median" of the latest three blocks [B_n, B_n-1, B_n-2] based on their **timestamp**, and the same goes for the second endpoint, a block among: [B_n-144, B_n-145, B_n-146]. If (and only if, I think) any of the timestamps are identical, this process is *ambiguous*, since different blocks may be chosen for the "first" and "last" blocks, depending on which algorithm you choose to sort them (are they order-preserving or not). And having the exact block is critical, since it's used for PoW calculations. ABC uses one method of selecting the median, and the author used a different method (which was arguably more natural, and written before the spec was updated to explicitly delineate one specific algorithm), which caused a consensus difference in the code. Have I got that right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 15:45:37
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj1fy83/

> Stupid simulation is stupid. Well, you've convinced me. > It's obvious to me that a LOT of hashrate will **potentially** switch to BCH if the IFP code is left in It's obvious that something will potentially happen? What a courageous statement. > But even if IFP is not pulled, this simulation is waay over-simplified. Then please enlighten us all.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 14:47:32
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj1fgli/

True, there's a risk of that, too.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 14:42:44
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj1f2uf/

One interesting result that I didn't discuss is that the risk isn't **that** much less if you get rid of the parking/unparking rule completely and only have the 10-block finalization. You'd still have a 50% chance of a chainsplit within a day with 33% of miners using BCN.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 14:38:58
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj1er47/

Correct, but I'm purposely limiting this analysis to "natural" situations without any outside influence. It definitely gets much riskier when you consider things like DAA swings and malevolent actors. The fact that it's this bad *not even considering bad actors* is alarming.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 14:35:44
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj19x51/

It would, but that's not what would trigger the re-org protection. With a decent amount of minority hashrate (say 1/3), runs of several blocks in a row become pretty common. Imagine the BCN chain found 4 blocks in a row. Now ABC has to find **eight** before BCN finds its next **one**. Say ABC finds the next two, then BCN finds one. ABC still has to find eight more before it gets the BCN nodes back on its chain. It's not hard to see how BCN gets to ten, which **locks** in the chain. The automated rolling checkpoints and unparking PoW penalty are not very intuitive.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 13:47:58
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj18xzl/

> wont immediately result in rejoining the longest chain. Correct, but this is a bit strangely stated. Every BCN node would have to *manually* elect to join the ABC chain. It'll never automatically rejoin the longest chain. If SPV nodes aren't connected to at least one ABC node (or a manually modified BCN node), they'll be on a different chain, too.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 13:38:39
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj17gv5/

You're actually in an M. Night Shyamalan movie. ^(I see Greg people)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 13:26:03
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj16kji/

> but in practice a split would almost be sure after what, 4 BCN blocks in a row? Almost sure is an overstatement, and it depends on the hashrate, but the probability definitely makes a big jump there. > How does the penalty work? Here's a good [overview](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin_abc_0185_has_been_released_this_release/ea5oodp/) from /u/jtoomim. > And what do the probabilities look like? Here's the [CDF of hours to a chainsplit](https://i.imgur.com/3FHLRR0.png) with BCN having 1/3 hashrate.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 13:18:27
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj15st4/

Ha, it was a long post and you got the main takeaway.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 13:11:56
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj153ll/

As I mentioned in the post, I'd say at least 90%, preferably 95%.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 13:05:58
/r/btc/comments/fayqp2/countering_misinformation_with_data_how_the/fj14xmp/

Since this will almost inevitably get downvoted and have low visibility, I might as well ping some people who might actually be interested. /u/deadalnix /u/markblundeberg /u/NilacTheGrim

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 13:04:36
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fj0d00g/

> You have odd of admit you lost an argument. When you pretend that I was arguing against something I wasn’t, it’s easy (and an asshole move) to declare victory. > Until you are corner Again, you have shown yourself to be arguing in bad faith. This utterly misrepresents our discussion and you know it. Shame on you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 08:33:55
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fj0ca9q/

I’m impressed that your comment that agreed with mine and even took it further is well-upvoted. It goes to show how much downvote behavior is just out of bamboozlement and misunderstanding.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 08:24:38
/r/btc/comments/facge3/bitcoin_core_has_a_carbon_footprint_of_between_22/fj0c2bb/

Oooh, bamboozle-burn!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 08:21:41
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fj0a9ae/

Your point is banal and has been known for practically a decade. Before you edited your comment, it accused me of goalpost shifting, which was incredibly ironic given that you started this conversation by defending the claim that Bitcoin had “no security”. You ended up with the claim that soft forks are easier than hard forks to implement. Quite a huge distance traversed there to move those goalposts.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 28, 2020 07:56:35
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiyoc5n/

The annoying kid who’s right and trying to correct misinformation.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 17:43:10
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiyjagl/

You don't need ten blocks in a row. You don't even need to get ten blocks before the other side gets ten. Try again. (Keep in mind the PoW penalty to "unpark"!)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 16:54:53
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiyixa1/

Y'all don't know when you're being helped...

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 16:51:35
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiygzte/

I did. You, apparently, did not. Parameters: ABC has 2/3 hashrate, BCN has 1/3. How long do you think it takes before BCN locks in a chainsplit with p >= 0.25? The answer may surprise you!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 16:33:55
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiycc4m/

/u/NilacTheGrim made the following comment and then deleted it: >The contrived scenario you came up with -- some minority miners mining their own chain intentionally and maliciously when a longer chain exists -- long enough to force the 10 block reorg freeze to kick in -- is dishonest and intentionally spreading FUD. Here was my response: You **really** don't get the argument, do you? > some minority miners mining their own chain intentionally and maliciously when a longer chain exists This is **not true at all** in one of my scenarios. Again, two scenarios: 1. ABC miners have 2/3 hash, BCN miners have 1/3. BCN miners just mine non-tax blocks, but don't intentionally drop ABC blocks. The risk of a permanent chainsplit is highly significant, even if BCN miners decide (beforehand) that they'll switch to ABC after a handful of their blocks get orphaned. 2. A minority attacker forces the 10-block finalization. This is [functionally identical](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffapqej/) to Mark Lundeberg's recent description, where he got 50+ upvotes. So if you're calling me "dishonest and intentionally spreading FUD", you're saying the same about Mark. /u/markblundeberg

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 15:51:23
/r/btc/comments/f9ej9z/we_need_to_start_utilizing_an_alternative_to/fiybew6/

So a "we have to blow up the system to make real change"-type argument? Seems a bit... villainous.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 15:43:06
/r/btc/comments/f9ej9z/we_need_to_start_utilizing_an_alternative_to/fiyaqbp/

> Understand the invention I do. Do you? > The website memo.cash is not a critically important part of Memo So now everyone's running full nodes and manually finding the memos? > Child abusers drink water, so do I. I'm certainly complicit in the evils of humanity. Free flow of information is on the level of access to clean water in ranking the importance of networks Yeah, that's definitely not a bullet I'm willing to bite. I'm not going to be hosting child abuse imagery on my computer if I can avoid it, all in the name of "freedom", when you can't even really describe why it's necessary *when plenty of other services already exist that minimally censor content*. You sound like a r/the_donald user grousing about their inability to threaten popular child climate change activists. Yes, freedom of speech is fundamentally important, but it doesn't supercede **everything**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 15:36:59
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiya1mz/

> Sophistry and misleading FUD. The BCHN miners would follow the longest chain -- the majority. You are **lying**. There is zero guarantee this would happen. > Presumably if the soft fork activates though, they will switch to a soft fork capable client such as ABC or they will manually insert the whitelist addresses in their blocks, though. Miners aren't dumb. This is the sophistry. "**Presumably**" they will switch to ABC if it activates?! Quite the presumption!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 15:30:47
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy9ogm/

> most view this reorg limit as a positive thing for a minority chain to have as a feature If you say so. I don't remember much debate or discussion about it before it was released. > It's trivial to do a rewrite if you are a rich bad actor. You can cause a lot of disruption and cause lots of people to lose money if you control enough hash. Nothing's going to stop a determined majority-hash attacker from disrupting the chain and potentially causing users to lose money. > So no, no plans currently. Why do you continue to misleadingly advertise it as following the longest chain?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 15:27:32
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy7hl0/

> On a minority chain the first order concern is hashrate shifting from BTC, and on that I'll say that not maintaining 66% against is fake in my books. Again, even with 66% maintained, the chances of a split are *basically 100%* for a determined attacker! > What are the chances that the minority miners keep doing that after they've been losing blocks all day, to achieve your "1%"? The > 1% is with **zero** blocks lost (it's probably more than 2%, actually). If they do it for a couple hours, the odds are greater than 10%. If they do it all day, the odds are over 70%.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 15:07:14
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy4j6z/

> I know exactly what you're talking about, and I'm saying that any time miners "signal" with 66% but fails to actually maintain 66% hashrate at all times, it's "fake" That's a strange definition of "fake". The attacker may not even exist until after the vote is complete. They could buy a bunch of ASICs fresh out of manufacturing and attack the chain. You're just redefining "fake" to mean "not representative of the entire SHA256 hashpower now **and in the future**". Further, that doesn't even address my scenario! Even if 95% of hashpower genuinely voted, it's far from impossible for a 5% minority attacker to mine 4+ blocks in a row, especially during a DAA down oscillation. Also, you haven't addressed my question about the likelihood of a minority hash (non-attacking) miner getting a few blocks in a row. Do you think it's negligible? Keep in mind that the odds of a 1/3 hash miner getting the **first** four+ blocks is greater than 1%. What do you think they are for the entire day? Is that risk acceptable without even informing the users?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 14:39:26
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy2hzk/

> Unless BCHN miners somehow mines 4+ blocks in a row with a minority hashrate How unlikely do you think it is that miners with 33% hashpower will mine 4+ blocks in a row over the period of, say, a day? > In your second scenario, it is fake signaling No, it's real signalling, but a hostile 3rd party intervening temporarily. **That's a real risk in a minority-hashrate coin.** I know you're giving me a hard time because you think I'm someone I'm not, but if you don't believe me, ask /u/markblundeberg .

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 14:20:00
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy1sgr/

I put on my robe and wizard hat...

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 14:13:22
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy1k6b/

No. Let's say the ABC miners decide to go ahead with the soft-fork and have 66% hashrate. Now BCN miners have 33%. What do you think will happen? Guaranteed no chainsplit? Alternatively, consider if all miners ran ABC, but a large number of users and exchanges ran BCN. A malicious actor could merely wait until the DAA swings to a low point and mine a few non-tax blocks quickly. This would be practically **guaranteed** to split the chain and disrupt the network. This attack would not be nearly as easy to pull off without the soft-fork.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 14:11:09
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy0w9v/

I [did advertise it](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f7dwjy/users_and_businesses_running_the_bitcoin_cash/)!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 14:04:52
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy0sh5/

It's much greater in this case, and I think you know it. Again, the "normal" risk of a 3+ reorg isn't comparable to this new situation of a potentially miner-led softfork.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 14:03:52
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy0mxc/

Well I'm glad you can't see through me, as I'm a very modest person.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 14:02:23
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fiy0cp0/

Sure, but that's not really comparable because that was a hard fork *meant* to cause a chain split. Here, it's being **advertised** as not chain-splitting!! Worse, the poster admits that it's not technically correct and has not clarified. It's absolutely misleading to people. There's a very real risk of a chainsplit if people run this software.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 13:59:45
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fixzdg4/

Well now you're just being mean.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 13:50:23
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fixz6la/

Are there any plans to remove them?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 13:48:34
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fixz3sm/

> despite inconspicuous looks I've never been so insulted in my life.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 13:47:49
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fixz1yi/

Come on... Not only is this untrue, it's not even historically *plausible* given BCH's significantly higher hashrate at the time. Edit: Seriously, you're spreading misinformation by leaving in the "follows the longest chain" statement. I've [already](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fae9mb/technical_advice_what_would_happen_to_the_bch/fixr5jk/?context=3) had to clarify the issue. I'm not sure why everyone's sweeping the very real risk of chainsplits under the rug.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 13:47:20
/r/btc/comments/fagbq6/bitcoin_cash_node_v0210_is_now_available_get/fixxnme/

> For exchanges and users, this client will follow the longest chain whether it includes IFP soft forks or not. Does it still include the automated rolling checkpoints? Because if it does, that statement is not necessarily true.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 13:34:08
/r/btc/comments/fae9mb/technical_advice_what_would_happen_to_the_bch/fixra7b/

[Yes](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/fae9mb/technical_advice_what_would_happen_to_the_bch/fixr5jk/), almost certainly.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 12:43:16
/r/btc/comments/fae9mb/technical_advice_what_would_happen_to_the_bch/fixr5jk/

This is false. Assuming the 50% of miners who ran BCN nodes didn't make blocks that paid the tax (otherwise the question would be uninteresting), all their blocks would be ignored by the ABC nodes. **However**, due to the automated rolling checkpoints in ABC and BCN nodes, it's no longer simply "follow the most-work valid chain". If (inevitably) the BCN nodes find a few blocks in a row, they will start treating the ABC blocks as re-org attacks and give them a PoW penalty. Eventually, it's almost a certainty that the 10-block finalization will happen, and the two chains will diverge forever. In summary: the network would **almost certainly split**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 12:42:16
/r/btc/comments/facge3/bitcoin_core_has_a_carbon_footprint_of_between_22/fix9wqy/

Is that higher or lower than the carbon footprint of the computing power required for all of Egon's calls to cryptochecker?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 10:07:32
/r/btc/comments/f9ej9z/we_need_to_start_utilizing_an_alternative_to/fix668r/

> Luckly Bitcoin and other open blockchains disrupt power of the state. ...to some degree with financial matters. Using it for spreading user *content* is another thing altogether. Bitcoin wasn't designed for posting user content, and Satoshi seemed to be very against it. > When "illegal speech" will be posted on Memo and something about it will go viral, it'll be delicious to see the state's impotence in the face of technology Again, the authorities could simply shut down the website. And there are plenty of other websites that serve the same purpose, most of which are racist cesspools. Inasmuch as true "illegal speech" in the political sense goes, there are plenty of websites around that have very little to no moderation in that area. > There's where "run your node" comes in for the right reason. Sure that's possible, but I don't want to run a node that hosts child abuse images or other user content in easily accessible formats. Do you? > Just inevtiable. No one can stop people from buying weed with Bitcoin, no one can stop people from posting on Memo anything As I've said three times now, memo is a website and can be shut down like any other website or censored by its administrators. > I prefer that moderation is set up on the user side. Almost no platforms allows it done right. Memo does You can't really have true "uncensorable" content and "user moderation" at the same time.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 09:26:45
/r/btc/comments/f9ej9z/we_need_to_start_utilizing_an_alternative_to/fix574n/

Signal boosting to make things "go viral" will only result in more strict moderation, which seems like the opposite of what you want. And I think your assumption is also wrong. Reporting child abuse imagery to the appropriate authorities could certainly lead to investigations, etc.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 27, 2020 09:15:31
/r/btc/comments/f911uo/i_dont_have_any_interest_in_working_on_a_system/fiv2rkr/

Show your work when you dispute it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 16:32:54
/r/btc/comments/f911uo/i_dont_have_any_interest_in_working_on_a_system/fiuyjfi/

Do you dispute it? Of course not.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 15:56:13
/r/btc/comments/f9per4/question_regarding_ifp_segwit_recovery/fiue0xb/

To be fair, miners could make all the stolen SegWit outputs zero and therefore collect the value as fees (which would force them to pay 5% of that to the tax).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 12:53:33
/r/bsv/comments/f9tr1j/official_thread_im_done_with_bsv_and_cryptorebel/fiucs5h/

> Roy has done a lot more than you've ever done. Oh, cryptorebel, sticking up for Bitconnect scammers now, too??

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 26, 2020 12:43:18
/r/bsv/comments/f9tr1j/official_thread_im_done_with_bsv_and_cryptorebel/fiu8nlq/

/u/satoshiwins (cryptorebel) deleted his comment before I could reply, but for posterity's sake, here it was (in part): > You have only hurt BSV And my reply: > [I disagree](https://i.imgur.com/4SIIdjh.gif).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 26, 2020 12:10:18
/r/bsv/comments/f9tr1j/official_thread_im_done_with_bsv_and_cryptorebel/fiu7ltj/

> This sub calls people morons on the sidebar My heavens! You're giving me a case of the vapors. > You think you all are winning but you are only drawing attention to this ... sub Yes, we are both winning and drawing attention to this hilarious sub full of both information and entertainment. > you removed yourself for optics LOL, nope. > Its also not going to bode well for you in your future lawsuits with Dr. Wright. LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 26, 2020 12:01:49
/r/bsv/comments/f9tr1j/official_thread_im_done_with_bsv_and_cryptorebel/fiu6euv/

> abusive troll ... says the guy with like 10 banned sockpuppet accounts. How long until your current one gets banned? My guess is by next week.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 26, 2020 11:52:14
/r/btc/comments/f9ej9z/we_need_to_start_utilizing_an_alternative_to/fitz6mq/

> It'd be my guess. It's a pretty strange guess. "Hmm.. here's some child exploitation images. Rather than report them, I'm simply going to upvote them because that will eventually alert the authorities, despite it spreading the content further than it would go if I didn't upvote or alerted the authorities."

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 10:53:16
/r/btc/comments/f9ej9z/we_need_to_start_utilizing_an_alternative_to/fityust/

> Discussions about "should" and "rights" are pretty tiresome. I was speaking strictly from a legal standpoint. I've seen many idiotic "first amendment" arguments around Reddit's policies. > Much more importantly it's possible to censor on Reddit, it's not possible to censor on Memo/Member It's certainly possible to censor there if a party controls the website. However, whether completely uncensored user content is a *good* thing is debatable. I prefer some moderation as long as the rules are made clear, I think they're reasonable, and they're enforced equitably.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 10:50:31
/r/btc/comments/f911uo/i_dont_have_any_interest_in_working_on_a_system/fittsqc/

> You guys did remove almost all opcodes. Please show your work.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 10:00:51
/r/btc/comments/f911uo/i_dont_have_any_interest_in_working_on_a_system/fitl436/

> I hardly have ever seen things from Deryk I disagree with. He’s wrong a lot. For instance, just yesterday, he wrote: > What Bitcoin Core did was very radical. ... **They removed op-codes and made a ton of use cases Satoshi had planned for Bitcoin impossible.** > There is nothing conservative about this. Don't listen to me though. Let's see what Mike Hearn was saying before **all these changes went into effect back in 2013/2014.** The bolded parts are totally wrong. The ironic thing is that his comment was chastising another user for being wrong.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 26, 2020 08:19:55
/r/bsv/comments/f91rqc/what_i_dont_get_why_the_bsv_will_work_inside_the/firwl7u/

Lol, that’s hilariously untrue. You’re not even **attempting** one here!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 18:15:52
/r/bsv/comments/f91rqc/what_i_dont_get_why_the_bsv_will_work_inside_the/firuqut/

Shame you won’t even make an effort to square the circle. The quality of the cultists is diminishing. You simply accept the contradictions now.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 17:59:40
/r/bsv/comments/f91rqc/what_i_dont_get_why_the_bsv_will_work_inside_the/firsv7i/

Hahaha! Not even going to try, eh?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 17:43:45
/r/btc/comments/f9a300/the_innovators_will_brake_away/firjgto/

> They made hasty protocol changes like ... RBF Satoshi's original code had a more extreme version of RBF. > They removed op-codes and made a ton of use cases Satoshi had planned for Bitcoin impossible. **Who** exactly removed op-codes? Name names, please.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 25, 2020 16:19:10
/r/bsv/comments/f91rqc/what_i_dont_get_why_the_bsv_will_work_inside_the/firgu7j/

Take your time. I want the *prime* apologetics, not some half-assed effort.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 15:55:33
/r/btc/comments/f9ej9z/we_need_to_start_utilizing_an_alternative_to/firc86v/

Nope. I'm fine with Reddit at the moment.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 25, 2020 15:13:19
/r/btc/comments/f9ej9z/we_need_to_start_utilizing_an_alternative_to/fir9ha7/

> Maybe the goal was to highlight it for quicker reaction of local authorities? I have no clue what the actual offending content was, but if you're saying that a user hypothetically upvoted child abuse imagery to "highlight it for quicker reaction of local authorities", that's pretty bonkers. > I don't trust Reddit a bit to thought police the world Nor should you. However, Reddit is perfectly within its rights to censor anything it wants to. And you're free to find an alternative if you don't like it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 25, 2020 14:47:16
/r/interestingasfuck/comments/f9cte5/two_ball_bearings_welded_together_can_be_made_to/fir76ai/

"Up to 2000**+** rpm" is a strange boundary.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/interestingasfuck on February 25, 2020 14:25:20
/r/btc/comments/f9ej9z/we_need_to_start_utilizing_an_alternative_to/fir5png/

Maybe they upvoted an image of child abuse. Speaking of 'guilt by association', congratulations on becoming the newest mod of /r/bitcoincashsv. Apparently /u/cryptorebel and his other sockpuppets are all getting suspended from reddit, so you can carry the torch of lies with quality comments like [this one](https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/bmro2j/1_the_email_in_question_as_kleimans_lawyers_admit/en5zgvv/)! Nice!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 25, 2020 14:11:33
/r/bsv/comments/f9c01h/watching_bsvers_create_apologetics_for_their_dear/fiqvyd4/

He [is that dumb](https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoincashSV/comments/bmro2j/1_the_email_in_question_as_kleimans_lawyers_admit/en5zgvv/), unfortunately.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 12:44:01
/r/bsv/comments/f9c01h/watching_bsvers_create_apologetics_for_their_dear/fiquz1k/

Relevant recent quote from PSP: > Haha. The older I get, the more I realize that when people get hold of power, any kind of power, it inevitably ends up with the abuse of that power.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 12:35:57
/r/bsv/comments/f91rqc/what_i_dont_get_why_the_bsv_will_work_inside_the/fiqr3w9/

["If a solution was found [to have a non-public ledger], a much better, easier, more convenient implementation of Bitcoin would be possible."](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg8637#msg8637)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 12:03:02
/r/bsv/comments/f94kgx/demise_of_cryptorebel_pt_2_he_has_been_on_an_alt/fiqjetg/

See? You're so incredibly angry. **We** are the ones actually laughing.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 10:46:31
/r/bsv/comments/f94kgx/demise_of_cryptorebel_pt_2_he_has_been_on_an_alt/fiqik5d/

> I find it hilarious. No you don't. You are positively seething over this.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 10:37:53
/r/bsv/comments/f9c01h/watching_bsvers_create_apologetics_for_their_dear/fiqifzg/

/u/PaidSockPuppet, I like how you make a show of being neutral, but your comment is solely there to give cover for a lie. You should be ashamed, but I'm sure you're not.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 10:36:44
/r/bsv/comments/f91rqc/what_i_dont_get_why_the_bsv_will_work_inside_the/fiqgi6y/

He did, yet he said one without a public ledger would be a **better** implementation of Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 10:16:40
/r/bsv/comments/f91rqc/what_i_dont_get_why_the_bsv_will_work_inside_the/fiqg4gq/

> Money needs to be traceable. Funny that Satoshi was so interested in removing the **public** ledger, then.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 25, 2020 10:12:37
/r/btc/comments/f8zq8h/i_wonder_what_is_going_on_with_bsv_checks_out/fip9iog/

> Sometimes you just have to learn to laugh. We are good at laughing in this sub. Particularly at apologists like you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 22:24:45
/r/btc/comments/f90k1l/can_we_please_hold_off_on_yet_more_rule_changes/fip8ta6/

OP_MUL, etc. I assume he’s talking about the BCH/BSV split.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 22:16:43
/r/btc/comments/f90k1l/can_we_please_hold_off_on_yet_more_rule_changes/fiowcjn/

> BCH would probably be double the value today if there hadn't been a split. There would have been a split regardless. BSV hardforked, too. Did you forget?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 20:02:14
/r/btc/comments/f8uuyn/warren_buffett_on_gamble_coins_like_bitcoin_core/fio7bw5/

Oof, you're either butchering a quote or just spouting straight nonsense. Not a good look either way.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 15:55:01
/r/btc/comments/f8uuyn/warren_buffett_on_gamble_coins_like_bitcoin_core/fio5pcx/

> Yet lower than your Buttcoin score, ironic. No, it's not, unless you mean **average**, which is rather meaningless with so few posts. But you wouldn't make such a dumb argument, would you? Edit: Nice ninja edit!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 15:39:59
/r/btc/comments/f8uuyn/warren_buffett_on_gamble_coins_like_bitcoin_core/fio5br1/

"Tag a shill"? So if I call /u/cryptochecker on you, it means you're a shill? Or does it only apply if the user's /r/btc karma is negative? You will note that my /r/btc karma is quite positive.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 15:36:28
/r/bsv/comments/f8w1ja/binance_next_mtgox/finzj1k/

I'm not vegan; I'm vegetarian. I don't have enough willpower to give up pizza. Well, **we** don't.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 24, 2020 14:42:23
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/finzco2/

You don't even have a point. > It is not. What a compelling rebuttal.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 14:40:40
/r/btc/comments/f8uuyn/warren_buffett_on_gamble_coins_like_bitcoin_core/finz2ky/

Of [u/Egon_1](https://www.reddit.com/u/egon_1)'s last **1000** posts (**100** submissions + **900** comments), I found **900** that were calls to [/u/cryptochecker](http://reddit.com). This user is most active in these subreddits: Subreddit|No. of posts|Total karma|Average|[Sentiment](https://nlpforhackers.io/sentiment-analysis-intro/) :--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:--|:-- r/btc|1000|20 billion|4,183,928|Whiny| See [here](https://reddit.com/user/Egon_1) for more detailed results, including less active cryptocurrency subreddits. *** ^(Bleep, bloop, I'm a bot trying to help inform cryptocurrency discussion on Reddit.) ^| [^Usage](https://www.reddit.com/user/youre_a_weirdo/comments/atbifk/how_to_use_u/) ^| [^FAQs](https://www.reddit.com/user/youre_a_weirdo/comments/ascogw/faq_about_u/) ^| [^Feedback](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=Egon_1&subject=youre_a_weirdo%20bot)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 24, 2020 14:38:00
/r/bsv/comments/f8w1ja/binance_next_mtgox/finxv7c/

> Said the guy how has multiple accounts to circle jerk. How has?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 24, 2020 14:26:22
/r/bsv/comments/f8w1ja/binance_next_mtgox/finwoxv/

> this illegal bucket shop I love how the acolytes use the same idiotic vocabulary.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 24, 2020 14:14:57
/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fibtqa1/

> What better way to destroy BCH but to put it in the hands of incompetent people? Maybe lending fraudulent Chief Scientists credibility by working with their company and giving them deference on your blog? You’re good at that!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 19:05:06
/r/bsv/comments/f70chp/csw_looking_all_haggard/fibc15p/

I feel attacked!!!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 21, 2020 16:00:08
/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fib4l9g/

> Greg LOL, not only are you a bad actor, you're an idiot, too. > Unless your intent is to give nChain further publicity, I fail to see how this would help. Still unwilling to say a bad word about them, I see. Your silence is deafening.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 14:48:15
/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fib10cq/

> In the post you link, I am defending an idea (fractional satoshis) that goes very much against the current agenda of nChain. How does this even relate? You posted his opinion (along with his honorific) as if it's worth something. **Do you think he is technically competent?** Or maybe you'll weasel your way out of this one, too. > Then, you distort my previous comment. We can leave that up to the readers to decide if you are defending nChain or not. > Following your lines of thoughts, I am also promoting Blockstream (hint: I do not), because *they too* invest in getting code written. You're willing to point out the positives of nChain, yet refuse to say anything negative about them (and even defend them against obvious jokes!), despite them being very well known as bad actors. If you only said positive things about Blockstream, I'd conclude that you supported them.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 14:13:32
/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fiazvht/

Amaury [himself](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/bza528/amaury_s%C3%A9chet_regarding_ryan_x_charles_thinking/eqsisd6/) seems to fully agree with you: "It's unfortunate, but you destroyed your credibility by playing stupid games. **Trust takes time to build and is easy to lose.**"

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 14:02:17
/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fiaymfr/

> defend them > "nChain is definitively not a terrorist organization." ... > and hold out their Chief Scientist as some kind of technical authority > You also treat their Chief Scientist as a technical authority on [your blog](https://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/26/mankind-needs-fractional-satoshis.html). Do you still think of him that way?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 13:50:05
/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fiaslxe/

Way to weasel out of it. You were willing to take on an undeniably bad actor, defend them, and hold out their Chief Scientist as some kind of technical authority. You are a bad actor.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 12:53:01
/r/btc/comments/f7dwjy/users_and_businesses_running_the_bitcoin_cash/fiaplxm/

The increased risk of a fork is exactly why it wouldn't happen.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 12:25:25
/r/btc/comments/f7dwjy/users_and_businesses_running_the_bitcoin_cash/fiap9p2/

> even Jiang said he wouldn't risk a split. [Good](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f6ga4m/chain_split_looks_likely_the_battle_is_now_for/fi4jq3r/) point, /u/Remora_101. Thanks for adding to my thesis.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 12:22:07
/r/btc/comments/f7dwjy/users_and_businesses_running_the_bitcoin_cash/fiaodr3/

> A maintained super majority will not cause a chain split. Although activating the IFP and then losing a majority will. This is false, and you can read /u/markblundeberg's comment if you don't believe me. A malicious miner only needs to wait until the DAA oscillates very low, then pump out a few non-tax blocks quickly (this could even happen naturally). BCN nodes will finalize those blocks and never follow the IFP chain again. ABC nodes will reject those blocks and keep working on their own chain. > Miner-only-enforced soft-fork, what is that supposed to mean? Ask Mark, as he said it in his [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffapqej/): > If this were only enforced by miners (miner soft fork) rather than as a network-wide rule, it would be highly dangerous. > Miner soft forks are simply not a good idea on BCH for a variety of reasons, including the fact that ABC nodes don't follow the longest chain.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 12:13:20
/r/btc/comments/f790af/bitcoin_cash_node_is_uasf_change_my_mind/fiankqb/

> Miners opposing the IFP would be unwise to run stock BCHN I agree that BCN ought to explicitly reject taxed blocks, but I think, in its current incarnation, the *risk* it would pose would be too much for ABC miners to go through with the plan.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 12:05:27
/r/btc/comments/f7dwjy/users_and_businesses_running_the_bitcoin_cash/fianajv/

> talking rubbish What, in particular, do you disagree with?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 12:02:39
/r/btc/comments/f790af/bitcoin_cash_node_is_uasf_change_my_mind/fian1ix/

> the reorg protection will favour neither IFP blocks nor non-IFP blocks. It's asymmetric. If an ABC node thinks IFP is "locked in" and sees a non-tax block, it'll never follow that chain. On the other hand, if a BCN node gets 10 "non-tax" blocks in a row, they'll be locked in, and it'll never follow the ABC chain, even if it overtakes it in strength.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 12:00:12
/r/btc/comments/f7dwjy/users_and_businesses_running_the_bitcoin_cash/fiamzbh/

Then maybe nChain is a great company!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 11:59:37
/r/btc/comments/f790af/bitcoin_cash_node_is_uasf_change_my_mind/fiamcad/

> Unless reorg protection interferes This is not at all an unrealistic scenario. I talk about it more [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f7dwjy/users_and_businesses_running_the_bitcoin_cash/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 11:53:24
/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fiakl08/

> Are you proposing to step in, and funding the project yourself? Me criticizing you taking money from bad actors implies *I* should donate personally instead? You know that doesn't follow. > Your imagination is running wild. This is the only time when I when on a boat with Calvin. It was a joke about your willingness to involve yourself with unsavory individuals and "drink from their cup", so to speak. > nChain is definitively not a terrorist organization. Your imagination is running wild again. Your sense of humor is poor. They are undoubtedly a company based on lies and patent trolling led by incompetents. You're free to do as much business with them as you like, though. **Refusing to acknowledge that nChain is a bad actor in the space is just about all the proof we need of your judgment.** Do you acknowledge it or no? > Well, yes! Actually, I just did in the original post above. I must have missed it. In your article, you talk about "Who am I to do this assessment and why?" and air a few "disclaimers", but fail to disclose that you have a friendship(?) with Amaury? That certainly seems like a relevant fact to disclose, if it's true.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 11:36:11
/r/btc/comments/f790af/bitcoin_cash_node_is_uasf_change_my_mind/fiaiuu6/

> BCHN will follow miners longest chain even if they incorporate IFP Probably, but not *necessarily*.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 11:19:06
/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fiafrk6/

> Roger Ver was with us too Yeah, that doesn't make it any better. Roger seems to have done a 180 on his opinions in that regard. Have you? > and frankly it was an awesome super yacht Glad you had fun with such great people! > nChain who was my client at the time Stellar client! You also treat their Chief Scientist as a technical authority on [your blog](https://blog.vermorel.com/journal/2017/12/26/mankind-needs-fractional-satoshis.html). Do you still think of him that way? > What made you think that you could had negotiated better terms than I did to get funding for the BCH infrastructure? Do they not have the saying "don't negotiate with terrorists" in France?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 10:48:41
/r/bsv/comments/f70chp/csw_looking_all_haggard/fiabkft/

Don't music-shame me!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 21, 2020 10:06:13
/r/btc/comments/f7bqy3/make_no_mistake_choosing_to_run_bchn_in_the_event/fiab6td/

> IN THE EVENT THAT MINERS CHOOSE ABC, YOUR BCHN NODE WILL NOT FOLLOW THE LONGEST CHAIN, IT WILL NOT BE CAPABLE OF DOING SO. This isn't true. Or, at least it's mostly not true. The situation is a bit more complicated due to the automated rolling checkpoints that both ABC and BCHN implement, but if ABC-miners have majority hashrate, BCHN will (very likely) follow that chain and not split.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 10:02:15
/r/btc/comments/f78uhg/abc_is_bitcoins_biggest_asset_a_ceos_perspective/fiaa151/

Just going to [leave this here](https://i.imgur.com/fb8pYXt.png) in case anyone is concerned about bias or Vermorel's ability to judge character.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 09:50:00
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fia8wb2/

> unless you have a very high level of coordination between exchange/business/node operators Which is why I specifically said **"user and business ENGAGEMENT, full node usage, etc."** is important to the security of the coin. > And that’s precisely my point. > Soft fork are a immensely easier to implemented and push that to reject. This is more nuanced than you're making it out to be. In the case of a coin where most users use an SPV-like client, hard or soft forks are almost equally easy to implement and push. In the case of a coin where most users run full nodes, a soft fork is indeed *easier* to push, since rejecting it requires active measures. However, I never denied that, and if you're pretending I did, that's pretty low. **My** point is that highly engaged users and businesses running full nodes is the **best** way to prevent unwanted changes by miners, and it can be very effective. You seem to think that miners can always soft-fork any changes they want if they have 50% of hashrate, which is not true. It's somewhat ironic that we're having this discussion when we're literally seeing, in real time, new full node software being pushed to help thwart an unpopular-with-users-and-businesses soft fork! It doesn't go far enough, in my opinion, but it's funny nonetheless that you seem to underplay the value of full nodes.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 09:37:49
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fia446y/

Finally some humor from you! Nice!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 08:41:15
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fi9xnnn/

Periods, not commas, end sentences.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 07:05:21
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi9xl3y/

I have lots of opinions. I don’t see how you’re drawing that conclusion simply because the block size debate bores me.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 07:04:03
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi9xgk9/

All talk. How much are you willing to bet that I’m Greg?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 21, 2020 07:01:44
/r/bsv/comments/f70chp/csw_looking_all_haggard/fi8wkrn/

> he doesn't remember them at all It **would** be a true surprise considering he's been dead for 15 years ;)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 20, 2020 20:53:36
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi8o6b0/

Where's the lie? I was relatively neutral toward Core at that time, despite having supported them before and now. Try again.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 19:23:02
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi8lhu0/

> even if you're not Greg, do you know why everyone thinks you are? Because this sub's full of credulous rubes. > because you argue just like him: lie, dissemble, You haven't shown a single lie. > insult ... > "dwerp" LOL! > and all around make shit up LOL, now you're lying. > all the while thinking you're "winning" I couldn't care less about "winning". I'm in it almost entirely for the lulz. > it's hilarious and I get a kick outta you just like everyone else watching our conversation. Nice! > they immediately roll their eyes and say your an asshole **You're** > he's got the worst reputation in the space and they think of you the same way. Behold my field of fucks that I give. Tis barren. > the biggest proof is that you just admitted you don't even own any BCH yet here you are hanging out trolling I enjoy doing community service from time to time. > thanks for giving me my laugh of the day, dwerp Right back at you, bud!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 18:55:17
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi8ezcg/

Wrong again. Lol.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 17:50:19
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fi8exci/

I don’t even realize I’m Greg!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 17:49:48
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fi8amzq/

Sneeze on a salad bar?! I’m not a monster. I’ll just go back to drowning kittens. (**That was a joke**)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 17:09:34
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fi898v6/

Excellent demonstration.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 16:56:58
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fi88jmx/

The number of upvotes on this post suggests otherwise. And I’m hilarious. My four-year-old laughs at every one of my jokes.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 16:50:49
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi87tkv/

So no lies? You’re just an asshole hurling accusations? Got it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 16:44:19
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fi873j5/

Thank you for providing the **perfect** example of what I'm talking about.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 16:38:00
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi86z38/

That doesn't even make sense. I knew you wouldn't be able to give one, though.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 16:36:55
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fi86s2i/

So funny that nobody is ever willing to put up any decent money on that assertion, though.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 16:35:11
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi825t5/

> and you know better how? By reading and observing. > haha, die waiting I **guarantee** you that BSV will fail before any Satoshi blocks are signed by anyone related to BSV. :) > look at our many times you've been wrong on this thread alone. Zero. > yes, it's a great sign of miners pushing blocksize ever higher. Tons of orphaned blocks, *great success*! > while btc has a record of an ~21 block reorg back with 0.8 leveldb. you got blinders on, lol. Remind me, when did that happen? Surely it was recent if you're trying to compare it. > anyways gotta go. Cool, run away in embarrassment. Later!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 15:54:01
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fi7z0yc/

FYI, this sub does not handle humor well. I speak from experience. Edit: But the inevitable downvotes are **hilarious**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 15:28:32
/r/btc/comments/f6y3bs/hodlonaut_we_will_never_see_bitcoin_core_below/fi7yuhi/

Nice one, Egon! Make 'em show their papers! As a matter of fact, it's been, what, twelve hours now? You should probably re-cryptochecker me, too.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 15:27:15
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7wdam/

> I did and Calvin has between 40-45% share No, you just looked at a single recent article. > sounds more like bitterness that bsv hasn't been attacked yet like you predicted Why would I want them attacked? It will be far funnier when they collapse under the weight of their own incompetence. > when do you tire of being wrong? I have to be wrong at least once before I tire of it, right? > every chain ha short 2 block forks from time to time. nothing out of the ordinary and no users lose money. they're called reorgs. must I teach you everything? Oh god my sides! What, may I ask, do you think an orphan block is? How about six block re-orgs? Good sign of competence? > no, you need to stop lying to people hoping not to get called out. Wait, you think I actually **meant** that people got their funds stolen, but just happened to use a sentence structure that is more naturally read as them not having their money stolen? Wow, you are not very bright. > you just keep making shit up Like how I "made up" the fact that BSV morons are orphaning their own blocks? They [also](https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/1118899374027878400) had a SIX-BLOCK re-org recently, proving their competence and readiness for "big blocks".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 15:09:26
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7suni/

> if you're so smart I told you, I don't care about looking smart. However, you're free to read all about Squire Mining (what "TAAL" was called previously) and its connection to Ayre. > yes it will continue until btc gets flipped Yeah, that's the entertainment I'm talking about! > no. show me proof. [Okay](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yimel/it_appears_the_bsv_chain_is_currently_being/ea1on4h/), if you insist. > you need to learn how to write You need to learn how to parse a sentence. Also, you need to learn how to capitalize and use periods, apparently. Finally, why is it that I have far better knowledge of BSV than you do? You don't know about their hardfork changes or their shooting themselves in the foot with SaTOshI's SHoTGun.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 14:38:59
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7nydh/

> No he doesn't. he owns a minority share interest in it and it by no means implies he has control of the pool itself. Oh how naive you are. > you really sound bitter Bitter? LOL, I'm highly entertained by the shitshow. I hope it continues on for a while before it implodes. > please, more adhoms. it really makes you look smart. I couldn't care less about looking smart. As an aside, "adhom" is not a word and you look like an idiot saying it. > I remember you spewing that fud So did they **not** orphan their own blocks? > you said bsv had some coins stolen. No, I didn't. This is what I said: "Perhaps they'll abort some of the next hard fork changes **if they realize that it'll end up with people getting money stolen** like they did just recently." I'll reword it just for your benefit: > Perhaps, like they did recently, they'll abort some of the next hard fork changes if they realize that it'll end up with people getting money stolen.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 13:55:23
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7l9n5/

> what's that prove? that he owns a 35% pool? LOL. He controls TAAL, too. > aww, nice excuse. "there's only $5,175,119,633 at stake here!" As I said, it'll collapse. Why bother attacking it? > he is? no he's not. LOL. Yes, he's king of the idiots in BSV. > btw, weren't you one of the shleps who predicted large attack/spam blocks as a result of removing the limit? I don't recall predicting that, but yes, BSV shot itself in its own foot with the "Satoshi Shotgun" and orphaned some of its own blocks. LOL. > maybe that's why you're stuck at a measly 32MB with all sorts of infighting. I don't own any Bitcoin Cash any longer, and I never held that much (in a relative sense). > link? Here you go! https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/12/23/bitcoin-sv-blocking-potential-p2sh-replay-attack-after-genesis-hard-fork/

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 13:31:38
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7gbm8/

> proof? [Here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/eyqzuu/calvin_ayre_accounts_for_71_of_bsvs_hash_rate/). > the flipside is that Bitmain or any other major BTC pool could come to BSV to destroy it too. why haven't they? Because it's a shitcoin not worth destroying because it's bound to fail under the weight of idiotic leadership and decision-making? > maybe you should explain how he's relevant. You said "vision" is relevant, and he's the primary "visionary". > you were forewarned about this early last year I am well aware. I was being sarcastic. Perhaps they'll abort some of the next hard fork changes if they realize that it'll end up with people getting money stolen like they did just recently.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 12:47:23
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7fm7q/

Point out a single lie.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 12:40:54
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7fccg/

> he doesn't own 51%: He's not **currently** mining 51% of BSV because he's mining Bitcoin with a decent amount of his hashpower. When "Genesis" activated, he 75%'d his network for a day or two. > b/c that's their vision/goal If "vision" is so relevant, why do you keep denying that their primary "visionary" is relevant? > not for long. More hardforks on the way? So much for the protocol being "set in stone". Oh, wait, Satoshi never said that the protocol was set in stone. He said the "core design" was. Just another misreading of Satoshi that BSV is famous for.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 12:38:23
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7es31/

> Shut up Greg. You could show the way to heaven itself and people would still reject it because they reject you. LOL, I don't care if the swine reject my pearls. > If you have regret for what you have done you are going to have to come clean as Greg Maxwell and show some serious repentance. Haha, to 'repent' for doing nothing wrong, I need to lie? Y'all are a crazy bunch.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 12:33:10
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7efb6/

> and not one that is susceptible to attacks and coin stealing: Calvin can 51% his network any time he wants. > i'm only interested in coins that have the hutzpah to take down BTC and establish worldwide dominance/network effect So why are you interested in BSV? > like implementing replay protection BSV has replay protection against BTC. > using the DAA. BSV uses the DAA.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 12:29:51
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7dgd8/

> I can't believe you actully answered again.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 12:20:46
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7ctie/

> Because we understand how it works. So you agree that you don't like Nakamoto Consensus? > Sure, but it raises the cost of the attack. Not really. In fact, the risk of a chainspit was basically nonexistent before this, since that's what Nakamoto Consensus is designed to prevent. It also raises the risk of a *natural* chainsplit even in the absence of malevolence. > All you are doing is trying to insult us with digs such as "if you don't believe in Nakamoto Consensus" I mean, you don't if you support the automated checkpoints.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 12:14:49
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi7c9cx/

> So what do you think? I don't have a strong opinion, and I'm not even particularly interested in it. > enough people I think this varies from person to person depending on lots of mostly subjective stuff, like how you weigh the value of decentralization, security, onerousness of fees, etc. > the only reason SegWit2x was stopped was because of the censorship and propaganda on r/bitcoin, bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.org. That may be true, but it also may be true that there wasn't enough consensus, the code was terrible, etc.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 12:09:37
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi7aq8c/

I did. Bitcoin Gold has a lower median transaction fee.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 11:55:10
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi79w20/

They don't have enough of a daddy-leader for you?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 11:47:14
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi78qpj/

Bitcoin gold has lower median tx fees than BSV. Why don't you switch to that?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 11:36:23
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi72nz1/

> Why would it? Otherwise it leaves BCH very vulnerable to attacks. Why not switch to proof of stake, then, if you don't believe in Nakamoto Consensus? > A 5% BTC miners could wreak havoc on the BCH chain with as little as 25% of its hash power. This doesn't prevent that. A malicious BTC miner could split the chain without significant difficulty with the rolling checkpoints. > Why are you making us waste our time, Greg? Ask Mark Lundeberg, then, if you are whining about the messenger.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 10:36:52
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi6yc0o/

> The "Bitcoin Cash Node" implementation just follows the longest chain. As it currently stands, it does not necessarily follow the strongest chain. It still has the automated rolling checkpoints.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 09:51:52
/r/btc/comments/f6rkts/what_if_the_majority_hash_wants_the_abc/fi6y8fr/

> Just curious if people here actually support Nakamoto Consensus ABC doesn't use Nakamoto Consensus, though. It uses a hybrid system that favors fast finalization over the ability to re-org. (The automated rolling checkpoints.) I'm curious whether the new Bitcoin Cash Node software will revert that change.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 09:50:47
/r/btc/comments/f6lvst/announcing_bitcoin_cash_node/fi6w07d/

> The primary goal of this initiative is to provide a safe and professional node implementation that will neutrally **follow the longest chain** without contributing to the risk of a chain split. Does this mean it's dropping the automated rolling checkpoints?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 09:26:30
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi6rahr/

What “small” is or “average users” are is pretty variable. I certainly don’t think they absolutely must be 1 MB or smaller. In general, though, it’s true that the less resource intensive running full nodes is, the better for the security of the coin.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 08:28:37
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi6qoms/

I never said they had to be.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 20, 2020 08:20:34
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi5blvz/

Can’t say I’m surprised.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 19:42:47
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4xpm4/

> Last I recall only the Bitcoin Core/Blockstream developers were champagning for this, no businesses or users. Yet Bitcoin has many more businesses, users, and hash than any other crypto. > You're so lost there's no point discussion Bitcoin or economics with you. Run away!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 17:16:05
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4vd41/

What do you think happens in the event of miners making a soft fork that users don’t want, as in the example in my original comment? Two different chains, dude.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 16:53:18
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4ubrq/

That’s not really true, either, or else you’d be following BTC.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 16:43:26
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4u8v0/

> How can they gauge user acceptance without a vote? That’s their problem, but they are certainly financially motivated to try to get as accurate a picture as possible. > you're just confused how the Bitcoin ecosystem functions You’ve very clearly illustrated that it’s the exact opposite. Remind me again what you’re referring to when you say “Bitcoin”, though.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 16:42:39
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4sllk/

> but non-mining node isn't the way to achieve it. You need to blacklist every coin that has been mixed with the coinbase of taxed blocks. This is false. Just reject any block that pays a coinbase output to one of the tax addresses. > For example, exchanges refusing deposits would quickly kill the tax chain. Yes. > Spinning up 20k non-mining node has no impact. I never said that the raw node count has any impact. I'm talking about economically relevant users and businesses running these full nodes.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 16:26:51
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4rtom/

> We've never had such an example so we don't know. LOL, you **don't know** whether it would make them more or less likely to go through with the change?! Wow. Talk about confused. Maybe you need an easier question: If a miner said they were going to implement a soft fork like a tax, and *literally every user and business* started running clients that would explicitly reject that change, would it make it **more** or **less** likely that the miner would go ahead with the change?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 16:19:38
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4ralq/

> You have no evidence to support that either supporting or non supporting miners would be disincentivized. What information or singaling are you basing it on? Basic logic. Very simple question: if a miner said they were going to implement a soft fork like a tax, and a huge proportion of users started running clients that would explicitly reject that change, would it make it **more** or **less** likely that the miner would go ahead with the change? > You're confused how Bitcoin And what do you mean by "Bitcoin"? The chain with automated rolling checkpoints that completely goes against Nakamoto consensus? :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 16:14:44
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4qild/

> This would (at the very least) act as a **powerful disincentive** for the tax-supporting-miners, as they'd be mining a chain with no users (and therefore no value). ... > You're just confused. The projection is palpable.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 16:07:23
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4qe9x/

> Or to be specific about it: If China wants to do it, it would be trivial for them. I wouldn't necessarily say "trivial", but it probably would not be terribly difficult for them. However, it would probably be *riskier* for them while the price is high and even easier if the hashrate dropped. > Seems very unlikely to me, I can't think of any motivation why anyone (with the means to do it) would want to do that. I was referring to governments, again. However, in the interest of proving my consicilatory nature, I'll agree that it's unlikely. I still think that, as a general matter, the higher the hashrate, the better the security. > All that is needed to fuck that up is one guy forking it and getting enough attention for the fork to have a price, at which point hashrate will follow the price again. Through that the community decides and not the miningpools. And there has certainly been enough attention on the topic. Finally some agreement. Maybe you can [chime in](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/). (I still think it's more likely to happen with low-relative-hashpower coins and is bad for the coin overall.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 16:06:15
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4p6db/

Read my comment again. Particularly this part: > This would (at the very least) act as a **powerful disincentive** for the tax-supporting-miners, as they'd be mining a chain with no users (and therefore no value).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:54:45
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4p1m0/

> How is miner's activating SegWit irrelevant? It's 100% relevant. It's not relevant to my original comment at all. > Miners have always activated features and there was never a case where miners activated a feature then rolled it back due to full nodes rejecting blocks. You really don't understand my comment. This is really sad. > Man you're really confused how Bitcoin works. You don't even know what Bitcoin **is**. LOL.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:53:31
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4ovr5/

> There's plenty of grey in there that have no opinion and will follow either longest chain. Sure, but I'm **explicitly saying that a big majority of economic power runs full nodes that reject the soft fork**. > At this point you are locked out of interacting with this merchant until you provide them a transaction that is valid on both chains or you need to convert your coins to be usable on the tax chain. More like that merchant is locked out of interacting with you. > What power does your non-mining node have in this situation? Read my post again. > Anyone following the longest chain will flag your chain as an attack and drop it. And if they're on the chain with very few users and businesses, they'll switch.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:52:01
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4oics/

> Only miners can activate features. Non-mining full nodes don't produce blocks with said features. Please work on your reading comprehension: > I didn't say they had. Do you deny that they can in theory **with the support of only a small amount of hashpower?** .. > SegWit was activated by miners and was voted on by miners during the activation period. Irrelevant. > You must be confused how Bitcoin works. Here's an easy one. If miners "activate" the mining tax on BCH, but all users run full nodes that explicitly reject blocks that pay the tax, is it really "activated"? If a tiny minority hashrate makes blocks that don't pay the tax, did they "activate" anything , or was it the users who ran the full nodes? Does it make a difference? If you're interested in playing word games on what exactly constitutes "activation", be my guest. However, if you're denying that full nodes have a significant amount of power in the Bitcoin system, you're wrong.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:48:33
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4nxa6/

> I do not think 51% attacks can make enough money to be worth it I mean an attack meant to harm Bitcoin from some malevolent party, and erode confidence in it. (Though, in that case, it would be more like a 40% attack due to selfish mining.) > And first you have to get that hashpower, you can't just rent it, like with some other coins. It's a stretch, but I don't think this is out of reach of some governments. Also, in general, the lower the hashrate, the easier it is for colluding pools to try to introduce changes like, say, a tax on mining.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:43:03
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4nhev/

> The miners supported SegWit because they believed the 2MB would come with it. So there was more support than not. I'm not talking about miners. > Full nodes have never activated anything. I didn't say they had. Do you deny that they can **in theory** with the support of only a small amount of hashpower? > As you can see SegWit support via full nodes was at 30% This implies nothing about the proportion of economic power **against** SegWit. Seriously, I think you are not getting my point.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:38:52
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4mog5/

I disagree. If 50% of the hashpower migrated to another coin, it could have significant impacts on the security of Bitcoin. For one, it would make any 51% attack much less costly.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:31:11
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4ltjt/

> There were no votes anti Bitcoin Unlimited or anti SegWit. Instead SegWit was at 30% and Bitcoin Unlimited breached 51%. You're still not getting my point. If a large majority of users (I really should say "economic power" or something like that) opposed SegWit, they could have prevented it. They did not. > Then the major communication channels were censored to block any discussion of Bitcoin Unlimited. So is this just more complaining? Do you agree, at least, that full nodes are useful to prevent unwanted changes **if there are sufficiently open communication channels**?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:23:01
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4l180/

> Some do, some don't. For most it is not the most important characteristic. It has effects on security, which almost all users care about. > of course there is overlap between the groups, but just buying some bitcoin does not make a person a user/ that is not what I mean when I say that word. That's fine.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:15:16
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4ks29/

Have an excellent sense of humor, firstly.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:12:47
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4kjus/

> Yes, price is the one and only thing speculators care about (they only care about other things insofar as they impact price), other groups care about other things, **price being maybe one of them, for most**. So you agree that non-speculator-users care about the price (and by association the hashrate, which has effects on decentralization and security)? I don't see your point, then. > It is a question of definitions, but probably not. OK. > Also, for me, the definition of user does not include speculators. OK.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:10:35
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4ka53/

> You need every node to reject mined blocks to prevent the soft fork if you don't mine. Huh? This isn't true at all. Imagine if 90% of hashpower mines the "tax" softfork, but 90% of users (full nodes) **explicitly reject that chain as invalid**. This means that **all 90% of users** will follow the non-tax chain that has 10% hashpower, and there's nothing the 90% mining hashpower can do to force them follow their tax-chain.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:08:00
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4jnbq/

> Same, but the conversation was going nowhere and has run its course. I'm sure there are other things I can illuminate for you :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:01:54
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4jk68/

> Only 30% of users supported SegWit with full nodes. Not majority and not consensus. Still not answering my question. Did the other 70% **oppose** SegWit? > You're confused about the events for sure. You're **still** confused about my point. This is getting sad.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 15:01:05
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4jat1/

> A bit of a contradiction with your previous replies, don't you think? Only if you think **only** speculators are interested in having 95% hashrate and a high price, which I think is a strange notion. > Of the bitcoin-forks, yes. Is there a crypto with more users than Bitcoin? > I do not follow. I think you are wrong, why you are wrong is insubstantial. You may think I'm wrong now, but, in the fullness of time, you will realize you are wrong, and seeing the light of my words will hit you harder if you know they aren't weighted down with the baggage of me being the former CTO of Blockstream. > By the way, do you want to confirm who you are or keep talking about hypotheticals? I've "confirmed" it in the past multiple times, but I don't see how it would have any effect now. If I'm dastardly enough to keep a sockpuppet for 9 years, what's to stop my from lying to some random person on the internet?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:58:35
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4i3en/

> Did full nodes activate SegWit or miners? That's not the right question. Did users oppose SegWit? > It was the miners that voted on Segwit during the SegWit activation period by voting with blocks. You're confused. You're confused about the point I made in my original comment. Try reading it again, more slowly this time.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:47:09
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4hvcb/

> Again, I get the distinct impression that you are not arguing honestly. I get the distinct impression that you're a hypocrite :) > We could continue this for days if I (and you) wanted to. Arguing on the internet is a favorite pastime of mine, so go right ahead.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:45:03
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4hh2d/

So ... full nodes?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:41:18
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4heui/

> you said "users" ... And I don't know what other users are -- speculators, traders, mom and pop, etc. The fact is that most users (by basically any definition, I'd imagine) are using Bitcoin, not BCH or BSV. > And why would that be? Bias, for one, which, again, goes along with my point about Roger controlling this sub.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:40:43
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4h6mo/

> Like I said, once they activated SegWit disabling those transactions types would have caused lost funds for users and lost faith in Bitcoin for reversing a major decision. I'm not talking about disabling them. I'm talking about including them **and a 2MB hardfork**. > Users and miners were under the expectation that after SegWit was activated Bitcoin Core would also add the 2MB portion. So? They could have still forked with another full node client, but didn't. > Both worked for Blockstream. Ah, I guess I was right. Your point is just to rail on Blockstream, and you didn't actually want to discuss the topic of the power (or "impotence") of running a full node.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:38:31
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4gx8z/

> I do not care tbh. LOL, ok, fine. > So when you say users, you meant speculators? I can only speak for myself. > It makes no difference to me who you are. Well, to be fair, if you're talking to the former CTO of Blockstream, that might change things, no?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:36:00
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4goyw/

> You can conclusively say that you know everything that is under your bed I qualified it that you glanced under it, if you recall, which is obviously better than not glancing under it (and is absolutely 'evidence'), but not as good as thoroughly searching under it. > Well, it is irrelevant compared to banning everyone who disagreed with 1MB blocks and stopping all discussion of it, or do you disagree? I have no idea what the relative impact of various actions is in regards to mod actions. I don't know what kind of traffic Bitcoin.com gets from the sidebar links, and I don't know how important a specific subreddit's moderation rules are to Bitcoin's fate. Do the open mod logs include traffic from the sidebar links?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:33:48
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4gc93/

> Activation period on SegWit forced miners to orphaned blocks not signalling as well as SegWit transactions would have been converted to anyone can spend and user funds would have been at risk and shake user confidence. I mean why didn't they add the extra 2 MB hardfork if there was such strong user support for it? > It was Bitcoin Core that overruled both the user and miner group by not keeping their end of the deal. Users and miners could have run whatever full node they'd like. I still have no idea how this relates to my original comment. Again, if anything, your comments illustrate the power that running full nodes gives users. Do you just feel like railing against Blockstream or something?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:30:26
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4fxe2/

> It makes it (more) likely, but it is not proof and neither does it imply it. Agreed. So we agree that the OP's assertion that Blockstream controlled /r/bitcoin is **far** from proven to be true. We may disagree on our personal likelihoods of its truth. I still maintain that it's unfair to call the accused a "troll" *regardless*, which was my point from the beginning. > sure. (hows that been working out for them ...) I guess okay, considering that BTC has like 95% of SHA256 hashpower and commensurate price and is not embroiled in mining tax issues or petty squabbles with known charlatans. > Another thing I am agnostic about. LOL. Well, this one's **definitely** possible to get to the truth of the matter if you make the effort to look. I don't care whether you do or don't, though.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:26:29
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4f9bo/

> Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You're still confused. While your statement is true in general, it no longer applies **when you look**. Then it becomes **evidence of absence**. See my comment about looking for your keys under your bed. > It is just that I think your point is irrelevant, the sidebar is a very minor thing. Now you're going to quibble with how minor you think things are? Pretty lame. I personally think the sidebar is pretty important. > And in rbtc, there are loads of things there, some of which from bitcoin.com, you make it sound like it is just one link to bitcoin.com. Come on... The [top item in almost every category](https://i.imgur.com/EpEW94c.png) is a link to bitcoin.com. And these are only ones I'm certain are linked to Roger. There may be others.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:20:04
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4ejs5/

> Users and miners were in support of SegWit2x, Segwit was activated and the 2MB part was dropped. Then why didn't users and miners put it back if there was such strong support? Why does BCH have < 5% hashpower? Are you suggesting that Bitcoin Core is all-powerful? > Why did Bitcoin Core block the 2MB portion when Bitcoin blocks are regularly near 2MB? I guess because Bitcoin Core is not all-powerful? I'm still not sure what your point is in relation to my original comment. What is your opinion on the value of users running full nodes?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:13:12
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4e5o7/

> What I do think is inarguable is that the mod-team behaved in a way that lines up with the opinions and interests of BS. This may even be completely true, but it certainly doesn't imply that Blockstream controlled them. Lots of users and communities shared opinions that Blockstream espoused, as far as I recall, and likely still do. Go argue [with Greg](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi2tak0/) about it. Unless you think you already are :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:09:27
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi4dmjo/

I'm still not sure what your point is. If almost all *users* opposed SegWit, then I sincerely doubt it would be in the chain now. If anything, you seem to be making the point that Bitcoin Core is not all-powerful. Did you even read my comment? Maybe you can clarify further.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 14:04:18
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4d4xn/

> That is not how any of this works. My entire point of arguing in this thread was to dispute that the accused was "trolling". > So we agree that we do not know, good. Let's make a distinction between "knowing" with absolute certainty, and being reasonably confident. I am reasonably confident that the accused was telling the truth. > Your insistence that the obvious conclusion from that is "this one person is right" is just silly. Now who's arguing in bad faith? > no, of course you don't Hmmm... more bad faith. > There is no hard evidence, which is no proof against it, not really an indication either way. Again, no good evidence despite years of searching by interested parties **is evidence**. > So just one thing, which is the content of the sidebar, which are likely the least impactful thing they could do? LOL, how many things do you want? You asked me to give you an example, and I did! It happens to illustrate both of my points, too (mods could have done more to promote Blockstream, and /r/btc having open mod logs doesn't prevent all behavior that could be classified as unsavory). > Again, I just do not believe you are being honest about the first part. That's your problem.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 13:59:32
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4cltx/

> At least try to pretend to argue in good faith. I am. I rarely visited /r/bitcoin, and I take any claim made by /r/btc denizens with extra skepticism given my previous experience with their credulity and conspiracy-theory-mindedness. Make an actual case and I'll listen. > I do not believe that you actually believe that yourself. Believe what? That I could possibly prove (to a sufficient degree of certainty) that Blockstream didn't control the mods of /r/bitcoin, or that I don't have a particular interest in doing so? You'll have to simply believe me for the latter. For the former, I could certainly **try** to, including initiating lawsuits accusing them of collusion and opening them up to discovery, etc. Success wouldn't be guaranteed, of course, but just declaring it impossible is incorrect.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 13:54:26
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4b1te/

> so you can prove it one way or the other? Then stop arguing hypothetical scenarios and semantics and do so. I don't know if I can or not. I have not put the effort in, and don't have a particular interest in doing so. I'm disputing that it's **impossible**. > Them silencing most opinions that contradict the opinion of many of BS-people, EG blocksize, non-BTC forks, other projects which are not developed by BS or have their stamp of approval (liquid is ok, also ltc). This is not data. > in a hypothetical parallel universe, if BS had actually controlled the mod-team, which actions of the mod-team would have been different to serve the interests of BS better? I answered [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4aujv/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 13:39:34
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi4aujv/

> Ok, so for the record, you do you think it was " stating relevant and true facts in context" or not? I don't know for certain. I'd say the probability is with him. More importantly, the original claimant has the burden of proof and did not meet it. Therefore, a person stating the opposite shouldn't be labeled a "troll" if the claimant isn't. > There is no evidence means we do not know, not that we just assume what we would like to be true. First, I don't have anything I'd "like" to be true. Second, as I stated before, if people have searched up and down and found nothing compelling, that **is** some evidence that there's nothing to find, just as glancing under your bed and not seeing your keys there is **some evidence** that they're not there (though they could be there and you just overlooked them). > I do not see the issue as long as they are transparent, accountable and have never abused this, all happen to be true. Many people have complained about unfair moderation here despite the open logs. > in a hypothetical parallel universe, if BS had actually controlled the mod-team, which actions of the mod-team would have been different to serve the interests of BS better? I have no idea. I don't follow the sub closely, nor do I follow Blockstream or its employees. Just off the top of my head, though, maybe putting links to Blockstream-controlled companies all along the sidebar, like /r/btc does for Roger's companies?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 13:37:37
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi487yg/

> Sure, if the users are aware of the change being slipped through So it's not **impotent**, then, except in unlikely cases (nobody being aware of the change despite collusion among almost every miner)? Well, I should qualify that unlikeliness a bit. I don't know how many people knew of the automated rolling checkpoints in ABC before miners were running that code.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 13:12:22
/r/btc/comments/f6dvoh/repost_your_full_node_is_impotent/fi478lh/

> The only way to prevent a change in the consensus rules is to mine an opposing chain. If a change is soft-forked into the system, then nonminer nodes are impotent to the change. To prevent the change, you must mine. This is false (assuming there's at least a tiny amount of hashpower devoted to opposing the soft-fork). If every BCH user (and business) ran a modified full node that soft-forked out any blocks that paid to the miner tax addresses, nobody would follow the tax soft-fork chain. This would (at the very least) act as a powerful **disincentive** for the tax-supporting-miners, as they'd be mining a chain with no users (and therefore no value). On the other hand, if everyone ran SPV nodes, this is much harder (if not impossible) to do in general. This is yet another demonstration of the value of running full nodes.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 13:02:55
/r/bsv/comments/f6dkab/looks_like_satoshi_vision_got_banned/fi45n5o/

LOL, "redditor for 3 minutes". Points off for not writing it "BitCoin_Vision".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 19, 2020 12:47:39
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi3n2fx/

Oof, what an incredibly insecure comment. > Yet, you spent probably hours discussing with me. Lol. I was waiting to be convinced and you failed. > So what? Empty words w/o substance. And if I reply you just come up repeating the same "weak claim". Zero support for your claim but always begging for others to deliver. Pathetic. You apparently do not understand what the "burden of proof" is. Maybe look it up? > Little snowflake, huh? Oh boy. Ironic statement of the decade. > I didn't accuse you, I simply said why I assume this could be the case. Big difference. Haha, bullshit. " I am not the one with an agenda..." > And this is the best evidence that you lost our argument. Plug your ears, declare victory, and walk away. > Next time, stfu if you're too weak to lose. Jesus Christ, my sides!! Please keep this up; it's entertaining as hell!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 09:40:23
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi3eax7/

> The circumstantial evidence of the up/downvotes seem to favor me :) Lol! Yes, this is about the quality of the evidence you’re giving. > Anyway, you cannot even come up with the most basic circumstantial evidence to refute my claims. Weak evidence doesn’t need to be ‘refuted’, and I don’t even have a side in this fight to **want** to refute it. My side is this: I haven’t seen close to enough evidence to be convinced it’s true. > And you poor attempts to deflect the discussion (e.g."you say I'm a liar?") are actually not polite either. Ok, you’re the one making accusations of me having an “agenda” and **I’m** the one being impolite? Lol, fuck off.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 07:02:29
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi3d51n/

Circumstantial evidence so weak you’d be laughed out of court. If we’re being objective, why not use courtroom standards?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 06:40:46
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi3cip0/

I think the exact same thing about you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 06:28:27
/r/btc/comments/f5rpg1/ama_request_for_greg_maxwell_what_is_your_current/fi3cgq2/

I assure you I’m quite happy. Thanks for your concern, though.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 19, 2020 06:27:20
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi2e9mb/

I knew you read them. Mwah.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 21:02:21
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi2clhy/

“Bring out the gimp”?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 20:43:51
/r/bsv/comments/f61phx/the_two_best_things_to_happen_to_csw_in_the_last/fi2bcuw/

This comment is aladeen.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 18, 2020 20:30:20
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi29yo7/

LOL, you read it. (Humor me by replying “what?” again, please.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 20:15:06
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi29uwi/

It’s more boring there and more people share my opinions. If I’m a waste of your time, block or ignore me.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 20:13:55
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi29r6p/

Come on. A soft fork to signal a hard fork obviously does not count.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 20:12:44
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi29nqi/

Bilderberg?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 20:11:38
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi29kr2/

There’s circumstantial evidence like fingerprints, and circumstantial evidence like “the person seemed to be acting suspicious”. This type of stuff is much more like the latter than the former.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 20:10:40
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi28t7j/

You see my username?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 20:02:07
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi288vj/

Ah, gotcha, you’ve been bamboozled.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 19:55:45
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi271ca/

> I don't even read what you say I just downvote. Lol, you and tons of others. Your loss.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 19:42:33
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi26y3e/

> but you didn't just give special treatment Me? Wtf?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 19:41:34
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1x989/

> I didn't lie and replied with logic. Are you implying that I’m lying and/or making illogical statements? > Defending and improving the reputation of Blockstream, and the other sub. I don’t particularly care about either of them. Don’t mistake my natural contrarian attitude for support.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 17:57:53
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1tnx1/

> But denying and totally ingoring the many **hints and signs** that make **some sort** of cooperation between r-bitcoin and blockstream seem very **likely** You sure you’re being the objective one? I haven’t even said anything about what I think about /r/bitcoin. I don’t even know what you think my “agenda” is.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 17:22:40
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1tgqm/

> is you choosing to believe that person without evidence as stated by yourself. Nope, it was a hypothetical question. Do you understand what those are? > Now about 1 and 2: there is no evidence either way as you have said yourself It is the null hypothesis in this case, and it’s true until proven otherwise. > And I do not see the relevance of point 3, since they do not censor any position. There’s almost inevitably going to be bias in a situation like this, like what’s considered “abuse” or “trolling”, or which threads to delete because they’re “duplicates”, etc. It’s a rather extraordinary position to take that just because the mod logs are public that it introduces zero bias.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 17:20:46
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1sqe6/

> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence or something. It is when everyone looks for it constantly and can’t find anything, like is the case here. I’ve seen the “evidence” they’ve put forward, and it’s simply terrible. > Since we accept that we likely can't prove it one way or the other, I don’t accept that. > what about the unlucky coincidence that the mod-team of rbitcoin has aligned its policy exactly with what is best for BS and what was supported by the individuals making up BS? You’re going to need to actually make a case here with data.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 17:13:49
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1s04p/

I see your strategy: label everyone you disagree with a “troll”, then you can act like an asshole toward them and feel good about yourself.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 17:06:57
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1ruvw/

Can you answer my question?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 17:05:36
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1kaxq/

> you troll ... > Go design another sockpuppet detector whydontcha LOL. What a little hypocrite you are! :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:56:43
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1jxm1/

> Fapfapfap Gross, dude.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:53:21
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1jfsp/

> Go design another sockpuppet detector whydontcha We've got you, boss. You're **really** good at knowing who's really who. > Arguments: 0 How can you argue against something that's not evidence? If you told me you were Satoshi and gave me the "evidence" of knowing how to spell Bitcoin, how could I argue against that other than to say, "that doesn't prove anything"?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:48:58
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1j3rx/

> Lol, you don't have to search for evidence if it's already known and not denied by anyone. I mean, it seems to be by [pedants looking to pick fights over nothing](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1hd5g/?context=3) like /u/jonas_h. > It's even meaningless, because it could be fake. I meant it should be counter-evidence **to you**. > Circumstantial evidence is worth less than direct evidence but hardly paltry. But this isn't even really circumstantial evidence. > I already knew that your claim above ("I'm willing to be convinced, though") was blah blah. You already have your opinion. Or agenda. Now you've gone full conspiracy theory with me?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:46:00
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1is3r/

> circumstantial evidence Criminals are convicted by circumstantial evidence alone **all the time**. I don't think you understand it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:43:02
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1io7t/

> I am sorry but that makes no sense. It makes fine sense. My question is around what qualifies as "trolling" behavior, and whether making relevant, in-context true statements can be considered trolling. > Do you think bashcos statements were " stating relevant and true facts in context" or not? I don't know for certain, but I do know that the accuser (OP) gave no evidence for their claim of Blockstream controlling /r/bitcoin, and no good evidence has been provided by anyone since. Further, his assertion that this sub's mods are employees of Roger Ver's may or may not be literally true (I haven't verified **all** of them), but it's at least true for three of the most active mods, and the only two with "full permissions".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:42:03
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1hklw/

> Well, you didn't provide proof for all the active ones, which is what you claimed. Will it make a difference if I do? Will it change your mind about anything? > Eh, not really. I've spent too much time on you already, so it's time to stop now. LOL, of course.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:31:40
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1hehq/

It was a hypothetical question assuming that they were true statements.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:30:05
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1h6xe/

> So by saying "it is a lie" you claim that you know it is untrue, in which case... OK, liar. I didn't say "it **is** a lie." I said it "**seems** to be a lie", which is a big qualifier that completely refutes your blather that I "know" it is untrue. However, nobody has given any better-than-terrible evidence that it's true, so the reasonable person ought to assume it's a lie until proven otherwise.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:28:04
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1fg79/

Yes, facts are what I'm waiting for. The claimant (the OP) says that r/bitcoin's mods are affiliated with Blockstream, but gave no evidence for that.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:11:33
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1fciz/

Can you give some examples of other soft fork proposals that were censored?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:10:33
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1f9gr/

> It means to be purposefully misleading Then what was misleading about those two statements? > And that specific claim that OP implied has been denied by some people but not disproven, therefor not a lie, for both those reasons. So if I said you were a child molester and you can't literally disprove that, is it not a lie I'm just making up?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:09:44
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1f514/

Really? This is the hill you want to die on? Whether **literally every** mod is an employee of Roger's rather than the three most active? I even qualified it to "at least all the active ones", because why should we care about the inactive ones?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:08:34
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1ex10/

> How am I suppose to have it? The same way I gave evidence that Roger Ver's employees control this subreddit. BitcoinXio tried to give evidence, but it was [poor](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0rmif/?context=3). > And the one guy I know who works for Blockstream knows nothing, at least he doesn't tell me ;) That's counter-evidence. > Common sense and the history of r-bitcoin makes it look like there is indeed some sort of cooperation. If this is the best you can do to prove the thesis, that's pretty paltry.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:06:28
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1eisn/

Where did I say that? Please stop trolling me.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:02:39
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi1egoy/

Hmm.. didn't answer my question and Godwinned yourself. Nice.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 15:02:06
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0yje1/

Yes, though you haven't even proven that.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 12:34:02
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0wb0z/

Can you explain exactly how I'm "trolling"?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 12:14:44
/r/btc/comments/f5rpg1/ama_request_for_greg_maxwell_what_is_your_current/fi0t29k/

On the contrary, I encourage it. It's great fun.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:43:20
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0spf3/

> Oh, IDK, maybe this is a start: https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/63yr6x/inside_the_dragons_den_bitcoin_cores_troll_army/ How does this show that Blockstream is associated with the mods? > Or this? https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/55xjai/proof_that_theymoss_embezzled_forum_money_has/ So Theymos paying a developer who **later** starts working for Blockstream is evidence that **Blockstream** has influence on Theymos? Excuse me if I'm unconvinced. > Maybe this? https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7eil12/evidence_that_the_mods_of_rbitcoin_may_have_been/ LOL, definitely not that hot garbage.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:39:54
/r/btc/comments/f5rpg1/ama_request_for_greg_maxwell_what_is_your_current/fi0ryzs/

LOL. Every time you've called the messenger, it's given me its stamp of approval, so thanks, I guess.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:32:48
/r/btc/comments/f5rpg1/ama_request_for_greg_maxwell_what_is_your_current/fi0rg3t/

Keep downvoting me, bud. Soon you'll get me in the negative and your constant /u/cryptochecker calls will finally pay off!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:27:41
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0rajo/

I don't "deny" anything, because I don't know anything about their mods. I rarely even visit the sub. I'm happy to hear your evidence, though.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:26:10
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0quii/

> There are several instances of /r/bitcoin mods being clearly "affiliated" with Blockstream over the years. To deny this is a clearly lying and an attempt to cover up the truth. Can you point them out like an adult and add to the discussion rather than point fingers and call people names? I'm genuinely curious what your evidence is.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:21:50
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0qpod/

I couldn't care less about my comments' upvotes or downvotes in general, as my name suggests. However, as a measure of a sub's general "sentiment", upvotes and downvotes are sometimes illuminating.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:20:31
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0qcf4/

What does being "fully honest" mean in regards to the comment in question? Is he obliged to say, "...but /r/btc has open mod logs"? If that's so, are you obliged to point out your affiliation with Roger Ver every time you comment on this sub's moderation? In particular, he was **responding to a specific claim by OP**, which seems to be a **lie**. Yet OP is not the actual troll? That doesn't make sense.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:16:53
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0pnc9/

I mean, the truth matters. If it's true that Blockstream doesn't control /r/bitcoin, you don't mind people claiming that they do? People's interests can coincide to a large degree for reasons other than being controlled by them, right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:10:00
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0oyn6/

Even if that's true, which I [doubt](http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool), how does that prove that Blockstream is directly controlling the sub?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 11:03:09
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0ohyh/

> Not necessarily every action. You don't want to look too obvious. OK, can you give some evidence of this, and, more importantly, how you're concluding that they're doing it **on Blockstream's request**? It seems to me that it's more like, "I get the impression that this is happening" rather than it being based on actual data. I'm willing to be convinced, though. > Yeah, troll might not be the correct term here. Finally some sense in this thread.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:58:38
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0o8vm/

Is stating relevant and true facts in context "trolling", though?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:56:09
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0nyea/

Just calling my comment "ridiculous crap" without making an actual argument is pretty weak. However, I predict you'll be significantly upvoted for it. It's the /r/btc way.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:53:15
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0nlet/

Yeah, that's not addressing his claims, though. You're just changing the subject. Is it true that /r/bitcoin's mods are affiliated with Blockstream **like you claimed**? ("censored by Blockstream") Is it true that /r/btc's mods are affiliated with Roger Ver? I get it: you think those are irrelevant. However, that's not up to you to decide. Calling someone a "troll" for stating true things (not out of context) is pretty low.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:49:40
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0muxb/

You prove someone isn't Satoshi by giving evidence that they aren't, including evidence of: * Technical incompetence * Conflicting statements with the real Satoshi * History of fraud * History of taking credit for others' work * Lack of ability to do what Satoshi did * Dearth of positive evidence despite looking and opportunities and more. It's not particularly difficult.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:42:13
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0m0ol/

How is it a high bar? I'm simply asking for their evidence. And you can prove a negative.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:33:34
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0lh36/

> all in favor of a company Isn't this assuming that every action is done at the behest or benefit of blockstream? Are you simply **assuming** that nobody else shares their opinions? Again, it's fine if you want to give your own facts, but if that user is giving two **true** statements and is being called a "troll" for it, that's pretty strange.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:27:52
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0lam5/

Sure, good comment. Obviously /u/MemoryDealers is Roger himself, and the lead moderator. /u/BitcoinXio is David Shares. He [writes for bitcoin.com and his company was purchased by Roger](https://news.bitcoin.com/author/david/). /u/BeijingBitcoins appears to work for bitcoin.com, too, but I'm omitting the link because it's twitter and I don't want to get in trouble for "doxxing". They are the most active mods. Should I go on?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:26:00
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0jbkm/

How am I a "known troll"? How am I redefining "true"? Please show your definition and why those statements don't meet your definition.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:05:05
/r/btc/comments/f5ssaq/bashco_is_trolling_this_subreddit/fi0j1pb/

Can anyone **prove** that /r/bitcoin's mods are affiliated with Blockstream? The burden is on the accuser. As far as I know, it's true that every mod (or at least all the active ones) in /r/btc is strongly affiliated with Roger Ver or employed by him. Is that not true? Yes, the mod logs in this sub are publicly available, but I didn't see him deny that. He (seems to have) stated two true facts and is accused of "trolling" for that? Are people just angry because they're true?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 18, 2020 10:02:02
/r/btc/comments/f3dyw6/segwit_was_optin/fhkw7kb/

Nope. Just dumb I guess.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 14, 2020 09:58:38
/r/btc/comments/f3dyw6/segwit_was_optin/fhj814m/

LOL. Mission accomplished.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 19:24:25
/r/btc/comments/f3dyw6/segwit_was_optin/fhisxqi/

> Your Huh?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 16:59:45
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhionre/

We’ve got you and your big brain. No automated tools needed.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 16:20:28
/r/btc/comments/f3dyw6/segwit_was_optin/fhiojtt/

Wouldn’t amplifying my integrity make it larger? Unless you’re doing some kind of “negative gamma” calculation.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 16:19:30
/r/btc/comments/f3dyw6/segwit_was_optin/fhiljp5/

Ahh, right, the spelling errors I'm notorious for. How do you walk around with that massive brain of yours?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 15:51:44
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhildbz/

> You know this because after commenting you watch your comment, hitting F5 over and over. Yes, exactly. It's definitely not because I use my user page as a quick way to navigate to my recent threads. > Sure, he provides endless entertainment! This is a big [departure](/r/btc/comments/92dcas/astroturfed_post_about_ucontrarian_being_greg/e371feo/) from your previous sentiments. I'm glad to hear you've come around, friendo!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 15:50:05
/r/btc/comments/f3dyw6/segwit_was_optin/fhijio7/

Riling appears to be fully successful.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 15:32:57
/r/btc/comments/dqpbr3/has_anyone_kept_track_of_the_lowestfee/fhijb1c/

Laughing at stupidity requires help?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 15:30:57
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhij3x9/

Funny, my score always decrements right before you reply to my comment. And Greg is one of your favorite people?!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 15:29:08
/r/btc/comments/f3dyw6/segwit_was_optin/fhihyin/

LOL, [you're almost there](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/dqpbr3/has_anyone_kept_track_of_the_lowestfee/f696b87/)! "You" was plural, and I'm proven right again.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 15:18:34
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhihrmr/

LOL, he says as he reflexively downvotes me in anger. PS - I actually do have a beard.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 15:16:47
/r/btc/comments/f3dyw6/segwit_was_optin/fhigkmg/

This oughta rile you up: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/014152.html

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 15:05:33
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhigfg6/

Pity's practically the opposite of "touchiness".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 15:04:12
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhi6ylp/

Shit, you **really, truly** think I'm Greg, huh? You all are so easily bamboozled that my amusement occasionally turns to pity.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 13:35:16
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhi489p/

Your delusions are adorable and hilarious. Thank you for all the laughs.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 13:11:05
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhi46re/

> Comparing Calvin's motivations to those of the big block / early adopter community is a big stretch. It's **your** bad definition. I'm just trying to test its bounds.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 13:10:43
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhhw4ak/

Can you address my hypo? If BSV split directly from BTC due to whatever their made-up problems were (P2SH? SegWit? CLTV?) and became **the fourth most successful decentralized blockchain token out of thousands**, would that have represented insufficient consensus on the part of BTC? I'm trying to get a handle on your criteria. Is appeasing an idiot billionaire required for "sufficient consensus"?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 11:55:18
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhhsax5/

> "Sufficient consensus" is required to prevent the chain from splitting into two economically noticeable tokens Ok, if that's the case, then you should have gotten "sufficient consensus" from BSV before CTOR and DSV. Or, alternatively, if BSV split directly from BTC, you would've been upset with BTC for not getting sufficient consensus before they broke off for their hatred of P2SH (or whatever)? After all, they are **the fourth most successful decentralized blockchain token out of thousands** (and is 76% the value of BCH, whereas BCH is 4.6% the value of BTC).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 11:19:29
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhhly18/

Facepalm. No, of course not. My point is that pointing to a split and saying, "this proves that there wasn't sufficient consensus" is dumb, as it's circular, because you're defining "sufficient consensus" as "that which will prevent a split". **Any** minority can cause a split, so this definition is clearly ridiculous. Do you get it now?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 10:18:36
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhhjzbf/

> Precisely. LOL, that was meant as a joke! > You realize that unanimity isn't needed to prevent a split, right? Well, considering that **any** minority can split, the only way to guarantee "sufficient consensus" (in your joke of a definition) is with unanimity.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 09:58:36
/r/btc/comments/f38fj8/debunking_segwit_didnt_cause_a_split/fhhghd2/

> sufficient consensus Let me guess: this is defined as the amount of consensus that wouldn't have caused a split? You realize consensus != unanimous, right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 13, 2020 09:20:36
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fhf2n2h/

LOL, you're so disingenuous it's painful.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 12, 2020 14:15:55
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fhesipk/

> What those guys can do against a 51% attack/forced soft fork? Their primary purpose would be to *thwart* such an attack, as they can quickly fork against it, exactly as BU was proposing to do with the miner tax. > but it is meaningless because if one entity own more than 51% sha256, they are all equally unsecure. Not even true. Practically *any* pool can 51% the Bitcoin forks. Only the mysterious 51% miner could 51% Bitcoin. And, again, there is **zero** evidence that there's a secret 51% miner; you're just spreading FUD. > Back to your initial claim “BTC is the most secire chain” I maintain it is incredibly naive to say so (at least for anyone that has a bit of understanding how mining works). Almost any other chain can be cheaply 51% attacked by renting mining power (or simply amassing it yourself). It is obvious that you are pitifully unaware of Bitcoin's security model. > If you rely on a critical system and have no prove if it is secure or not Again: why are you using crypto at all if you can't even (in theory) 'prove' its security? > Surprising someone that chose “contrarian” as an username don’t understand this concept. I understand your blathering perfectly. Unfortunately for you, it's almost all nonsense or banal truths. To be clear: it obviously cannot be proven that a party doesn't secretly control 51%, and even if it were, it could change at any moment due to new collusion or some other technological development. That's why it's an **assumption** that honest miners control the majority of the hashrate. You get what an assumption is, right? And you get that there are financial incentives to not attack the chain, right? And you get that full nodes have recourse in the event of a majority attacker, right? Alas, I think you don't actually get it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 12, 2020 12:37:01
/r/bsv/comments/f2m5ds/segwit_flaw_circa_2018/fheiaae/

The link has nothing to do with any claims made. It was described as a novel and unfixable exploit, both of which are not true in your link. Further, your entire comment is nonsense, as **everyone** would know if there were any bad signatures, since anyone running a recent-ish full node would not be able to sync with the chain.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 12, 2020 10:56:28
/r/Buttcoin/comments/f1mm3c/looks_like_men_with_guns_can_and_will_seize/fh7ybxo/

Obviously their bird baths were placed too conspicuously.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Buttcoin on February 10, 2020 10:16:55
/r/bsv/comments/f1oe7v/permanently_banned_from_rbitcoinsv_for_observing/fh7y7xp/

nChain is full of bad cosplayers. One is pretending to be Satoshi; /u/shadders333 is pretending to be a competent CTO.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 10, 2020 10:15:39
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fh7ulml/

> What are the other ones? User and business engagement, full node usage, etc. > No outcome is particularly likely, mining is private by nature. There is no way to tell its distribution, certainly not with the pool chart. No way to know **for certain**, you mean, which is true and banal, as I explained. You could make the same argument that a distributed set of miners would suddenly decide to collude **at any moment**. Unless you have explicit evidence of miners colluding or one owning 51% of hashpower, you’re just spreading FUD. > I am not sure why you bring that point again as that wasn’t your original claim. Again, **your** claim is that Bitcoin is insecure, and you have done absolutely nothing to prove that. That’s the bottom line.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 09:32:12
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fh7u6ky/

> 51% is the minimum hash power needed to reject any block you want. This is technically true in Nakamoto Consensus, but not true in Sechet Consensus, which BCH uses. However, in Bitcoin, it ignores any real world incentives/disincentives due to users and businesses leaving the chain, or hard forks to thwart the undesired soft fork. > Not need for ill-defined business/community support. How do you think the Bitcoin name works? It’s a social consensus. There’s no automatic ticker transfer due to hash power.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 09:26:55
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fh7jz92/

LOL, you’ve shown you don’t even understand what Nakamoto Consensus is. Funny enough, you’d need much more than 50% of mining power to enforce a miner-only soft fork in BCH. In fact, there’s no level of hashpower short of 100% that’s guaranteed to strictly enforce a soft fork in the presence of dissenting miners. You’re all using Sechet Consensus.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 06:50:13
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fh7joou/

> The fact that mining decentris unknowable mean it is impossible to assert that Bitcoin is the more secure crypto, or even if it is secure. Wrong. First, as I said, hashrate distribution is not the only security parameter in Bitcoin. Second, “unknowable for sure” does not imply that either outcome is precisely as likely. (For instance, we can prove with high probability how centralized BSV’s mining is.) Third, it is **your** claim that Bitcoin is **not secure**, and you have not shown it other than to FUD about it being *possible* that one party controls 51% *without a shred of evidence*. Fourth, Bitcoin is obviously the most secure crypto among the SHA256 PoW, so if Bitcoin is not secure, BCH is **far less secure**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 10, 2020 06:44:12
/r/bsv/comments/f17qyi/how_to_safely_split_bsv_and_bitcoin_genesis_coins/fh4f1ue/

I expect the upvotes are non-organic. No posts get this many upvotes in this short a time, especially on a weekend. The mods here are not especially active on reddit. It's even 50% upvoted on /r/bitcoincashsv. /u/Zectro, if you're around, this looks like a good candidate for deletion. Edit: never mind, looks like it's already been deleted.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 9, 2020 14:54:52
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fh2hlrz/

> I said if you cannot know the level of Bitcoin decentralization, you cannot know the level of Bitcoin security and trustlessness. More blather. Again, just because something is not knowable with certainty, doesn’t mean we have no clue whatsoever. You yourself seem to admit that the probability that someone controls 51% is merely “non zero”. Well congratulations, the probability of basically everything is non zero. Also, as I said before, Bitcoin’s security model is not *solely* dependent on hashpower distribution. In fact, it could be evenly distributed among 50 pools, and they could still collude. We have to ‘trust’ them not to. And it’s totally unknowable when they’d do it. They could be colluding right now!! Even if one party controlled a majority of hash rate, it doesn’t even necessarily mean Bitcoin is broken. They’re still incentivized to continue mining honestly as Satoshi said. Moreover, even if they were malevolent, Bitcoin users could simply hard fork to a different PoW and keep the name and ticker. That is, assuming enough users are running full nodes. > This sentence make no sense. > Decentralization and hash power are two different thing, not related to each other I obviously meant the distribution of hashpower among distinct miners, since that is what we’re talking about. > Any you counter arguments? The pool chart. There are other indications, like the distributions of miner signalling, but, as I said before, the burden is on you to show it is centralized, the same as the burden would be on you to show that there are shapeshifting aliens living amongst us. (I’ll concede that the probability of the latter is lower than the former, but they’re both “unknowable” claims according to your reckoning.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 9, 2020 07:57:10
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fh2fecl/

Hahaha! Nice try. I never said that soft forking requires only 51% of hash power in reality if it’s contentious. Have you been paying attention at all? In fact, most of the issue depends on what users and businesses do. If they’re all running SPV, hard forks or soft forks would take a mere 51% to do. But if a big portion is using full nodes, then changes will require a majority of those users onboard.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 9, 2020 07:11:39
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fh06fgp/

Probably >= 75% of current hashpower plus >= 75% of users and businesses. Edit: I thought you said: "Nakamoto consensus make protocol change significantly easier that protecting the rules." Since it's so easy, then make the change.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 8, 2020 17:27:14
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fh067kx/

> Have you got any evidence that at least no single entity own more than 51% of the network hash power? Again, not the way this works. You can’t say that just because it’s not knowable with certainty, then the probability is 50%. You can’t **prove** that there aren’t shapeshifting aliens currently living amongst us, yet that doesn’t mean there’s a 50/50 chance that they currently do. Lol. Given your ridiculous claims, why even use crypto if you think there’s a secret boogeyman with 51% of hashpower? By the way, there’s more to decentralization than mere hashpower. Edit: these statements show that you really don’t understand Bitcoin: > Even with the highest amount of energy spent toward PoW, Bitcoin security could be zero (if one entity own 51% the network is not trustless).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 8, 2020 17:26:05
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fgzsz5a/

> That mean this chart provides no evidence of bitcoin decentralization. No, it doesn't. > Your classic argument strategy asking the highest level of evidence to other while you are fine with the lowest form of evidence to support your own claim. Nope. Keep in mind that this started with you defending a claim: that BTC is insecure because it's centralized. The default assumption is that it's not centralized, since there's **no evidence** that it is, and at least **some** evidence that it's not. > You claim you had evidence, the burden of proof is on you but failed to deliver. I just did. You are free to say that it's meaningless, but that doesn't mean it actually is. Yes, it's impossible to know **with absolute certainty** that someone doesn't SeCRetLY OwN 51% Of ThE HaSH, but that'd be the far more surprising state of affairs. > If decentralization is unknowable for all cryptocurrency It being not knowable **for certain** doesn't mean we have **absolutely zero information**. > Either you delute yourself or you have very little to no understanding how mining work. It's "delude", and I assure you that I'm quite familiar with mining. Making up a secret 51% boogeyman is fine if you'd like to do that. Be my guest. Maybe aliens from outer space control 99%. It's **possible**.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 8, 2020 16:28:34
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fgzq1ir/

> If you want to keep the previous rules set you will make you a shitcoin. No, it won't. Just amass enough hashpower and users and you'll keep the chain and the name. Bitcoin wasn't meant to stay exactly the same forever, but it should be *hard* to change, and it is. (Edit: Maybe this is the answer you're looking for: if it **is** changed, that means that the vast majority **wanted** it changed, hard fork or soft fork.) > I note that you are unable to comment on that idea. I edited in an addition, which I'll repeat here. This is wrong, too: > Nakamoto consensus got an asymmetry pf power going toward protocol change not protocol conservation. Almost every transaction made from 2009 to 2015 would be accepted in BTC now. None would be in BCH or BSV. All this whining is about one thing: the block size. If you want that changed in Bitcoin, lobby for it. It seems to me that Nakamoto consensus makes it *less likely* that a protocol will change. BCH and BSV are changing constantly.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 8, 2020 16:15:13
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fgzo2vs/

> a part of the community want to reject it.. > Problem this rules is accepted by the network if you reject that rule you become a shitcoin. LOL, when you make an absurd assumption, you're going to get an absurd result. What if I guessed all of BCH's private keys and took everyone's money? What if a certain charlatan is actually Satoshi? Edit: This is wrong, too: > Nakamoto consensus got an asymmetry pf power going toward protocol change not protocol conservation. Almost every transaction made from 2009 to 2015 would be accepted in BTC now. None would be in BCH or BSV. All this whining is about one thing: the block size. If you want that changed in Bitcoin, lobby for it. It seems to me that Nakamoto consensus makes it *less likely* that a protocol will change. BCH and BSV are changing constantly.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 8, 2020 16:06:04
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fgzn9h3/

Sure, it's **possible** (anything's 'possible'), but, as I said, that graph is at least *prima facie* evidence that they're separate. Where is your evidence that it's actually centralized, and that one party owns > 51% of hash? Your banal and uninteresting comment about it being 'impossible to tell' is true for all crypto, so trying to defend McAfee's comment in a *comparative* way is plain dumb.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 8, 2020 16:02:43
/r/AskReddit/comments/f0sg80/whats_a_fact_you_know_that_almost_everyone_is/fgyfuhq/

> Crossing the equator doesn’t change which direction the water drains You should qualify this a bit. Even your link admits that this **is a real phenomenon and can happen in reality**, but it's so small that it doesn't makes a difference in almost all normal situations. I think the fact that there's a seed of truth is what makes this "myth" so sticky. > "If all extraneous influences (including air currents) can be reduced below a certain level, one apparently can observe that drains do consistently drain in different directions in the two hemispheres."

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/AskReddit on February 8, 2020 12:29:16
/r/bsv/comments/f0goyc/so_its_been_over_a_year_did_bsv_ever_do_something/fgy5cfu/

> you need the full block on initial sync before you can prune the data in OP_RETURN. Their OP_RETURN - type outputs aren't all unspendable now, from what I understand. Another giant BSV 'innovation'.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 8, 2020 11:33:23
/r/bsv/comments/f0goyc/so_its_been_over_a_year_did_bsv_ever_do_something/fgy56q7/

You'd still need the whole transaction if you're going to **fully** validate the block. Once you've done that, you can prune any unspendable outputs immediately. You're right that they *could* restrict certain outputs, but then you're trusting them that the transactions are actually what they claim they are, and you still can't fully validate. They certainly could do something nefarious and say, "this was a bad transaction -- trust us".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 8, 2020 11:32:35
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fgwpnk1/

Which original rules? Satoshi himself put in most of the restrictions, and he warned people who wanted to do that that they’d fork themselves off. > +1 theymos. Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment. > We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it. Of course, “we” means the whole network. Protocols change over time, so yes, restoring the “oRiGinaL RuLeS” would be a shitcoin.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 8, 2020 07:20:39
/r/bsv/comments/f0goyc/so_its_been_over_a_year_did_bsv_ever_do_something/fgv04av/

Ideally, it shouldn’t be possible to even do it easily or at least in an easily accessible way. Max individual data push in Bitcoin is 520 bytes, and the max total script size is 10kb. This makes it so that embedding images is difficult, and, more importantly, extracting them is difficult. Guess who put in those limits? As for the other chains, I don’t know. Making it easy for any user to upload and view images seems pretty dumb.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 7, 2020 22:44:27
/r/bsv/comments/f0goyc/so_its_been_over_a_year_did_bsv_ever_do_something/fgusgms/

Lol, the standard BSV PUSHDATA4 nonsense... Yes, Satoshi spent the vast majority of his time limiting the protocol. He initially designed it to support every financial transaction he could think of, and realized it was open to al kinds of abuse and bugs.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 7, 2020 21:19:51
/r/bsv/comments/f0goyc/so_its_been_over_a_year_did_bsv_ever_do_something/fguqij7/

> So would the implication be that if CP was discovered pre-fork, that would apply to all the forks? HMM Gosh, it’s almost like Satoshi was right when he wanted Bitcoin to only be financial transactions and didn’t want “data” transactions. He only advocated for a “hash sized”, prune-able output. I’m so glad BSV is here to enable putting cat videos (and much worse) on chain.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 7, 2020 20:58:20
/r/bsv/comments/f0irl8/whatever_happened_to_unwriter/fguppiz/

He eventually just floated away due to all the hot air he was blowing.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 7, 2020 20:49:18
/r/Buttcoin/comments/f0abi9/gambling_baron_and_craig_wright_promoter_calvn/fgt6vdv/

I made $50,000 a week placing ~~tiny classified ads~~ microtransactions everywhere.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Buttcoin on February 7, 2020 13:31:21
/r/Buttcoin/comments/f0abi9/gambling_baron_and_craig_wright_promoter_calvn/fgsrhz7/

Well, as you're a BSV supporter, that must be **incredibly fake news** if it's the 'biggest'.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/Buttcoin on February 7, 2020 10:58:26
/r/btc/comments/ezclze/owner_of_an_address_craig_wright_claimed_to_own/fgn3qas/

> Nobody can edit memo.cash posts The owner(s) of memo.cash sure can. If anyone's really worried, though, just give the TXID: 9d41091fd659287c496c239b3b43000f8b7949dc98bcdc54cca5a501a3062dd6 and let people look it up on their [favorite block explorer](https://blockchair.com/bitcoin-cash/transaction/9d41091fd659287c496c239b3b43000f8b7949dc98bcdc54cca5a501a3062dd6) (or own full node, ideally).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 16:12:04
/r/btc/comments/exkytq/miners_are_free_to_change_the_rules_however_they/fglpw21/

> Only the old nodes will not see the extra supply, it is not a problem they are not relevant to the network anymore. His point was that the **entire network** would not see the new coins, which is true. And if the old nodes account for a vast majority of the network, the new coins are going to be useless. Again, soft forks without a majority of users approving of the change aren’t going to work.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 08:01:12
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fglppec/

Here’s prima facie evidence: https://www.blockchain.com/en/pools?timespan=4days

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 07:58:27
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fglpl2q/

> Here we have a community That doesn’t come close to a majority. > restore the original rule set LOL, /r/bitcoinsv is that way. (Not that BCH or BSV actually want to restore the “original protocol”, anyway.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 07:56:37
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fglm8m9/

You weren’t expect**ing**...

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 5, 2020 07:02:11
/r/bsv/comments/eyqzuu/calvin_ayre_accounts_for_71_of_bsvs_hash_rate/fgjf5ro/

It's up to an even 75% now.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 4, 2020 13:59:06
/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eyg9oj/eli5_why_is_it_that_oreos_get_soggy_in_regular/fgix8p8/

"Why doesn't regular milk need **to be** emulsified?" Read all about [the phenomenon here](https://ygdp.yale.edu/phenomena/needs-washed).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/explainlikeimfive on February 4, 2020 11:14:14
/r/bsv/comments/eypz94/nchain_forgot_to_add_the_original_diff_adjustment/fgipbws/

https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/blob/d9b12a23dbf0d2afc5f488fa077d762b302ba873/src/pow.cpp#L249 But you don't really need to see the code. Just look at the difficulty between blocks.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 4, 2020 09:50:23
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fgiovsu/

True, but I meant situations where the miners went ahead with the soft fork *despite* the majority of users being opposed to it. /u/Ant-n 's assertion is that the miners' chain would necessarily retain the name and ticker if this happened. It's certainly possible it would, but it's just speculation at this point. My best guess is that the coin would just die/splinter into a bunch of junk.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 09:45:17
/r/bsv/comments/eyb39r/craig_has_claimed_that_the_bonded_courier_is_an/fgio14i/

Ooh, so I can now broadcast my transaction I made in 2010 on BSV??

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on February 4, 2020 09:35:17
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fgie15d/

> Soft fork don’t need user to agree. Again, we’re seeing that this is not so simple. Sure, in a raw technical sense it’s true, but the incentives for miners to perform a controversial soft fork are complicated, so in practice, it’s a requirement that the majority of users are on board. > HF do. Not when almost all users are using SPV (depending on the exact hard fork).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 07:14:26
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fgidpla/

You’re just repeating yourself. Simply said: there is no evidence that Bitcoin is less secure than any other crypto, and quite a bit of evidence suggesting (but not proving) that it is decentralized and secure. Insecure is when you can spend a [couple hundred dollars](https://www.crypto51.app/) to 51% a shitcoin.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 4, 2020 07:08:38
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fgffp7r/

> What is your opinion on the fact that radical change are easy to implement (via SF) I think this is a false premise. I don’t think it’s an “easy” change, as we’re witnessing right now with the tax issue. It’s only “easy” when you have the support of the vast majority of miners **and** users.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 3, 2020 08:43:17
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fgfe67v/

And everything you’ve said about Bitcoin can apply to any other crypto, so to call it “insecure” is to call **any** crypto insecure. The point was to compare it to other cryptos, in which case he’s clearly bullshitting, as usual. And you appear happy to defend him.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 3, 2020 08:20:45
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fgf9qwm/

Lol, nice dodge. Bitcoin is *undeniably* the most secure of the SHA256 pow coins. I find it hilarious that you’re actually trying to defend this guy’s idiotic assertion.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 3, 2020 07:04:53
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fgf9o3w/

Like the original sighash algorithm? The original tx order? The original auto checkpoints?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 3, 2020 07:03:20
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/fgep0sq/

Which crypto do you think could be more secure?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 2, 2020 23:48:06
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/fgeoxny/

> Well to orphan a block you have to produce a valid block.. > So the block has to appear valid to non-aware nodes, whatever its content. Like SPV nodes, which /r/btc users seem to think are just as good as full nodes. > yet rejecting them to preserve the previous rule set and characteristics make you an altcoin Eth has kept the ticker...

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on February 2, 2020 23:46:54
/r/bsv/comments/ewbglp/following_scrontys_lead_yet_another_adorable/fg3h1ov/

You seem to have both, unfortunately.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 31, 2020 09:35:33
/r/bsv/comments/ewbglp/following_scrontys_lead_yet_another_adorable/fg3gprg/

Nothing like pride in one's delusions...

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 31, 2020 09:31:32
/r/bsv/comments/ewbglp/following_scrontys_lead_yet_another_adorable/fg3ap06/

Never mind, you just outdid yourself.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 31, 2020 08:12:33
/r/bsv/comments/ewbglp/following_scrontys_lead_yet_another_adorable/fg395io/

I don’t think you could have illustrated Greg’s point any better.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 31, 2020 07:49:13
/r/bsv/comments/ewbglp/following_scrontys_lead_yet_another_adorable/fg229ou/

Welp, you’re the one whose identity is known, so I certainly can’t refuse in good conscience. (Not that I would refuse anyway.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 30, 2020 21:13:29
/r/bsv/comments/ewbglp/following_scrontys_lead_yet_another_adorable/fg1xyn9/

> It turns out they had a reddit account all along. /u/nullc is Satoshi?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 30, 2020 20:41:36
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/ffzl280/

> he in fact decides the network rules. He *may* decide *some* of the rules. That’s a huge distinction. Moreover, as we’ve seen in the past, users aren’t forced to continue to follow that chain. Hence BCH. It’s not even guaranteed that the ‘new’ chain would have to pick a different name. I bet if 51% of miners tried the tax and most users ran BU, it’d retain the BCH name. In summary, the situation is much more complex than your simple statement.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 30, 2020 06:38:13
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/ffzkuhw/

> Bitcoin security is unknown. It’s more secure than any other crypto.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 30, 2020 06:33:47
/r/btc/comments/evr61o/craig_wright_on_bitcoin_private_keys_its_none_of/ffzks9f/

I don’t mind. I still get a kick out of the swine downvoting my pearls.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 30, 2020 06:32:29
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxz7pg/

> You're free to call me whatever you want That's the thing: I haven't called you anything. You've made several unsubstantiated claims about me. > and I encourage all readers to do their own research to find whatever impression they want to find. Same here. It really helps that you gave all the links to the bad behavior you oh-so-bravely accused me of... > It doesn't matter. I'm only here to discuss the movement to create a form of money that functions better than existing monies. Yet you decided to offer unsolicited "advice" while at the same time accusing me of acting in "bad faith". When asked for evidence, you refused. You also included this **gem** of a line: > I'm sorry you feel like people judge your words not based on their content, but on their knowledge of your past behavior. That's **exactly** what you are doing. > Don't worry, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people that are more willing to engage you! Again, you are the one offering the unsolicited advice. The funny thing is that you'll probably think this post is me being an asshole.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 17:02:16
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxusr4/

What's to stop someone from calling you a liar then refusing to back it up by saying, "I'd rather not be bothered, but if I looked, I'm sure I could find some instance where you've lied (and occasionally told the truth, too)"? Wouldn't you say someone who does that operates in bad faith unless proven otherwise?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 16:20:41
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffxqk8w/

we all need help on this blessed day :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 15:40:50
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxq5y4/

Now now, don't get all cranky and upset.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 15:37:08
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxq0cm/

> No, I'm going on simply what I've read on from the Contrarian__ handle. And though I'm confident I could spend some time researching to find example of both bad and (occasional) good behavior, the truth is I don't care enough to do so. So I'm only **occasionally** "good", but you won't even bother to look for a **single example** of bad faith despite calling me "duplicitous" and "untrustworthy", not to mention "bad[ly] behav[ing]" and "trolling". ...Seems a bit... bad faith itself, no?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 15:35:43
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxmzoh/

Huh? The topic is Turing Completeness. A lot of people still believe Bitcoin is Turing Complete.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 15:07:07
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxmqb0/

The lulz, of course. I'm making fun of him and his idiotic views, not holding him out as someone having a worthwhile opinion, like [some people do](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 15:04:35
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxlu2h/

> he was no expert, You see those quotes around the word expert? Might want to pay closer attention.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:55:55
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxlrjt/

> is this /r/btc or /r/contrarian? Honestly, this sub seems like /r/GregMaxwellIsLiterallyTheDevil. > Not sure why you think the world revolves around you. Wait, are you tacitly admitting that I'm not Greg??

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:55:15
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxl313/

> I only mean to reference the series of posts you've made as Contrarian__ ... someone known for bad behavior and trolling. I'm asking you to provide evidence for this "bad behavior and trolling". Or are you simply relying on other people's opinions?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:48:40
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxkhom/

/u/tl121 may be recalling Ryan X. Charles' article [here](https://www.yours.org/content/how-to-implement-ecdsa-signature-verification-in-script-and-why-datasi-9f113344542f). This is the meaty bit: > The way to do this is to base your big number library on CScriptNum. Bitcoin Scripts has numbers built-in based on the basic type CScriptNum. However, these numbers are four bytes long (which overflow to longer), not 32 bytes. We need to be able to combine multiple CScriptNums to one to be able to add them. This is straightforward using the standard addition algorithm. We carry the result and add it to the next. > **An important concept to bare in mind when trying write scripts is that we have access to two stacks. With two stacks, we can map Script to a 2PDA. It is known that a 2PDA is equivalent to Script with two stacks and an outer loop and that this is Turing complete, and therefore possible to compute anything we want**. Except that we do not have an outer loop. However, we do have the ability to unroll a loop, which is an adequate substitute.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:42:58
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxjuca/

Still waiting for the relevance to me.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:36:38
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxjlnw/

There were other "experts", too: [Exhibit A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJ1DTeexpvA).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:34:17
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxi3it/

I don't know. I have yet to make a mistake. ;) [Oh, right, one time I did](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/89jtp8/craig_wrights_negative_gamma_and_the_curious_lack/dwsc8hq/?context=1).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:19:50
/r/btc/comments/evr61o/craig_wright_on_bitcoin_private_keys_its_none_of/ffxhjqs/

Let's see how this was mangled: > The solution we propose begins with a timestamp server.... To implement a distributed timestamp server on a peer-to-peer basis, we will need to use a proof-of-work system similar to Adam Back's Hashcash... ... >> **Hal Finney:** BTW I don’t remember if we talked about this, but the other day some > people were mentioning secure timestamping. You want to be able to > prove that a certain document existed at a certain time in the past. > Seems to me that bitcoin’s stack of blocks would be perfect for this. > **Satoshi:** Indeed, Bitcoin is a distributed secure timestamp server for transactions. A few lines of code could create a transaction with an extra hash in it of anything that needs to be timestamped. I should add a command to timestamp a file that way.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:14:42
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxgina/

Oh god, don't call me Greg! It hurts my feelings so much! You see right through me! :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:04:44
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxgbmw/

> Greg's been a salty dog whenever you mention his infamous ACK to Matt's patch. OK. > Ever since Greg has been working to spin that Bitcoin moment around as a win for Bitcoin developers when originally BCH developer Awemany found it first and reported it. He'll do anything to cover up his mistakes, but never admit any mistakes. Is that the funny part? And what does this have to do with me?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:02:52
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxg2c2/

> The lead "expert" was run out of this forum, being accused of serial plagerism and technical incompetence, not to mention fraudulent deception. Doesn't ring a bell.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 14:00:26
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxfv81/

Believe what you'd like.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 13:58:33
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxftfs/

> or in /r/bitcoin when Greg Maxwell introduced the Bitcoin inflation bug to allow more than 21 Bitcoin's to be mined. Maybe they don't have a good sense of humor, either. I'll note that I *hope* more than 21 "Bitcoin's" [sic] can be mined!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 13:58:04
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxflp0/

How am I "whining" about them? I'm *laughing* about them.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 13:55:56
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffxdo4n/

> Simply put, you're not known to be someone who comes here to comment in good faith. Duplicitous, is one word that comes to mind when I think of you, and I don't think I'm alone. Can you give a good example of this that doesn't assume what you're trying to prove? (Ie - can you do it if you assume I'm **not** Greg?)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 13:37:01
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffxbqkv/

> The proof is so clear. It really is quite clear that there are certain people who are definitely **not** Satoshi. Your "open mindedness" is just naivete, or worse, stupidity. > I know, and Roger Ver is a "known scammer" and "convicted felon", right? I don't recall ever calling Ver a scammer, and I don't recall calling him a felon, especially to disparage him. In fact, I've [explicitly avoided](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8uhfpy/csw_i_am_a_fraud_who_cannot_do_anything/e1h03xr/?context=3) that type of talk about him.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 13:18:06
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffxa9wj/

> don't deserve mindless attacks What about criticizing you for [making apologetics for frauds](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9cyi3o/scronty_phil_wilson_is_not_satoshi/e5eyjs9/)? Is that fair game?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 13:03:35
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx8jzj/

Playing the victim? I rescued the prof from unfair downvotes. I couldn't care less about my own downvotes. If anything, they only give me amusement.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:46:30
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/ffx8e3s/

> I think he is making a very good point here. Oh yeah? Bitcoin has "no security"? It has no smart contracts? The "Bitcoin bad because small blocks" argument has been made many times much more eloquently than this fraud does here. Why give him even more notoriety?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:44:53
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx7rln/

On a side note, I recall you "defending" me from the accusations of me being Greg a while ago. I appreciate the effort, but it's much funnier this way. (Especially if you eventually concluded that I'm such a master of stylometry to defeat *any* analysis over 9 years. **That's** an example of the lulz I can really enjoy.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:38:41
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx6txt/

> You clearly care about what stupid things people write to your pseudonymous Reddit account I "care" in that it gives me great amusement. Is that what you mean? If I cared in the sense that it hurt my feelings, I would either stop posting or use a different handle. > Regarding whether you should care, my answer is, just embrace the fact that you do and act accordingly Yes, I will continue to enjoy the lulz.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:29:31
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx68no/

I'm not sure how that follows. I'm not forcing myself to be anyone. I'm simply not revealing my real-life identity on reddit.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:23:38
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx633r/

Try to stay on-topic, please.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:22:07
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx60ta/

I guess it's an excellent question no matter who says it! :) Thanks!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:21:29
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx5z1x/

Does that mean we're friends now?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:21:00
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx5wls/

I'm glad you're a fan!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:20:19
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx5w27/

Don't worry, my [perfectly on-topic comments](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqq091/) get downvoted, too.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:20:10
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx5s99/

More conversation derailing.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:19:07
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx5ri5/

Stop trying to derail this conversation.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:18:54
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx4qu4/

People are strange...

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 12:08:40
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx3u5q/

*Should* I care that people are mean to my pseudonymous reddit account?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 11:59:27
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx38g9/

I couldn't care less.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 11:53:23
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx362x/

Is it still sympathy if it's meant for another person?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 11:52:42
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx320f/

Let the hate flow through you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 11:51:32
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffx1t7q/

However, my comment may push you back in the positive. You see, I've become **so hated** that people upvote or downvote out of mere spite. If I'm calling out a lack of sense of humor, people may upvote you just to spite me. It's already gone from -4 back to 0.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 11:38:48
/r/btc/comments/evo5w2/tobias_ruck_script_breakthrough_ive_managed_to/ffwzldj/

Sorry, Prof, jokes aren't well-received in this subreddit.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 11:15:54
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwx4jz/

What makes you [an apologist for a fraud](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9cyi3o/scronty_phil_wilson_is_not_satoshi/e5eyjs9/)? Asking for a friend.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 10:50:02
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwtaps/

If only mottos translated to reality. ;)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 10:08:18
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwt8io/

The "Greg" label is apparently contagious. Just roll with it and enjoy the lulz.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 10:07:36
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwt43z/

This is the rigorous analysis I've come to appreciate from you!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 10:06:11
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/ffwrzm0/

You're terribly misusing that meme.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:53:19
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwrouz/

When one is in full possession of the facts and still is "open" to the disproven alternative, that's not a positive trait. It's just idiocy. If you were "open" to the earth being flat, we'd call you out on it. It wouldn't be "unbiased"; it would simply be stupid.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:49:49
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwreti/

Hahaha, this is great. Don't try to deny it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:46:33
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/ffwraih/

Sure, you're free to act like an ass all you want and post dumb shit from self-proclaimed dick-eaters. I'm not **stopping** you, but I can say it's dumb.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:45:06
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwr3zl/

> The burden of proof is on you to prove these things are useful. Seriously? You're really going to try to move the goalposts here? I guess the easiest would be the Electron Cash contribution, considering it was a bug bounty, so even its authors considered it a "useful" improvement. I mean, other than my free community service of trying to get rid of a charlatan.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:42:59
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/ffwqv0x/

One of these days all your downvotes will put me in the negative, I'm sure. Keep trying!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:40:04
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwql06/

> Contrarian has probably contributed nothing. [Not true](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/97t67j/uhigherplane_is_a_serial_banevading_troll/e4bjamt/). What have **you** contributed?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:36:48
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwqe3y/

🤦 How much are you willing to bet that that's true?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:34:28
/r/btc/comments/evknch/john_mcafee_whichever_bitcoin_maximalist_came_up/ffwq7y3/

Who's upvoting this garbage from this idiot?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:32:26
/r/btc/comments/evnhx8/steve_patterson_is_the_author_of_the_whats_the/ffwpqj7/

He also is [an apologist](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9cyi3o/scronty_phil_wilson_is_not_satoshi/e5eyjs9/) for "Scronty" -- the lesser known of the faketoshis. And, what do you know, this sub highly upvoted his nonsense.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:26:34
/r/btc/comments/evbyqk/you_lost_me_memorydealers/ffwph27/

> First of all, I don't believe I've ever actually "harrassed" you, or another other developer, perhaps outside of an occasional meme or something. Let's not confuse harrassment (however you define that) with legimate petitioning of grievances from the users to the developers. Was [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/92dcas/astroturfed_post_about_ucontrarian_being_greg/e351cr3/) a "legitimate petitioning of grievances"?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 29, 2020 09:23:24
/r/btc/comments/ev5tzd/bloxlivetv_some_have_speculated_that_dr_adam_back/ffuim6p/

It's terribly hard to keep track of them all. You'll have to help.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 28, 2020 15:18:51
/r/btc/comments/ev5tzd/bloxlivetv_some_have_speculated_that_dr_adam_back/ffubdio/

I don't know Adam at all. I've never met him nor spoke to him. I'm sorry that your delusions extend so far as to make up scenarios of me being other people.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 28, 2020 14:06:54
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffu133c/

Really, you *really* couldn't tell it was a joke? If so, get help.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 28, 2020 12:23:29
/r/btc/comments/ev5tzd/bloxlivetv_some_have_speculated_that_dr_adam_back/fftzv02/

In fact it was the mention of Satoshi. If you've been paying attention, you'll see that I've talked very little about Mr. Wright in the past six months or so. Good try, though! These feeble attempts at insults are great. Keep them coming!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 28, 2020 12:09:38
/r/btc/comments/ev5tzd/bloxlivetv_some_have_speculated_that_dr_adam_back/ffto66c/

While I agree that Back isn't Satoshi, let's not talk crazy.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 28, 2020 10:30:35
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffs270t/

[Some do](https://twitter.com/cryptocached/with_replies).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 19:28:33
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffryx3j/

Wait. You genuinely think I am at least one of those others? Oh dear.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 18:51:30
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffryews/

Don't you, don't you?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 18:45:43
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffrseuh/

The vanity of a pseudonymous account.... Funny!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 17:39:42
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffrnsvc/

Jeez, that's a pretty mean thing to say about Peter.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 16:51:35
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffrno15/

Or I'm making a joke, killjoy.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 16:50:13
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffrh93v/

But what if the "untrue"-ness of the other accusation was 0%? Wouldn't that imply you *are* him?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 15:46:38
/r/bsv/comments/eusxkv/bsv_idiots_accuse_freetrader_the_guy_who_created/ffrg3e9/

What confusion am I perpetuating?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 27, 2020 15:36:21
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffrg0q3/

> This one is just as untrue Holy shit, /u/nullc just confirmed he's (we're) /u/ftrader!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 15:35:42
/r/bsv/comments/eusxkv/bsv_idiots_accuse_freetrader_the_guy_who_created/ffrfrmc/

> This wasn't clear from my comment? No. One of the hallmarks of crypto is everyone accusing everyone else of being a scammer or agent of disinformation. Also, a big point of this sub is to *point and laugh* at the disinformation attempts. If you don't like that, then I'd find another sub to whine on.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 27, 2020 15:33:26
/r/bsv/comments/eusxkv/bsv_idiots_accuse_freetrader_the_guy_who_created/ffre1qv/

Whose strategy is that?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 27, 2020 15:16:15
/r/bsv/comments/eusxkv/bsv_idiots_accuse_freetrader_the_guy_who_created/ffrbqq0/

We are getting stronger.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 27, 2020 14:52:30
/r/btc/comments/eusero/would_something_like_this_work_miners_that_dont/ffra6y5/

I mean literally this specific conversation, which is almost **entirely** technical. I can assure you that my downvotes are because of who this esteemed sub thinks I am. It doesn't get any less funny as time goes on.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 14:36:46
/r/btc/comments/eusero/would_something_like_this_work_miners_that_dont/ffr9qfa/

No problem. I like how we're both being downvoted in this thread. Maybe people are starting to suspect *you* of being Greg, too.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 14:31:59
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffr98wc/

I'm the leader of the Lulzistance.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 14:26:59
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffr7pis/

> Any suggestions welcome on how I can prove I'm not Greg Maxwell. LOL.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 14:11:03
/r/btc/comments/eusero/would_something_like_this_work_miners_that_dont/ffr7kp9/

Yes, it's doable technically.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 14:09:40
/r/btc/comments/eusero/would_something_like_this_work_miners_that_dont/ffr726a/

Why would it apply to the *next* block? You can't reliably identify miners anyway. A better solution here would be to make it so that a block is valid if it pays a tax *or* (it doesn't pay a tax **and** it meets a 12.5% higher difficulty).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 14:04:18
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffr601a/

What behavior? I'm asking important technical questions that have *real consequences*, and trying to get answers. Do you think it's not important what this BUIP actually does?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 13:53:25
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqwuqc/

Are you speculating, or is this the current "official" BUIP 143 approach? (I don't know if you're a BU member or leader or anything.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 12:17:32
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqvxpr/

I was more interested in whether it would be simply a refusal to add the new code, or whether it would **itself** be a soft-fork. At first I was told it would be the former, but apparently it may be the latter. Either way, it should be open to discussion, right? The two approaches may have very different effects.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 12:07:42
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqvgvt/

Ah, that's a huge difference! Can someone who's not vilified as much as I am make a top-level post clarifying? This seems like pretty critical information.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 12:02:39
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqvcpa/

For technical clarity, this sentence: > I am asking you to vote to disallow any coinbase tax in the Bitcoin Unlimited full node **with the effect of forking from any blockchain that requires such.** should probably be more explicit. This is ([apparently](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqqi9i/)) a proposal to simply **not add the rules** to the node software. **If the tax/fee is imposed by > 50% of miners, BU would still follow that chain.** It (again, apparently) does not guarantee a different chain if the miners go through with the plan.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 12:01:22
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqu9cn/

Sorry, too funny to shut it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:49:35
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqtrc2/

Are you encouraging me to start another 9-year-planned attack on BCH?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:44:11
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqtmuy/

Better me waste my time making comments here rather than orchestrating every single "attack" on BCH, right?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:42:49
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/ffqsld7/

Basically. Unless you give some more detail, it's impossible to discern what you're even **trying** to say.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:31:27
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqsh62/

> this anonymous player also suspected to be Greg Maxwell is behind this BUIP. Oh shit, [I was right!](https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqpi2b/)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:30:09
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/ffqse3u/

Straight from Satoshi: > Even if this is accomplished [51% of miners collude], it does not throw the system open to arbitrary changes... Can you admit that your statement is a giant oversimplification of the actual dynamics?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:29:12
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqrj3e/

LOL, like how you've been "recognizing" /u/Zectro, /u/cryptocached, and others as me? Hell, I've been accused of being /u/Peter__R and Emin Sirer before, too. If there's one thing I'm confident of, this sub is **really bad** at knowing people's real identities.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:19:42
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqqvcv/

I'm probably minorly influential, but I'm probably not who you think I am.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:12:14
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqqqpl/

Thanks. This wording: > with the effect of forking from any blockchain that requires such makes it seem like it goes further than just not adding the code.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:10:47
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqq091/

How's this going to work technically? Is this just a proposal to not add the additional rules, or is it going to try to actively go against the scheme (not that there's even necessarily a sound technical way to do so)?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 11:02:32
/r/btc/comments/eup7vp/bitcoin_unlimiteds_buip_143_refuse_the_coinbase/ffqpi2b/

Let me guess, somehow "I" am behind this?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 10:56:52
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/ffqgxy1/

> If they represent 51% hash rate they decide the rules. This is so oversimplified as to be meaningless. It's not even true **at all** on ABC any longer.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 27, 2020 09:11:21
/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffljpka/

> Unrelated If the issue of “forcing” is the topic, having the majority of users, exchanges, and businesses enforcing the new rules seems pretty relevant to me. > If a miner build a block invalid under segwit rules but valid under old consensus rule set, the block will be orphaned or “censored” according to the new narrative. Obviously, but no miner is forced to include any specific transactions or outputs with SegWit if they don’t want to, and still participate. Not true here.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 26, 2020 07:06:40
/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffjv6oy/

No, SegWit was also enforced by businesses, exchanges, and users running full nodes.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 22:04:05
/r/bsv/comments/etye3f/mr_word_aka_gavin_wood_doxxed_himself_as_a/ffjncdb/

No goalpost moving needed. You were incorrect in the blog post, and you're misleading here (and wrong, too, for that matter!). Good try, though!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 25, 2020 20:30:35
/r/bsv/comments/etye3f/mr_word_aka_gavin_wood_doxxed_himself_as_a/ffjmc3f/

> Bitcoin script and EVM can both technically only compute finite circuits given their respective limits. More misleading wording. > I'm sure the audience will think you won too. And they’d be correct, too, since you’re being a disingenuous apologist for a shitcoin, and members of this sub are well accustomed to your ilk. Worse, you may even know better (but that’s yet to be proven).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 25, 2020 20:19:18
/r/bsv/comments/etye3f/mr_word_aka_gavin_wood_doxxed_himself_as_a/ffjl241/

> But they're wrong in a different way from the ETH folks. Well, you must be wrong in an entirely different way, because you suggested that Bitcoin's TX size limit was the same as Ethereum's gas in terms of its Turing-complete-inhibiting-properties. That's some bullshit, too. Limitless block sizes would not grant Bitcoin Turing completeness. > Looks like you and /u/cryptorebel have more in common than I would have guessed! Well, we are both not Greg, so that's one thing. However, I'm not 100% certain about him, as he could just be **deep** cover.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 25, 2020 20:04:47
/r/bsv/comments/etye3f/mr_word_aka_gavin_wood_doxxed_himself_as_a/ffjjxjk/

> if we're calling functions with gas limits turing-complete Who’s we? > Like I said at the beginning of that post, "turing-complete" has outlived its allowance as a layman's catch-all to mean "programmable". It still retains its technical meaning. BSV galaxy brains just try to make apologia around it so their shaman is “right”. Well done. Also, you keep calling me by the wrong name, but that’s more amusing than your technical bullshittery.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 25, 2020 19:51:58
/r/bsv/comments/etye3f/mr_word_aka_gavin_wood_doxxed_himself_as_a/ffjgwly/

Not sure who he actually is, but he’s spreading nonsense: > Conversely, Bitcoin Script can reasonably be called turing complete if you consider transaction size as a cost resource metric like gas. /u/-mr-word-, please stop.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 25, 2020 19:19:52
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/ffi9ibk/

It’s pretty obvious what I mean — a soft fork only enforced by the miners. That is, the new rules are not part of the node software. Do you think that’s not a distinction worth making?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 25, 2020 11:08:54
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/ffh0ecn/

I’m not saying that people are wrong to expect the money supply to stay the same. I’m just trying to see where your line is for things that are “promises” versus things that can be changed, so that it’s less ad hoc.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 21:35:54
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/ffgoore/

I mean, it's literally in the same [sentence](https://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg10142.html) where Satoshi announced the 21 million limit: > Total circulation will be 21,000,000 coins. **It’ll be distributed to network nodes when they make blocks** I don't see the part where it says it will be distributed to a Hong Kong corporation. Sarcasm aside, can you enumerate all the "promises" made?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 19:13:16
/r/btc/comments/etcugj/maybe_adding_more_funding_addresses_can_be_an/ffgagr6/

I never said it wasn’t.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 16:39:12
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/ffg700u/

> All of us bought bitcoin with the assumption that the scarcity was set in stone. Couldn't you argue that all of us also bought bitcoin with the assumption that miners wouldn't be forced to give up 12.5% of their rewards every block and send it to a corporation? > and "this mechanism" implies scarcity (else the scheme would be pointless) Huh?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 16:03:33
/r/btc/comments/etfz2n/miners_plan_to_fund_devs_mega_thread/ffg62dp/

So your new position is that it's okay if miners force a soft-fork only if users aren't complaining about it? Weren't lots of users complaining about devs not being properly compensated, and now miners are making a "decision" about it? How is this different?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 15:53:55
/r/btc/comments/etcugj/maybe_adding_more_funding_addresses_can_be_an/ffg4gzm/

> So you are saying there is no way to "resign" from taking a part of block reward and send it/postpone it to next block so next miner gets it? I described a method that would do something effectively similar but not exactly what you want [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/etcugj/maybe_adding_more_funding_addresses_can_be_an/ffg0fxa/). You'd just make whatever part of the reward you want to give up an "anyone-can-spend" output. Theoretically, even users would be able to claim it, but in practice, only miners would take it. But like I said there, I'm not sure what that would accomplish. If I'm a miner doing this and mine five blocks in a row, I'd just be paying myself the same fee over and over before finally letting another miner take it. So I'd get the full reward for 4 of the 5 blocks.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 15:37:42
/r/btc/comments/etcugj/maybe_adding_more_funding_addresses_can_be_an/ffg26z5/

Well, my name isn't Greg, and I don't hate you. But I do disagree that I try to derail conversations. Typically, I make a comment, then some galaxy-brain makes an unrelated comment about me being Greg and how that's an awful thing. Review this conversation and you'll probably find something familiar. Keep in mind this pattern happened even when I was trying to rid this community of a charlatan -- an apparently thankless community service.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 15:14:13
/r/btc/comments/etcugj/maybe_adding_more_funding_addresses_can_be_an/ffg0fxa/

They can effectively (but not exactly) do that by making an (actual) anyone-can-spend output.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 14:56:15
/r/btc/comments/etcugj/maybe_adding_more_funding_addresses_can_be_an/ffg08a8/

1. How does asking for clarification make me a "conversation derailer"? 2. Aren't you doing just that by changing the subject now? Let's try to get back on track. Can you follow their idea?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 14:54:06
/r/btc/comments/etcugj/maybe_adding_more_funding_addresses_can_be_an/ffg00p5/

The miner fee goes to the miner of the current block. The miner would be donating to itself. If they passed on claiming that reward, it would be equivalent to burning it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 14:51:56
/r/btc/comments/etcugj/maybe_adding_more_funding_addresses_can_be_an/fffpzaa/

> How about sending a transaction of 1 satoshi with a TX fee of (12.5% the block reward - 1 sat) instead? I'm not following this idea. Can you clarify?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 13:07:58
/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/fff0wp5/

Victim? Oh, boy... you haven’t understood anything, have you? Please keep it coming.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 08:30:17
/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffex65h/

Truly the gift that keeps on giving.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 07:31:52
/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffex22i/

I’m not even sure what you’re trying to say.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 07:29:57
/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffevcv3/

Lol. Using a derogatory nickname, calling me someone I’m not, and trying to impugn my motivation when I wrote an almost entirely factual comment is undeniably ad hominem. Of course, it doesn’t *bother* me. It’s par for the course around here. I’d stop commenting if it bothered me. If anything, it’s amusing.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 24, 2020 06:59:00
/r/btc/comments/esqjqf/development_needs_a_financial_incentive_satoshi/ffcnic3/

Probably Greg. The account is 7 years old, so that's consistent with his normal MO.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 13:13:39
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/ffcbr1l/

Here's the bottom line: In regular Nakamoto Consensus (or NC with Satoshi's checkpoints), a "miner led" softfork like the one in question would either: * Do nothing (ie - a few miners would split off and *nobody* would follow them unless they purposely tried to bake that soft-fork rule into their software, in which case it wouldn't really be a 'miner led' softfork any longer.) * Take the entire community with it **In either case, effectively the entire community remains in sync.** On the other hand, in Sechet Consensus (automated shallow-depth checkpoints), a "miner led" softfork like the one in question could split the *entire community* permanently by Mark's description. That's why his point was that it should either not happen *or* the rules should be baked into the node software. (This isn't necessary in NC.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 11:13:38
/r/btc/comments/esqjqf/development_needs_a_financial_incentive_satoshi/ffc7gnc/

Well, sure, I don't know if you'll still be alive by the time you get this message, so I'm *speculating* that you are alive (and thus worthy of a response). Some "speculation" is better than others. There's not a bright line, but I'd personally put the probability that Satoshi can control those addresses at above the level of mere speculation.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 10:28:14
/r/btc/comments/esqjqf/development_needs_a_financial_incentive_satoshi/ffc731m/

> I'm not saying Satoshi isn't likely to control any early addresses. Of course he is. I'm saying nobody knows what form this takes. So you're saying the "speculation" part is that he's alive and *could* move the coins he mined? What would prevent him if he's alive? Some kind of bizarre trust setup or something? ;)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 10:24:10
/r/btc/comments/esqjqf/development_needs_a_financial_incentive_satoshi/ffc62kd/

> Why does everyone assume they know so much about Satoshi? First, the addresses believed under his control are speculation. Nobody knows who the early addresses belong to. It's **much** more than mere speculation. > Second, there is nothing saying Satoshi left the ecosystem entirely. He could have stayed on mining and/or amassing coins while remaining quiet in terms of official "Satoshi" accounts/leadership. True. However, **this** is an excellent example of "mere speculation".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 10:13:02
/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffc1gn8/

I love the smell of ad hominem in the morning. It smells like victory.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 09:18:48
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/ffc124g/

> I disagree with that. I think it would be insane to describe me mining a soft-fork offshoot from block 1 a “chainsplit” (in the usual sense) if nobody follows me, but you’re free to call it what you’d like. However, even you must admit there’s a fundamental difference between that and what would happen with the ABC checkpoints: a permanent split of the user base and “coin” itself. Users, businesses, exchanges, and miners would all be affected. (In my scenario, nobody except the rogue miners would be directly affected.)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 09:13:41
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/ffbzu8v/

> So a split is not a split? If I (and a couple friends) mine an alternate chain starting at block 1 and no users follow us, is that a “chain split”? Of course not. A “chain split” that affects no users isn’t really a chain split. > Have different consequences doesn’t mean the cause is « fundamentally different ». An entirely new class of problems occur with the automated checkpoints versus the manual Satoshi checkpoints. If you agree with that, that’s fine, even if you don’t want to admit it makes them fundamentally different.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 08:57:52
/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffbz91d/

> Satoshi hasn't spent a cent. He now has control over $8 billion. He hasn't spent a cent. *Since mid-2010. That we know of. He may have mined blocks other than the “Patoshi set”. Otherwise, I agree.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 08:50:10
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/ffby6bb/

> Miner led soft fork led to split if they are not supported by majority hash power just the same. You'll have to explain in more detail how a chainsplit would occur in this case if it weren't for the automated checkpoints. (Note that a handful of only mining nodes splitting off on their own wouldn't be a "chainsplit".) > We seem to be stuck on a semantic loop here. It's indeed difficult to define things like "fundamentally different", but when an **entirely new class of problems** that only affect one version is created, then I'd argue that's good reason to call something "fundamentally different". For instance, Proof of Stake tries to accomplish the same things as PoW, but has trade-offs and its own problems. Few would hesitate to call it fundamentally different. Same here.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 08:35:23
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/ffbv2bd/

> Going through a soft fork with minority hash rate can lead to permanent split, two chain with incompatible rules. Not in this case, since, as I said, it’s “miner led” and not a consensus rule built in to nodes. Let’s focus on this case.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 07:48:57
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/ffbsjto/

> NC doesn’t quite work for soft fork on a minority chain. > Checkpoint or not. There’d be problems, but this ‘miner-led’ one wouldn’t lead to a permanent chain split, which is one of the goals of NC. This is an excellent example of how Sechet consensus is fundamentally different from Nakamoto Consensus.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 23, 2020 07:05:35
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/ffawrw1/

> ABC checkpoint had no practical effect so far. I think [it’s about to be put to the test](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/esebco/infrastructure_funding_plan_for_bitcoin_cash_by/ffapqej/)... Yet another problem that Nakamoto Consensus would not have.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 22, 2020 21:24:55
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff77bx8/

> If you're not him, but you teamed up for a stupid ruse for your entertainment "Obama, if you're not from Kenya, you made a stupid joke for your entertainment." Waaaah!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 16:35:51
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff6b0kv/

Fair enough, but calling someone a "psychopath" for, eg., getting entertainment out of watching flat earthers try to justify their beliefs is going a bit far. I'd say it's not an uncommon sentiment. And it's only funny because you, Faketoshi believers, and flat earthers *all have the evidence available to you*, but nevertheless choose to keep your unjustified beliefs. The contortions and excuses are the funny part. Again, it's a bit silly to get all worked up about the identity of a pseudonymous account who doesn't make any claims of grandiosity (or any specific identity, for that matter). I **could** go to extraordinary lengths to try to convince you, but it would likely involve doxxing myself, which I have no interest in doing. Even if I did, it would accomplish nothing, as you've already indicated. "[I]f they're not the same person, it's bad. No way around this." I think that conclusion is silly, obviously, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 11:14:12
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff6607d/

Can you honestly say you get no entertainment from those who believe in Faketoshi?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 10:19:26
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff5siyc/

> You're a psychopath. Yeah, a pseudonymous user who doesn’t care if someone gets their identity wrong is **obviously** a psychopath, because this is some truly important shit. > I'll go with Occam. Occam would laugh in your face if you think me being Greg requires fewer and simpler assumptions.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 21, 2020 07:09:51
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff4txc0/

It was a tough conversation. They were distressed to know that I was not actually their child, but I think they’ve finally come to terms with it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 20, 2020 21:06:04
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff4kiai/

No, I don't really care what you believe, as it's much more entertaining this way. That said, if you think it's more believable that I assiduously maintained a separate account with totally different voices, spellings, grammar, post time distribution, opinions, etc. for nine years only to screw it up in the most amateur way possible and then *make it worse* by deleting my comment despite knowing full well that services like redditsearch.io archive comments, rather than it being a joke after being maligned for years, then that's your prerogative.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 20, 2020 19:16:57
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff4jsm8/

Our accounts are about the same age, so, given this sub's logic, probably.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 20, 2020 19:08:41
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff48swm/

I mean, can't you use that comic for any practical joke if you're trying to apply it here? You don't think it's even *a bit funny* after all the abuse, epithets, and false accusations directed toward us? Did you send that comic [to Obama](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/reliable-source/wp/2017/11/01/obama-jokes-he-was-born-in-kenya/)?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 20, 2020 17:07:17
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff3uu3o/

> if they're not the same person, it's bad Oh, come on. Have you no sense of humor? This has been *incredibly* entertaining.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 20, 2020 14:42:19
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff3ulfh/

So your confidence that I'm Greg is that high, eh?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 20, 2020 14:39:49
/r/btc/comments/erb5nc/til_stopanddecrypt_is_greg_maxwell_aka_nullc/ff3uf9o/

Goddamn, this is the joke that just keeps on giving.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 20, 2020 14:38:01
/r/btc/comments/er3tfa/time_for_p2p_redditbch_sidechain_satoshi_2010_if/ff15a2c/

But what about Metanet?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 19, 2020 18:09:19
/r/bsv/comments/eihvbv/remaining_issues_with_btc_replay_onto_bsv_chain/fexzng3/

They’ve delayed the replay capability indefinitely, but if it returns unpatched, there are over 6,000 BSV at risk of being stolen by any miner (as of this writing). Users can’t do it alone, since the “all standardness rules are removed” was just another lie. “Clean stack” is still a standardness rule (some others remain, too).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on January 19, 2020 08:00:33
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fedu829/

> Resolving a consensus bug is never easy, but if the split come from the checkpoint, that’s the only solution. > If the consensus bug come from something else removing the checkpoint would probably be necessary too. So the solution to a split is to remove the checkpoint.... Why even include it in the first place, then? And who decides that? What if the minority hashrate protected by the checkpoints doesn't want to give up their blocks? This isn't Nakamoto Consensus. > Both use checkpoint deeper than normal block variance. Same fundamentals. As I mentioned in my first response, comparing ABC's checkpoints with what Satoshi did is utterly wrong. You even admitted that sliding the scale down makes an enormous difference, so why won't you admit that there's an enormous difference between an automatic rolling checkpoint that can split within **minutes** to a **manually set** checkpoint set **hundreds of blocks back**? It's not even close. Pretending they're "fundamentally" the same is incredibly disingenuous. > Both the chain never come close to chain, so in practice 10 or 1000 blocks made no difference. Wrong. Satoshi's checkpoints wouldn't have issues with the **natural** problems I mentioned, like outages. > Do you have a rigorous definition for those term? I mentioned a decent one before. Syncing state based *solely* on accumulated proof of work. Of course, even Satoshi's checkpoints violated that "pure" definition, but not in any way that has a practical effect, unlike ABC's. I forgot to mention, these automated checkpoints utterly break SPV nodes, too, in the case of a split. SPV nodes are meant to follow nodes solely on Nakamoto Consensus, but in the event of a split, they'll follow the larger PoW chain.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 14, 2020 11:39:54
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fdqcgxq/

> In effect it has been. Thus far, which is like saying, "I leave my door unlocked and in effect it's the same as it being locked since I haven't been robbed yet." > 10 blocks is far beyond block variance.. I doubt even a three block re-org ever happened on BCH (or BTC for that matter) outside consensus bugs. Again, just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't, especially since BCH is very different from BTC in that it's a tiny minority chain, and experiences strange things like huge hashrate oscillations. > What kind of non-attack scenario? > Besides consensus bug I cannot see any. Many things. * A fiber cut (accidental or for another purpose) * A large geographic outage * Problems with the great firewall of China * Non consensus bugs that only affect certain clients This last potential issue deserves more discussion. There could be a problem with the P2P portion, or something that takes certain nodes down. Worse, as far as I can tell, **Bitcoin Unlimited doesn't even implement the rolling checkpoints**, so any late-released hash would **automatically** split the network. That could happen by accident, too, just from a bumbling miner (cough, Ayre...) > And software/patch release to fix it can easily get rid of the checkpoint to allow consensus recovery. And you just assume it'll be resolved easily. This is far from guaranteed, especially if it's split US/China. > And Sechet consensus would have the same fundamentals characteristics as NC. Fully disagree. > Checkpoint deeper than « natural » block production fork Network problems are "natural" and ways to address them *should* be built in to the protocol. Sechet Consensus does not have those safeguards. > Not that I think it is any productive to dogmatic about a mystical, ill defined You're only pretending that it's "mystical".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 10, 2020 08:28:52
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fdhvrr4/

> I think it is fair to say such tweaking would lead to a consensus mechanism that nobody would describe as NC. I'm not sure you can describe BCH's system as NC *right now*, considering a network interruption for **an hour or less** could permanently fork the network! That could absolutely happen even in non-attack scenarios. > I think it likely the ABC team have binary with checkpoint deactivated, ready to be realized in case the network encounter such event. Maybe we should call this "Sechet Consensus", then ;)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 7, 2020 16:03:51
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fddxv82/

> Clearly it is part of nakamoto consensus for a miner to refuse to work on the last found block (therefore rejecting the longest chain) for whatever reason they see fit. > > As I see it Nakamoto consensus is PoW + miner vote on what is a valid block, therefore valid chain + some tweaking (those checkpoint) Sure, but that "tweaking" could potentially include *anything*, including a list of "approved" miners, blocks produced by those who have a lot of stake, etc. Obviously, that would be against the spirit of the system. As you hinted at, checkpoints aren't quite the same as normal validity rules that I think the whitepaper actually is referring to in your quoted text, though I disagree that the checkpoints aren't "consensus rules". They are rules that have an effect on the consensus chain, so they are obviously "consensus rules" in that sense. It's not particularly important how they're classified, anyway (hardfork, softfork, or something else), as ABC can still get rid of them in the future. Also, I mentioned that Nakamoto Consensus could be thought of as a continuum, with only pure PoW on one end, and something other than PoW on the other. Regardless of whether BTC has checkpoints (it's debatable), it's clearly more toward one end of the continuum than BCH is, which is my entire point. You gave an example of why it's true: > The problem will be if BCH experience a consensus bug, then longer than 10 blocks reorg are possible and the chain will not be able to resolve the resulted split. > That’s a real risk and would have catastrophic results.. Nakamoto Consensus is **explicitly designed** to avoid this, as I showed in all my previous quotes from the whitepaper! > IMO it is not clear if the BCH chain is more secure with the 10 block rolling checkpoint and I think it would have been better to let nchain, CSW or whoever wanted to re-org BCH. We agree! > Somewhat ironic when BCH/BSV miners engaged in a pointless hash war that also lead them to massive loss. We agree again. > So if you want my opinion, I think implementing rolling checkpoint was a missed opportunity to show everyone that reorg are not that scary (to users).. And again! > A thousand block deep reorg would have not done much against the threats BCH got at the time. I agree, but my point also is that I think they don't have any significant effect on security, as it's more theater than actual security.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 6, 2020 11:03:42
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcxusq4/

> Care to define nakamoto consensus? The ability for distributed machines to come to consensus on the state of a ledger based on accumulated proof of work. Here are the important parts of the white paper: > nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone .. > The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed ... > The majority decision is represented by the longest chain, which has the greatest proof-of-work effort invested in it. ... > To modify a past block, an attacker would have to redo the proof-of-work of the block and all blocks after it and then catch up with and surpass the work of the honest nodes. ... > **Nodes always consider the longest chain to be the correct one and will keep working on extending it**. If two nodes broadcast different versions of the next block simultaneously, some nodes may receive one or the other first. In that case, they work on the first one they received, but save the other branch in case it becomes longer. The tie will be broken when the next proof of-work is found and one branch becomes longer; the nodes that were working on the other branch will then switch to the longer one While all are important, the last part (and especially the bolded part) represents Nakamoto Consensus. > Personally I define Nakamoto consensus by the white paper and Satoshi implementation. Which "Satoshi implementation"? For the entire first year, there were no checkpoints. Then he started releasing the software with **manual** checkpoints that were set back **well in the past** and were **not contentious**. > Satoshi used checkpoint so Nakamoto consensus was never pure-PoW. Again, it **was** pure PoW for a long time, and is basically back to pure PoW now. Checkpoints in Bitcoin (IIRC) have been removed. There was no security benefit to them. It's just theater. > Correct, the network would be unable to find consensus on a single chain after such event. Yes, which is not particularly long at all. Bitcoin was not meant to be so fragile, and was built *specifically* to survive such events. I think you're trying to draw a comparison between the checkpoints Satoshi introduced and the *automated rolling checkpoints* that ABC implemented. There are huge and significant differences. Most important is the manual nature of the previous checkpoints. They were set well in the past and a human examined them to make sure that there weren't any problems (like significant hashrate changes, competing blocks, etc.) before making it a checkpoint. The *automated* nature combined with the short window of time sets ABC's checkpoints well apart from Satoshi's. If there's a sliding scale of Nakamoto Consensus, then Bitcoin is currently on one end (pure Nakamoto Consensus), Satoshi's manual checkpoints are close to that, and ABC's automated 10-block-or-less checkpoints are pretty far from either of the them. Personally, I'd have much less of a problem if the rolling window was set to something like 1000 blocks, though I still think it's just security theater.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 3, 2020 11:58:45
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcvo4j3/

Nothing except that we’re best friends again.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 18:05:05
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcvk6gy/

I strongly disagree with points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. The others are more opinions (and funny), so they’re more difficult to disprove. Six is only possibly true because of the joke, which makes sense. I had fairly good rapport with almost all major BCH people before that.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 17:24:01
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcvjunb/

Ok, can we both agree now that it’s (in hindsight) clear that it wasn’t what I was talking about, and I’ll take *some* blame for not explicitly specifying ‘checkpoint implemented immediately after the fork’ in that comment?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 17:20:34
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcvddqn/

There’s the pivot I’ve been waiting for!! You’re adorably [predictable](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/dqpbr3/has_anyone_kept_track_of_the_lowestfee/f696b87/). > Fuck, you had to defend yourself from being him by bringing up phone differences (iOS vs Android) and culinary choices (you’re a vegetarian). Lol! I’m just having fun. I really don’t care at all if you think I’m Greg. Edit: What happened to all your nice "take me to dinner" talk?! What a tease.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 16:15:49
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcuxn82/

> but most peoples define nakamoto consensus by proof of work so no. And the 10-block rolling checkpoints are a step away from that. If a portion of the network were partitioned for an hour or two, and eventually rejoined, proof-of-work no longer serves to determine the "valid" chain. With the PoW penalty, it could even be less than that. As I asked someone else, what if the rolling checkpoint was set to 5 blocks? 2?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 13:43:03
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcumlwt/

You are welcome. Now that I've answered your question, would you either explain why you asked it, or answer my question (the one before you said "it seems" I didn't know how the rolling checkpoints were implemented) (or both)? > So if BCH moves to pure proof of stake, for instance, would it still, after the change, be using Nakamoto consensus?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 11:57:31
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcuhpim/

> Nothing to see here, this is just totally normal hashrate fluctuation lol /s LOL, are you trying to be dense? I've answered your questions and provided evidence. Let's leave the conversation as is. I'm happy with how everyone can see how much of a liar and gaslighter you are. Cheers!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 11:07:03
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcuggp7/

> since as you admit you haven't agreed with his Jessquit's Satoshi's Shotgun theory I hadn't even looked at it, since, again, the focus of the hidden hashrate discussion has **always** been on the 16th. A brief [check](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yimel/it_appears_the_bsv_chain_is_currently_being/) does back up his assertion, though. They had a high orphan rate during that time, which would comport with a bungled stress test (Satoshi's Shotgun). The timing is perfect. Technical incompetence explains this far better than actual malice. Further, the code for the rolling checkpoints appears to have been available no later than the morning of [November 18th](https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/commit/917d65774c40c6bfad500a660e581c8ea5e20df0), which is before the "dip" even started. > Try harder gaslighter. Sorry, the world now knows you're just projecting. I await your apology.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 10:52:56
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcudx42/

> You're unwilling to discuss why you think the hashrate dipped in the 19th Holy shit... > However, if you'd like to talk about the 19th, then feel free. Jessquit seems convinced that it was because of "Satoshi's Shotgun", but I haven't looked into the matter, as (again!) the "hidden hashrate" discussion was about the 16th. If you'd like, I can take a look. > Okay, gaslighter. This is the finest example of projection I've ever seen. Congratulations, asshole.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 10:24:33
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcudc5k/

> I don't care about /u/jessquit Well, it should be pretty relevant, considering **I was talking to him when I made the comment**. > Why are you ignoring a dip in 80% hashrate and what your explanation is for a major drop in hashrate like that. For the twentieth(?) time, the discussion around the "hidden hash" was around the fork date and immediately after. Stop lying and pretending I'm "ignoring" it for some nefarious reason. I literally admitted that it was a big dip nine months ago, but that **it apparently wasn't relevant to the discussion, considering Amaury's comments**. You keep ignoring that. However, if you'd like to talk about the 19th, then feel free. Jessquit seems convinced that it was because of "Satoshi's Shotgun", but I haven't looked into the matter, as (again!) the "hidden hashrate" discussion was about the 16th. If you'd like, I can take a look.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 10:18:16
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcucciv/

> and you said nothing about the 19th dip in hash. Why would I? Jessquit already conceded that it was [unrelated to the "hidden hash" in the **very comment he posted**](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/az8bio/_/eia7e6b/). > the big dip around the 19th corresponds to the time when BSV had to pretty much stop mining altogether to allow the "Satoshi's Shotgun" time to reload And the 19th isn't even included in the second graph I provided. Again, I already [admitted](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/az8bio/_/eia4z4w/) that the 19th was a big dip in that same thread! This is not hard to follow, but you're desperately trying to paint me as lying or misleading, when you're actively doing that right now.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 10:07:38
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcuapk2/

Sure. [There was no significant hashrate change on the day of the split or after the single checkpoint change, correct?](https://imgur.com/a/nleUaYR). [The focus of the "hidden hashrate" was on the day of the split (and maybe the following day), correct?](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/az8bio/_/eia4z4w/) (Look at the dates of the discussion with Amaury.) [There may have been a significant change a few days later, but it was widely agreed that this was unrelated to the "rolling checkpoints", correct?](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/az8bio/_/eia7e6b/). A certain /u/jessquit said: "the big dip around the 19th corresponds to the time when BSV had to pretty much stop mining altogether to allow the "Satoshi's Shotgun" time to reload".

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 09:49:41
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcua1y6/

> Amaury also said CSW was a threat and you claim they were not. Yes, and I think he's wrong, and I showed why [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/az8bio/_/eia9nsi/). Eventually /u/jessquit even seemed to concede I was correct. ("Let's say you've convinced me. The crazy guy with the gun didn't have any bullets. OK. So?") > Then when shown a clear 80% dip in hashrate you say you didn't see it Talk about gaslighting! Again, I was referring to the **day of the split**, and so was /u/jessquit at the time I made the graph (look at his comment for proof!), so of course I'm not going to "see" an 80% dip **several days later**, since it wasn't part of the data in question. You keep insisting that I was talking about the 19th, when I never stated or implied that. Please stop lying about it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 09:41:58
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcu9lra/

I know we've been here before. Let's try to agree on some facts, then, okay? * There was no significant hashrate change on the day of the split or after the **single checkpoint** change, correct? * The focus of the "hidden hashrate" was on the day of the split (and maybe the following day), correct? * There may have been a significant change a few days later, but it was widely agreed that this was unrelated to the "rolling checkpoints", correct? > I think your motives in this stink to high heaven, Greg. Sorry, wrong person.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 09:36:39
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcu90xa/

You are such a liar; it's getting hilarious. > A checkpoint is created with every BCH hardfork. Was it an official policy? Was it announced well ahead of time? Did it apply to a block really far back in the chain? Further, Amaury himself said the checkpoint introduced right after the fork was what thwarted the "hidden hashrate"! This is the entire reason behind the discussion, and you're pretending that this isn't the case. Worse, you're ignoring all the facts. > You kept implying this was something new Where did I imply that it was "something new"? Just another lie... > when Satoshi did this These are hilariously misleading. Satoshi's checkpoints were added hundreds of blocks back, and he had this to say: > The block chain was a clean straight line without branches, and there was only one known version of the locked block. Moreover, that wasn't during a "hard fork". The situations are significantly different, and pretending otherwise is just misleading. Want more evidence of lies and gaslighting? Here you go: you quote me as saying "I don't see any hashrate dip between the start of the hashwar and until checkpoints were introduced." I never said that, and you just added the "checkpoint**s**" part. My actual sentence was, "There was not a significant change in BSV hashrate before or after the fork or the checkpoint announcement, which one would expect if they reassigned hash back to their own chain." **The checkpoint**, not "auto-checkpoint**s**", as I called them [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fckx528/).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 09:30:30
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcu6hee/

Thank you for proving the exact opposite — namely, that **you** are a liar and are totally misrepresenting what I wrote. > I made it perfectly clear that I was referring to the time right before the fork and shortly after, **when a checkpoint was announced and released 15 minutes after the fork block**. This is the time everyone has been referring to when they make accusations of "hidden hashrate" that Calvin had. I was referring to the first checkpoint, not the rolling checkpoints. Everyone involved in the conversation knew that **that** hashrate dip was caused by something else. You are a liar.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 09:01:53
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcu4u2c/

I'm not asking for trust. However, if you would like to show that I'm a liar, start by showing the lies.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 08:42:58
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fctyv8w/

> No, I am a shill researcher I suggest a new job, because you’re [terrible at this one](https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/do6rpf/calls_everyone_else_a_liar_and_scammer_with_no/f5kiklz/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=btc&utm_content=t1_fct07le). At least have the decency to apologize.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 2, 2020 06:58:38
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fct7ikl/

I think this is the comment I was recalling. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/9yy7e6/bitcoin_abc_0185_has_been_released_this_release/ea5eaow/

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 22:15:28
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fct2onc/

How the rolling checkpoints were "implemented"? Do you mean how it ended up being in the ABC software? From what I understand, it was not publicly discussed much (if at all) before it was released as a radical new consensus rule. Is that what you mean? Maybe you have some insight there? Or do you mean how it works on a technical level? I am more familiar with that, but I haven't gone through it line-by-line. Off the top of my head it allows re-orgs "for free" up to a certain depth (3?), but assigns a "PoW" penalty for deeper ones, up to 10, which is the max.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 21:15:07
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fct2590/

Indeed, when I say “in my opinion”, it typically means it’s my opinion. Thank you for confirming it.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 21:08:33
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fct0v7t/

> It is possible (as observed by multiple people here) I mean, pretty much anything's literally possible, and "multiple people here" "observed" a charlatan to be Satoshi, so this is a worthless statement... > I know that you are a shill and the same set of people uses these accounts. What exactly are you accusing me of? Do you think any of the following: 1. I'm being paid (or have ever been paid) to comment or "drive a narrative" 2. Anyone else besides a single person controls this account 3. That person is Greg Maxwell If so, I'm afraid you're wrong. Would you mind apologizing for calling that user a "CSW shill", since you were just lying about it?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 20:52:58
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fct0brl/

I thought maybe those who made the decision were in possession of facts not available to the public. The facts available to the public did not seem to warrant such drastic action in my opinion.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 20:46:24
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fct07le/

> Hello Gregory Maxwell Off to a bad start. > I never do that without enough analysis. So, to be clear, you are **100% certain** that I'm Greg Maxwell? Would you like to wager money on that? If you're indeed that confident, then I'd expect you'd even offer excellent odds. Note, also, that you were completely wrong [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/do6rpf/calls_everyone_else_a_liar_and_scammer_with_no/f5kiklz/), so your track record is pretty bad. Dunning and Kruger would like a word.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 20:45:01
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcszrov/

You asked how the re-org was implemented, which doesn't make sense, since there was no re-org I'm aware of. My suspicion was that you meant the rolling checkpoint, and that you were trying to say that *that* was implemented using Nakamoto consensus, which doesn't address anything, hence my follow-up question. If you'd like to reword your question to make it comprehensible, feel free to do so.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 20:39:56
/r/btc/comments/eipd1y/hayden_otto_inadvertently_publishes_irrefutable/fcsx7pm/

> Are you absolutely sure what you have is the truth at the moment even without looking at the evidence? LOL, that's never stopped you.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 20:09:52
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcrpt7g/

I've never written a single line of code for BTC, nor have I ever worked for a Bitcoin-related entity. Sorry. You have me confused for someone else.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on January 1, 2020 13:56:38
/r/bsv/comments/ei9ad0/in_response_to_csws_sudden_aboutface_on_the_tulip/fcoutp7/

How much are we talking?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 20:29:26
/r/bsv/comments/e3p3iv/im_curious_would_anyone_bullish_about_bsv_be/fcoulx3/

This is some grade-A, ultra fine, deluxe projection.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 20:26:36
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcosa6r/

That’s not what I asked. I asked that *you* explain exactly what happened and **why** it proves that I’m Greg.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 19:56:28
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcohgan/

Can you go into detail about **exactly** how I was “busted”, please? Did it seem like the steps I’d take if I were truly “caught”?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 17:45:16
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcod1o6/

If that’s truly a concern, then perhaps the best thing to do would have been to stay quiet.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 16:54:17
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcoatky/

> I only weighed in on Scronty because, very strangely, that is a name I actually happen to know one tiny thing about, having crossed paths with it long before Bitcoin came about. So I shared my experience. Sue me. I'd think that this would be the time when you'd be **especially careful** in making statements about the person and thoroughly check their claims before commenting. > He's gotta be hurting someone before I'll care about his story, fanfic or not. As I mentioned in [another comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fco2wfr/?context=3), he's already doing that by reinforcing the fraud-in-chief's claims (despite their contradictory nature).

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 16:28:39
/r/bsv/comments/ei2udw/ln_is_the_worst_invention_ever/fco6fn7/

I did, and couldn't find any that are as off-topic as this post.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 15:42:51
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fco6bxu/

The worst parts are these: (This is the very worst) > It's a good story, even plausible considering the source .. > but who knows .. > Scronty's story is very well documented, and does jive with Craig's version

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 15:41:54
/r/bsv/comments/ei7vub/platinum_and_trusted_member_of_rbtc_ujessquit/fco5rle/

[Offending post](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/c9l6o8/big_segment_on_bitcoin_cash_on_swiss_national/et1wg8t/), apparently.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 15:36:49
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fco3vq5/

I do remember that you started it, but I just want to make sure it was genuine and legitimate.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 15:19:43
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fco3srh/

> No, he should be called out, I'm just not convinced he has it in him to be as destructive a force Fair enough. I do get more "mental illness" vibes from him than "scam" vibes, but fraud is fraud.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 15:18:58
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fco3d8o/

I'm not trying to "trigger" him just to get him angry. If you weren't actually swayed by his giving Scronty credibility, please admit it. I don't want to be using disingenuous statements as evidence that he's harming the community.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 15:15:08
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fco2wfr/

Though I generally agree that Scronty is currently much more harmless, there are two objections I'd raise. First is that he's **currently** more harmless. Should we wait until he starts his own chain before looking at obvious fraud and saying it's obvious fraud? Second, and perhaps more importantly, his story, if nothing else, gives additional credibility to the current fraudster-in-chief (despite the fact that it paints him in a bad light and is contradictory). I don't know how serious or in-good-faith [this post is](https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/ei7vub/platinum_and_trusted_member_of_rbtc_ujessquit/), but it may be relevant to my second point.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 15:10:54
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcnx913/

> I don't see him in here trying to hammer away on his pet issues LIKE SOME PEOPLE. Yeah, that turned out to be a bad idea, huh? Oh, wait... > Well, isn't it? He wrote a fucking novel, didn't he? "Documented" at least suggests some citations or contemporaneous evidence. Maybe you mean "detailed" or something like that? Even then, he admits he filled in the details and may have "gotten it wrong" in some places. > Well, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. There are many inconsistencies. > I also happen to know this missive you've dragged up is the most "damning" endorsement you'll find from me on Scronty. I maybe mentioned him three times total here on Reddit. I just searched "scronty" on https://redditsearch.io under your username. There were six posts before today; there may be more where you talked about him but didn't use the word "scronty". Regardless, these posts **are** pretty damning, in my opinion. They show exactly what I said: tolerance of an obvious fraud. You now have a track record of doing that, so I won't "fuck off", because it hurt the community before, and it could hurt it again in the future. > and imply things that I did not claim Where did I imply things you did not claim? > Or I guess I'll have to block you I mean, suit yourself, but it'll be your loss. > That should tell you something of the level of harassment I feel over this. I haven't brought it up apropos of nothing. In this case, as I said, a user **explicitly** said he relied on your positive assessment of his credibility to conclude that his story may be true. Perhaps if you said, "he was a good dev, but this story is full of contradictions and outright falsehoods, and is almost certainly another fraud", then that wouldn't have happened. You are aware of the evidence even now, but you seem to refuse to do that. Must scronty start threatening BCH before you decide to take a stand on the issue?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 14:24:06
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcnvvkn/

Which other(s) do you think I have?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 14:11:14
/r/bsv/comments/ei2udw/ln_is_the_worst_invention_ever/fcnvuh2/

That's not true. Almost every other post is about BSV or its leaders. Can you give me some other wholly-unrelated-to-BSV posts as examples?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 14:10:56
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcnvnz9/

The guy who was most outspoken against a charlatan despite getting heaps of abuse from this sub (and its most popular members) about it?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 14:09:12
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcndwnn/

Well if you're back in the former area, let me know. Look at my edits if you haven't already. I'm revealing the depths of my cunning plan!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 11:27:48
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcncsjq/

Seems unlikely since we're (apparently -- I can only speak for myself with certainty) on opposite coasts. However, if you're in the mid-Atlantic region and want to pay for dinner, I won't decline :) Maybe we could even Facetime Greg. Or does his deceit run so deep that the existing photos and videos of him are all fake?!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 11:15:37
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcnbwaw/

Why don't you go back to some of my earliest posts and see if they're written in a different voice than mine? Maybe check some grammar and expressions. Maybe check my Bitcoin posts from 2014, including one where I revealed some of my addresses. Perhaps you'd like a signed message from one of them?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 11:05:45
/r/btc/comments/ehp02c/one_more_day_and_we_can_add_another_item_to_the/fcn88vy/

> 9 hours without mining a block is not conclusive proof. It also happened multiple times in the days before the [dARk HaSH](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/az8bio/_/eia7m8v/) moment. And there were at least 6 times between Nov 11 and Nov 19 that no blocks were found by BMG for 6+ hours.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/btc on December 31, 2019 10:23:42
/r/bsv/comments/ei2udw/ln_is_the_worst_invention_ever/fcn6jdi/

What does this have to do with BSV?

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 10:02:55
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcn65tq/

[LOL](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/4tc6m5/cmvwhile_im_not_a_veganvegetarian_i_think_that_is/d5h4sg5/). Keep trying to square the [facts](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/d257e6/history_lesson_nov_2017_evidence_that_the_mods_of/ezufni5/) with your narrative! It's really fun! For instance, I've revealed **eight years ago** that I live on the east coast, and my [post history](https://redditmetis.com/user/contrarian__) paints a pretty compelling picture that this has been true throughout my entire almost-nine-year history on reddit. It's all part of my nine-year-plan to infiltrate BCH, muahahaha!

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 09:58:20
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcn5jcr/

> in offering no opinion on whether Scronty's story is true. A pretty [shitty take](https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcn33oe/), to be fair.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 09:50:32
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcn5e2b/

> People can be wrong or ignorant and still be okay people And they could be right, too :)

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 09:48:41
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcn33oe/

> As I've mentioned elsewhere, **Scronty has a credible history as an ace dev** that precedes Bitcoin by a decade or more. I first encountered that username in relation to his work with DirectX circa 2000 when I was beta testing a multimedia product. Lots of people on the internet can at least vouch for his past work. **That dude is no dummy.** > That said I found the fact that he kept literally no evidence of his involvement very suspicious. It's a good story, **even plausible considering the source**, but without any form of evidence at all, it's just a good story, and not much more. ... > He has no evidence whatsoever, and others claimed to have debunked his timeline and a few of his details. I think it's fanfiction **but who knows**. > **He talks as if he was there though and he's very compelling and unlike some people doesn't seem shady or egotistical**. Comes across as a genuine nice guy. > The name scronty is well known. IIRC I ran into him online years (decades) ago in a different setting. **Has, or had, a good rep.** > He hangs around here. He's /u/scronty >Good morning, Phil! ... > I want to believe... :) ... > This is true. **Scronty's story is very well documented, and does jive with Craig's version.** But scronty afaik claims to have no evidence whatsoever to back up his story, so it's not particularly helpful. While you always hedge with his lack of evidence, your focus on his good reputation and "well-documented" and "compelling" story gives him good cover to hoodwink gullible users, **exactly like what happened before**. It's not just lack of evidence. There is a ton of evidence against him. You seem to skirt around that **even now**. It's shameful.

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 09:18:40
/r/bsv/comments/ehva6p/im_done_with_bitcoin_sv/fcn2cnm/

🙈 🙉 🙊

Commented by /u/Contrarian__ in /r/bsv on December 31, 2019 09:08:25
Top