Reddit User Account Overview


Redditor Since September 21, 2013 (2,558 days old)
Karma Posts: 2,302 Comments: 7,745 Combined: 10,047
Active in

In POS coins there is a slashing penalty for people who vote in both chains. But this can be avoided by voting in a very deep reorg and withdrawing your deposit on the main chain so that if the attack fails you cannot be punished 'slashed' . []( >To solve this problem, we introduce a "revert limit" - a rule that nodes must simply refuse to revert further back in time than the deposit length (i.e. in our example, four months), and we additionally require nodes to log on at least once every deposit length to have a secure view of the chain. Note that this rule is different from every other consensus rule in the protocol, in that it means that nodes may come to different conclusions depending on when they saw certain messages. ABC reorg protection **is a revert limit** and results in 'weak subjectivity' this is the security compromise Ethereum has to make to get rid of mining and POW and thus gain the environmental and decentralization benefits of POS ( no asics & validators in different regions ). Why are people ok with this hybrid-pow consensus system, it makes a compromise on security while having all the negatives of POW - that is wasting resources and the centralization in hardware and mining pools? It seems like the hybrid-pow model bitcoin ABC implemented offers the worst of both worlds, BCH should either switch to POS or move to POW completely.

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on March 1, 2020 00:04:53

This is taken from the coldcard site: >We find it a quite scary that some Bitcoin wallets trust the main microprocessor with their most valuable secrets. Instead, Coldcard uses a **Secure Element** to protect your Bitcoin. > >Specifically, the Coldcard (Mk3) uses [Microchip's ATECC608A]( to store the critical master secret: the 24-word seed phrase for your BIP32/BIP39 wallet. > >This little chip is very powerful. Communication is controlled by complex challenges and SHA-256 responses which prevent replay and eavesdropping. The secure element enforces *cryptographically*, that the attacker must know the PIN to access the secrets. An attacker cannot brute-force combinations or replay a previous login sequence. This remains true even if they removed the chip from the board or fully-replaced the firmware in the main microprocessor. In fact, even with the secure element removed from the system, and all the secrets of the main micro fully-known, the attacher would still only get **13 tries** before the secure element bricks itself! (Don't worry, this counter is reset every time you login correctly.) > >Even if there was some critical security bug in the secure element that completely exposed the secrets it holds, your Bitcoin would still be safe, because we encrypt the contents of the secure element with a one-time pad known only to the main micro. > >More details are available in this [white paper]( and the [complete source code is available]( []( * Using this SE, doesn't force you to sign an NDA or have closed source firmware. * IF the SE does have vulnerability the design does not trust a single chip because it uses a OTP to encrypt what's stored in the SE. Also please don't try to apply the 'open source is more secure principal'. This is a fallacy when applied to hardware. It only works in software because you can verify it a product was built using that software by building it yourself this does not apply to hardware. I already bought the MK3 but i have other assets that are only supported by trezor and I am reluctant to switch to a ledger. However if trezor is adamant in using 'Open source hardware' whatever the fuck that means I will be forced to switch. **Also are passphrase even supported for ethereum dapps. Trezor integrates with exodus and MEW but they never prompt for a passphrase?**

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/TREZOR on February 1, 2020 00:53:43

There's a big misconception that things being 'open source' makes it secure and impossible to have backdoors and everything including HW needs to be open source. - but this is a dangerous fallacy. **The purpose of something being open source is so you can download the source code and build something yourself**, then you can be assured that it has no backdoors as you may have inspected the code and many others have too. However if say the 'exodus' wallets open sources their code but in order to build it yourself you need to purchase a 500 million dollar compiler. Then you are forced to download the binaries, there is no guarantee the binaries were built with the source code so any audits of the code are meanliness and you are trusting the people that built the binary only. There can be a backdoor and downloading a closed source binary has an equivalent treat model. Many people have falsely labeled the trezor cpu as being 'open source' AFIK STM32F4 MCU asic design is not public knowledge and even if it was knowing it is pointless for me since I cannot build it. I have to trust ARM and its supply chain to build it according to spec. Therefore a secure element and a generic MCU (open design) have the same risk of having undisclosed backdoors - unless i have my own chip foundry. But unfortunately for trezor there are now several kown flash memory dumping vulnerabilities for its MCU. I am sick of arguing with people saying trezors hardware is open source. The only thing that can be open source is the firmware really which you can build and flash your self onto the device.. In any case we never fully trust the HW, since we always use a passphrase. But i expect HW wallets to provide some physical security or i am better of using tails on a live cd or something.

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/ledgerwallet on January 31, 2020 17:49:49

Here's how i think a truly decentralized mining pool could work: \- every miner publishes block template to pool (using a full node they run). \-The pool keeps a list of valid block templates, which other miners can select from ( eg if they are pow-operators and not full-miners ). The only criteria for validity is that the reward gets sent to the pool. \- once miner publishes the block template - they can immediately start working on shares to mine this block. \- if the miner finds the block they publish it and also send it to the pool, which will notify the peers of the mining pool. The mining pool, is not responsible for consensus it is only responsible for fairly distributing the reward and verifying everyone is working. This way pool operators does not have much protocol influence. **advantages:** miners can choose to include their own transactions for zero fees. Eg dust consolidation ( a transaction that is queued and can happen once a year even ) if you keep mining you will eventually find a block. ( incentive ) miners don't need proximity to the pool, they can start working on the block as soon as they create them and push shares ( incentive ) The responsibility of the pool is less, only accumulating rewards and validating all peers are working towards the blocks they are mining. frequence of reward for miners does not change, even if a 1000 users are all mining on their own blocks, all of these blocks rewards contribute to a pool. A 1000 users are now participating in the protocol as well and running full nodes. **Evidence of Pool Centralization** The first seen rule, isn't a consensus rule yet its still enforced BCH/BTC. It's not broken despite not being protected by the consensus layer, because it takes a huge amount of hashpower to mine a block relative a mining pool ( which is being controlled by one entity ) . If all block templates were created by individuals then its a larger possibility some miners ignore the rule and accept higher fees to perform full transaction replacement ( individual benefit ). I will trade more decentralization over the FSR anyday. When there are incentives to change the protocol state, pools can collude to reorg the chain. After a HF enable segwit funds to be claimed in BCH ( millions of dollars ) and unknown miner mined a block claiming them, Prohash a small pool mined on top. Someone notified two large chinese pools - what happened, maybe a dev or someone with influence and they manually reorged the chain and claimed the segwit funds themselves . They then forwarded funds to the recipient ( should have sent it back to the original inputs in two transactions imo). I think this is probably more important than the scalability debate and should be solved first... **Resources** **stratum v2** []( []( [](

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Monero on December 4, 2019 03:24:14

Running an bitcoin asic and pointing it to a pool does not make you a miner. It does not add significantly to decentralization and is basically equivalent to the difference between SPV ( light node ) and a full node. Furthermore when most people do this they get complacent - set and forget. In this setup the pool admin is the miner, they are creating the block template using software in their control - using some of their own asics to mine on that block and outsourcing some of the hashing to ASIC operators. Therefore in order to be a real miner, you need to at minimum verify the block template you are working on using software you control and if its invalid you should be able to revert to mining somewhere else ( another pool or solo mining) By the above definition the current bitcoin network is quite centralized ( obviously not as bad as bcash). However a network can be centralized and continue to 'woRk' until their is a political issue or incentive ( outside bitcoins incentive model ) for an individual to do dishonest things. This exact thing happened in the bcash network, when three mining pools fought over the ability to claim unlocked segit coins - two pools performed a reorg against another pool and a small pool. The two pool admins obviously had some communication channel with each other or are controlled by the same entity. With centralization the organizational cost of doing attacks is reduced so far that the incentive model that is fundamental to bitcoin no longer works. At this point you are no longer bitcoin - and the bcash dev realized this and implemented reorg protection making it a quasi proof of stake - proof of work coin. We must address the effects of the stratum protocol it has done more harm to bitcoin that large blocks. An innovation in this area will help other POW projects like monero that actually care about decentralization.

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 28, 2019 21:20:31

Hi I want to run a remote node on the cloud, so i dont need to manage disks and internet connectivity. I setup a remote node by following this guide [\_run\_node.html]( I opened the azure firewall to allow SSH, 18080 and 18081 However I cannot get the gui wallet to connect to it. I used net cat to verify: 22 port \[tcp/ssh\] succeeded! 18080 port \[tcp/ssh\] succeeded! However 18081 fails to connect and found this... []( So it looks by default 18081 does not accept remote connections, because its a security risk? Is there a guide on how to setup your remote not so it can act like a node on monero world. I want to connect my desktop gui wallet to this note and also my mobile wallet node as well. But without people connecting to it and running commands - which others mentioned. Is it safe to do? ./monerod --rpc-bind-ip <external.ip.of.node> --restricted-rpc --confirm-external-bind I don't really understand this command... What does it mean when its binding to an external ip. Is that my ip - where i am running the wallet or the public ip of my monero node ( on the cloud ) .

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Monero on September 17, 2019 08:08:29

I totally understand that some bugs ( like the seed extraction one ) cannot be patched. I can accept temporarily using strong passphrases to secure my btc, because the seed can be easily extracted from the HW wallet without using an 'electron microscope'. # But is satoshilabs working to create a new trezor release which will completely mitigate this issue? I would buy it and replace my devices, however if the new trezor is designed only protect against remote attacks ( unless using passphrase ... ^(which is painful to enter on the model t) ), I would rather buy a ledger.... &#x200B; In my opinion the threat model for the trezor has regressed. You should mention this permanent threat in the wiki and the security best practises should mandate using a passphrase, unless you are happy wearing your trezor around your neck for the rest of your life ( it's not something you can leave unattended ) &#x200B; []( ***might want to add the seed extraction vulnerability here \^ and edit the best practises*** [\_manual-Security\_best\_practices#Use\_passphrase\_.28for\_advanced\_users\_only.29]( >**Use passphrase** ~~(for advanced users only)~~ (mandatory) > >It is possible to add a [passphrase]( to your Trezor, which allows you to make your Trezor impervious to physical attack. Even if someone stole your device and examined its chip under an electron microscope to discover your recovery seed, your coins would still be safe.

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/TREZOR on July 6, 2019 06:35:55

If every bitcoin mining pools simply selected transactions from the mempool only ordered by transaction fees, we will have a situation where every bitcoin users will be trying to out bid each other continuously for the next block - or risk having their transaction dropped from the memool ( most wallets might not detect this and might not re-broadcast ). Some pools decide to take a small percentage of low fee transactions, then more txns with this fee then finally prioritize high fee txns that want the next block. Without this a proper fee market cannot develop. Why? Because not every transaction needs to be confirmed quickly, some transactions just need to confirm *eventually...* Low Priority: refilling your LN wallet. As long as the txn confirms eventually without dropping it doesn't matter High Priority: sending 5K BTC to the exchange to sell By some pools mining low fee transactions bitcoin users that are doing low priority transactions **don't have to bid against** people doing high priority transactions so long as their txn eventually confirms. So far I have refilled my **LN wallet** \- when median fees were 2-3 dollars, **using 1 sat/byte fee twice!** Both txns were confirmed under an hour... Thank you: F2Pool: []( HummerPool: []( for mining my low fee transaction. If you are a miner please consider supporting a pool that has a progressive fee selection policy.

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on May 24, 2019 20:40:28

If every bitcoin mining pools simply selected transactions from the mempool only ordered by transaction fees, we will have a situation where every bitcoin users will be trying to out bid each other continuously for the next block - or risk having their transaction dropped from the memool ( most wallets might not detect this and might not re-broadcast ). Some pools decide to take a small percentage of low fee transactions, then more txns with this fee then finally prioritize high fee txns that want the next block. Without this a proper fee market cannot develop. Why? Because not every transaction needs to be confirmed quickly, some transactions just need to confirm *eventually...* &#x200B; Low Priority: refilling your LN wallet. As long as the txn confirms eventually without dropping it doesn't matter High Priority: sending 5K BTC to the exchange to sell &#x200B; By some pools mining low fee transactions bitcoin users that are doing low priority transactions **don't have to bid against** people doing high priority transactions so long as their txn eventually confirms. &#x200B; So far I have refilled my **LN wallet** \- when median fees were 2-3 dollars, **using 1 sat/byte fee twice!** Both txns were confirmed under an hour... Thank you: F2Pool: []( HummerPool: []( for mining my low fee transaction. If you are a miner please consider supporting a pool that has a progressive fee selection policy.

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on May 24, 2019 20:39:25

# What is BetterHash Currently, mining pools are responsible for consensus. They run the full node and dispatch work to miners to create blocks. BetterHash is a protocol which allows miners to run full nodes and create blocks, the mining pool only serves to share the block reward. This means many more mining nodes controlled by different individuals. Miners have to remain active they cannot sit back and become an "NPC" miner. []( It is also more secure and efficient than the stratum protocol. # Why Mining Pools can be Dangerous A few pools could easily represent more than 50% of the hashpower, especially for small networks like BCH. Exchanges could form secret agreements with several pools such that when they get notified of a large theft they work to perform a reorg - in return for a cut of the recovered funds - providing the reorg is small. The fact the CZ even considered this by approaching several pool owners & large miners shows BTC is becoming too centralized. Because Pools represent miners, they can do something dirty for a short time before the miners realize a chain reorg occured and once its done its too late. Pool owners can't be trusted to act in the interest of their miners. Case and point [](, forced all BTC miners to mine BCH during the hashwar despite it being unprofitable to do so. # Adoption of BetterHash The BTC mining is controlled by ASICS, and there hasn't been that much traction so far. But seeing has moneros mining protocol is being designed with the intent to be accessible to everyone we might get better adoption and it would prove more useful. If monero adopted BetterHash, it will be seen as ASIC free & fully decentralized I think no coin could achieve this... # What can be done BetterHash is written in rust, I am not sure what dependencies exist with the consensus libraries of the full node. But I assume they might need to be written in rust...

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Monero on May 10, 2019 08:25:18

[]( >As the attacker sends out his new blocks, aren't there consistency checks which honest nodes can perform, to make sure that nothing got erased? Hmm, sounds like Bitcoin-ABC reorg protection? &#x200B; > The attacker isn't adding blocks to the end. He has to go back and redo the block his transaction is in and all the blocks after it, as well as any new blocks the network keeps adding to the end while he's doing that. He's rewriting history. Once his branch is longer, it becomes the new valid one. > >This touches on a key point. **Even though everyone present may see the shenanigans going on, there's no way to take advantage of that fact.** > >**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. Satoshi's reply As you can clearly see the current bitcoin ABC protocol does not meet bitcoins original design. If satoshi was active he would not support reorg protection. Yet I am finding most of this sub support reorg protection perhaps not out of logic - **but because they don't want to rock the boat and want to support their investment.** &#x200B;

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on April 6, 2019 18:52:42

In a decentralized network a value such as **'reorg' depth is undefined** over the whole network. This means each node might have a different value for this when a new chain is broadcast. ***Any consensus rule that is based on this variable is unsafe and vulnerable to timing attacks.*** The consensus rules ABC introduced have two flaws: 1. Max re-org depth is used to reject new chains ( 10-11 boundary condition can be used to create splits ) 2. Difficulty penalty is applied conditionally and thus used to reject new chains ( 2-3 boundary condition for splits) # Old Consensus Rules - Unmodified * Risk of N long reorgs due to low network hash rate. * N blocks worth of transactions 'unconfirmed' ( not reversed ) and can be reconfirmed in the next block. Same security as zero-conf. * Self correcting manual intervention not required. No transactions reversed unless miners intentionally included double spends in the new chain. See Risk mitigation below. **Damage Mitigation and Risk Prevention of Reorg** * Merchants are responsible for minimizing impact of reorg. Eg by having variable amounts of confirmations based on deposit size. If you deposit 1K you need 6 confirmations if you deposit 1 million you require 20 confirmations. ( this increases the cost of double spends and requires no protocol changes ) . # Now consider - what happens with ABCs reo-org 'protection'. * Rule 2, creates instability in the consensus layer, easy to create temporary splits that last 20-30 mins ***but may become permanent.*** Increasing probability of double spending transactions confirmed within 3-4 blocks. * Rule 1 can be exploited to create a permanent split - ***it may*** *require double the hashpower than before ( see bellow )* * Economically important nodes can targeted with network attacks to make them offline for 1 hour, so they have are forced to re-sync. Present a POW that's longer than the current chain - its impossible to know which chain to apply the 2x penalty too... * Sybil attacks with longer chain to cause new nodes to re-sync to the wrong chain. * Nodes need to be online 24 hrs and HA capable. ( see above ) **Damage Mitigation of Split** * Manual intervention required, and transactions must be put back into the mempool as well. But the longer it takes for operators to realize there is a split the more the UTXO will diverge. It is likely even honest transactions may not be valid. * If there are multiple further splits it will be impossible to satisfy every exchange... # Summary Making 11 block reorgs impossible but sacrificing - consensus layer stability and introducing the chance of a permanent splits which require manual intervention is a bad deal. Long reorgs under the old rules are self-healing and transactions are immediately replayed to the mempool and can be confirmed quickly due to a large block limit. Same security model as zeroconf. If there is a threat of a 100 or 10,000 block reorg changing the POW function is a more sound change..

posted by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on November 23, 2018 15:37:30

That's basically not using pow for consensus if you finalize blocks after 10. Reorg protection is a architectural change, it sounds like a simple and greate idea but it's not People who don't understand this don't understand the bitcoin threat model. Also that wasn't the top parent comment as well.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 22, 2020 17:09:54

Nice try strawman

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 22, 2020 17:07:24

when i mean in the future after at least 20 years. I don't see any capacity problems since i can still refill a custodian LN wallet with 1 sat per byte fee's. But i expect when the block reward fully runs out, the security would have to drop or the capacity would have to be increased otherwise on chain can be only used by whales

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 21, 2020 07:28:17

yes i agree, which is why i don't see the urgency to raise the blocksize now, and as you said scarcity and price will increase in the future and this could offset the reduce block reward. But i expect some time into the future the blocksize would need to be increased, even with second layer solutions as people don't want to lose too much money trying to get their money in the LN

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 21, 2020 07:25:36

the main purpose of tax is to reduce the velocity of money, increase demand for the dollar and the limit inflation - at least if your government is aware of Modern Monetary Theory. Government spending is financed through debt and money printing + controlled inflation. Right now, you want more than normal money printing for handouts + low rates + less money removed from circulation. Some of this money flows into the stock market and keeps the housing bubble, and a small amount enters the economy. Most of it wont enter the economy unless you eliminate the virus like new zealand and taiwan. Rich people will just hoard the money and stay at home ( if they're old ). So yes continuing the job keeper and job seeker is important, it's basically acting like UBI. But tax cuts will help somewhat as well - but not as effective as direct subsidies i suppose.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 21, 2020 04:55:36

The police officer acknowledged there some cultural elements to this crime. Which is a way of saying, how effective is the CCP conditioning of everyone born in the mainland to not question authority. People in mainland china are taught from a very young age, through an education system that emphasis route 'learning' to respect their 'elders' and to never question authority especially if it's the 'government'. Critical thinking is never encouraged because this would be a threat to the CCP power. Scammers have realized this and have begun exploiting this. This is significantly less likely to work on an ethnically chinese person born in Taiwan for HK .

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/sydney on September 21, 2020 04:46:43

Yeah I agree this would be fair.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 21, 2020 02:15:44

Cuts should be to the lowest tax bracket only. Because this will benefit everyone anyway. Why not make the zero tax bracket go up to 30k? Given the pandemic I think this would be fair

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 21, 2020 02:14:46

Good on the abc for not using a click bait identity politics for their heading

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 21, 2020 02:12:41

The tax cuts should be for the lower brackets given the pandemic. This will be for everyone. Why is this so hard to do?

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 21, 2020 01:06:08

Just so everyone clear any mempool policy is NOT a consensus rule. Miners can implement full txn replacement even if there's no rbf flag and other miners won't reorg the block. So I don't really understand the tldr and I hope is not suggesting what I think

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 20, 2020 18:53:29

Yea let's make a authoritarian country even stronger so we need to spend more of defense and have fight a stronger enemy that will eventually try invade Taiwan. Or I guess the world could abandon Taiwan too lol.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 20, 2020 17:35:10

i hope they secure it well and they don't lose it all because some random person dies...

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 19, 2020 22:55:28

Decentralized solutions are the key or we will give up to much power to cooperations and government's.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 19, 2020 22:02:40

Companies self censor too appease the CCP so they don't lose chinese business so it's the same thing with the australian police. They don't give a shit

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 19, 2020 22:01:30

I wonder how difficult it would be for a cyber criminal to impersonate the police and perform their own technical service request to get people's data

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 19, 2020 22:00:05

The the block rewards runs out I don't think even with very high fee you could sustain Bitcoin.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 19, 2020 20:51:03

I think they will eventually increase the blocksize.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 19, 2020 06:47:35

where the mining nodes = number of pools running ASIC doesn't make you a miner

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 23:02:37

Sending bitcoin on the LN network is sending bitcoin via a smart contract. For the same logic sending a zeroconf txn and accepting it as payment is accepting bitcoin via a social contract. When in reality the bitcoin is not really sent until it's confirmed. When you run your own node LN txns are private and are peer to peer. Some people choose not to run their own node because the LN is more complex. Bitcoin is still peer to peer, the LN is not for high value payments which are done on-chain and censorship resistance for this use-case is far more important. People in this sub reddit bash bitcoin for diverging from the WP, but in reality its BCH that diverted from the WP by implementing finalization of blocks after a depth of 10 without POW.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 22:59:32

Hahaha it's like your married to your other and the bank.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 18, 2020 21:13:32

The best defense against is this is for the implementation of coin swaps and it becoming commonplace, so much so that blockchain analysis becomes useless. You can also use the LN network [](

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 18, 2020 06:54:29

bag holder bias. If you hold a lot of BTC you dont like competitors, likewise if you hold a lot of BCH. It's the most disgusting thing that people let how they think get corrupted by their wealth. Probably why a lot of housing property bubbles are propped up by the political class

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 06:40:04

prohash claimed the segwit funds, the txn was confirmed. Then some chinese pools decided to reverse the txn [](

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 18, 2020 06:36:41

Lol they are spending millions trying to collect 5-10 dollar gains when people buy stuff with btc morons. Realistically they have been asked to go after btc users and burden then with reporting and red tape to harm adoption

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 17, 2020 21:52:59

Morons in the community don't understand the WP and they certainly don't understand if reorg protection actually worked you wouldn't need POW.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 23:21:27

What about when a block was reorged with a depth of two to claim the segwit funds that prohash mined lol

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 23:20:27

LoL BCH devs don't understand the white paper. How can you claim to be the real Bitcoin, if you trivialize the main innovation of bitcoin which was POW. It's like people literally only read the WP title and have the nerve to criticize Bitcoin lol...

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 23:18:42

Taiwan is what china should have been, the world failed when it recognized the CCP insurrectionists. Next gaming computer I build will be using as much components sourced from Taiwan as possible

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 16, 2020 22:44:41

This is good for bitcoin

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 16, 2020 17:35:03

what i mean is how will you define the original chain

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/TREZOR on September 16, 2020 17:34:17

He labeled me as a CSW shill because I commented on their subreddit a few times what a loser honestly or he just has a mental handycap

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 16, 2020 16:33:37

yes that's what i am saying some exchanges have BTC/USD pairs and its actually USDT

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Monero on September 16, 2020 03:34:33

Can chainanaysis tell people are using bisq?

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Monero on September 15, 2020 15:48:21

That's the traditional way people avoid inflation. Stocks require alot of continuous research. Sure theres probably be insider trading, but this would not be representative of most of the trading volume. Having an asset tired to the earnings of a company might be a disadvantage when you just want to save wealth without doing much research

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Monero on September 15, 2020 15:36:53

And you're saying crypto prices can't be manipulated common lol. Have you heard about tether? Would have expected better from this sub. This is an example of bag holder bais. Coming up with lazy unsubstantiated handwaving conspiracies

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Monero on September 15, 2020 15:33:41

Maybe next time miner activate each change instead of having dev scheduled HF or bchn will become the next ABC.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 15:03:26

Because of bag holder bias.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 15:01:47

SFs tighten rules so you're saying adding more restrictive rules is always a social attack?

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 14:58:03

Thanks "They are forward-compatible. That means that nodes running an older version of the software will accept blocks created by new nodes." A SF just adds more restrictive rules

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 14:55:48

It's a stupid to claim that HF is democracy because your choice is to upgrade or be on a network that might not have hashpower. All changes should be miner activated not dev scheduled eg bip135 which will activate a HF or a SF. Even now we only know bchn has some miner support due to coinbase signaling. The whole reason we are here is because of dev scheduled HFs. Clearly allot of the community haven't learned

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 14:48:25

calling some non technical hand waving political is not an attack. Saying something is democratic before people choose to upgrade is a political argument. It's non technical

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 14:46:25

Lol so devs scheduled HFs are democratic? Upgrade or end up in a network with no hashpower this is democracy. The author is handwaving and people are lapping it up before HFs are the only way bch upgrades

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 14:26:39

I have been advocating BIP135 for all changes to the protocol HF or SF it doesn't matter. If this is not democratic i don't know what is. What i dont like is bullshit arguments that claim HF bad SF good or visa versa because thats the same argument used to block the Segwit2X It's a shame you are so quick to attack people personally

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 02:58:36

>Finally hardforks have the benefit over softforks in that they: > >Democratize protocol changes, taking the power to push through a change out of the hands of a tiny few and requiring an actual economic majority to make a change. > >Require the explicit consent of full node operators to any security reduction. > >Allow for a much cleaner protocol design, done right the first time, which will make future changes much easier. i don't agree with these political arguments 'Democratize protocol changes'

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 02:42:56

soft-forks are backwards compatible that means if there majority hashpower supporting the change ALL nodes will be on that change. This is neither a good thing or a bad thing, it depends on the change that's being proposed. Saying HF are good and SF are bad is a stupid argument imo.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 15, 2020 02:30:31

Wait your saying a comment with negative -15 votes is auto removed? There goes the downvoting is not censorship argument

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 17:23:28

Time to learn to code, maybe this would make a good project for everyone. You learn something and create something you can use and not some useless app

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/BitcoinAUS on September 14, 2020 03:23:43

Yea and I am going to guess your an aspie so i understand

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 03:20:24

there a currencies like DASH and ZCASH, so obviously some people dont mind some kind of developer tax.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 14, 2020 01:30:50

technically you 'own the node' since you are in control of what applications run on the hardware - however google or aws own the hardware. As an aside, people who run ASICS and connect them to pools are functioning like AWS or Azure. The actual miner is the person running the full node software and creating block templates. They outsource the hashing to someone else

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 13, 2020 23:08:40

Seems like you are better off running a LN in the cloud? I guess most users might use a custodian ln which is ok if you don't need the privacy

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 13, 2020 20:12:55

remember re-org protection was added by amury in a hotfix - why does the community still defend this perversion lol? i will call bch bcash while it has this

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 13, 2020 19:48:14

it would be good if it had hydro...

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/WorldOfWarships on September 11, 2020 21:07:06

even roger holds basically like 50-50 btc and alts

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:39:00

1) you mean the people that prefer a coin with automatic reorg protection - where the POW security model doesn't work and is not implemented like in the WP. 2) A network where there have been double spends carried out which have been celebrated as 51% defences? There are plenty of reasons people prefer BTC over BCH. If you use the LN BTC is usable for real-time payments. BCH is not unless a merchant accepts zeroconf

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:38:19

Can we stop pretending BCH the same as bitcoin, in the real bitcoin the POW security model works as described in the WP. In BCH the POW security model DOES NOT WORK - why else would BCH developers want to include AUTOMATIC REORG PROTECTION. ( which is i think is foolish and creates more exploitable issues by more technical miners ) Stop lying to yourself, BTC is valued more because its obviously more secure and not splitting every 6 months and bleeding network effect. Every time you split BCH - BSV then again BCH to X you close a certain % of users. Network effect is everything to crypto currencies - it's literally no point having a 32 mb block limit with the current amount of BCH users. **If you don't believe me, look at the cumulative blockchain size of BTC vs BCH.** If BCH used miner signaled changes using BIP135 from the beginning , we wouldn't have this governance issue. Every DEV Scheduled HF, consolidates power to the reference client which controls the HF schedule - which was Bitcoin ABC. I wouldn't be surprised if BCHN doesn't learn from this and keeps doing DEV scheduled HF's every 6 months. They will become the new ABC and as long as they don't propose absurd changes to the consensus rules like adding a coinbase tax or changing the inflation limit they can do what they want. Since most people in the community are too illiterate to understand the technical aspects. So it's really easy for some smart people to subvert the protocol. This is why BCH is valued at 200 dollars and why BTC is at 10k.. If you keep ignoring your mistakes and calling people shills you will keep repeating the mistakes of the past. I honestly wish BCH can succeed as an alternative to BTC but the community keeps trying to fight with BTC, trying to claim the Bitcoin name instead of dealing with the many internal problems it has. BCH has to step out of BTC's shadow and become its own coin. There are plenty of technical challenges like secure zero-conf that needs to be solved with pre-consensus before some troll mining pool starts ignoring the first seen txn convention

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 11, 2020 09:35:24

I remember the good old bf2 days...

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 10, 2020 01:56:16

i use a custodian lighting wallet though, when i need privacy i guess i will run my own one

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 9, 2020 19:57:15

lol reorg protection is for morons that don't understand the POW security model

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 9, 2020 19:55:06

Didn't epstein get a slap on his wrist the first time he got caught? Julian allegedly tells manning how to access an unencrypted drive on a computer - something he should be capable of google searching as a military analyst lol. Providing someone such trivial help should not be a crime that gets you 175 years in jail

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 8, 2020 22:10:55

lol what losers expecting mining pools to act as banks and check for double spends. I hope everyone destroys any coin that expects mining pools to police their shitcoins

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 8, 2020 17:55:34

Isn't the real wiki leaks on a .org domain and has a donate link?

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 7, 2020 18:43:59

I wonder if males want to avoid going into teaching it's so easy for your career to be ruined by one false aqusation of child abuse. I bet if two students accused a male teacher of something he might get charged even in the absence of evidence. The jury would be to stupid and biased. Is it even worth the risk for shitty pay.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 6, 2020 08:48:50

its common because there not testing of rear seats, the FMVSS 207 standard is met by a fricken lawn chair the standard is not optimised for the safety of passengers

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/RealTesla on September 5, 2020 21:21:27

maybe they would have survived if the seats did not yield backwards - without a sore neck. When the seat yields backwards - it reduces the incident angle which reduces the amount of force that can be absorbed by the seat back ( wide surface area ) tangential forces that propel you up the seat are increased. So you will slide out of your seat belt and up the reclined seat. Then the you will be catapulted upwards and you head might hit the roof - if it didn't already hit the back seats. So yeah i wonder why their necks are sore. If seats remained mostly flat and were just had some high density foam your whole body would absorb the force instead of your head and neck.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/RealTesla on September 5, 2020 21:19:01

funny i was downvoted for ages for being anti amury, i was against reorg-protection which makes bcash a pesdo POW coin. Why even have POW if reorg protection is safe lol? Now the tribe see's amury as bad because he pushed through an obviously controversial change the ifp

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 5, 2020 19:51:06

if reddit has public mod logs and start deleting comments - this is not censorship. Because you can go look at the public mod logs /s downvoting if self-censorship, its not as bad as mod controlled censorship but its still not something you want to encourage. Or you will quickly get an toxic echo chamber -bcash

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 5, 2020 19:47:29

haha yea mods removing comments is not censorship because people can always go to the public mod logs to see them /s downvoting is censorship - it's just self censorship - which is a more decentralized form of censorship. If threads are downvoted they don't appear in the front page and threads that are against the view of the tribe are gone. The issue is the bcash tribe is not the smartest. Places where the community is smarter than average are less toxic eg the monero subreddit. People there understand why reorg protection is bad and makes POW pointless. Re-org protection was discussed initially but then it became the tribe view that reorg protection was good for BCH and anyone opposing it makes you a bad actor. So smart people get downvoted and driven out of the community.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 5, 2020 19:44:37

did you mean bcash shill?

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 5, 2020 17:43:02

what do you mean? &#x200B; &#x200B; ... bcash

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 5, 2020 17:42:00

i dont like the work bcash

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 5, 2020 17:39:51

if bcash is a social attack what about bcore, automod what's your view?

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 5, 2020 17:39:37

Price is nothing if there no volume/market depth on your exchange.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/BitcoinAUS on September 4, 2020 23:32:25

should have a nuclear refactor and the main guns needs to be rail guns

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/WorldOfWarships on September 4, 2020 17:39:58

It's not literally 0% as they have been changing their guidance all the time. BCH HFs every 6 months did people declare a loss every year and reset their cost bad no. Because the asset ticker is BCH. Literally ever tax tools does not do what the ATOs guidance says. The ato guidance was probably given when bch was listed as BCH ABC since the community still hasn't unanimously decided who gets the BCH name. But now it's clear. The same things is going to happen in November. This time there's actually going to be a BCHABC

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/BitcoinAUS on September 4, 2020 06:18:07

is there a non video guide that music is really annoying...

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 3, 2020 00:56:47

wait there's no way to enter a passphrase on your computer?

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on September 2, 2020 22:02:18

haha basically this is stopping the javascript from loading - should make an extension to do this for you lol

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/BitcoinAUS on September 2, 2020 17:00:50

> The community abandoned the original asset at the time of the chain split. This statement is no longer true since BCHABC is labeled as BCH now, so the community considers BCHABC as the continuation of BCH. The split from BCH and BSV should be similar to the split of BTC from BCH. So i think they need to amend their guidance again

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/BitcoinAUS on September 2, 2020 16:50:26

haha but bch is the real btc right hahaha

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 2, 2020 01:41:09

wow i was been sarcastic lol because it got delisted from many exchanges. this sub lol

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on September 1, 2020 19:35:39

Google has to delist all australian media according to the legislation

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on September 1, 2020 18:14:00

Ok great time to relist it as it's not a privacy coin

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on August 31, 2020 23:57:47

haha if the majority of the miners are controlled by one person then this can actually happen. If the BSV community splits the minority fork might get reorged attacked, if it doesn't which coin becomes BSV lol?

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/btc on August 31, 2020 20:26:25

Did you see how Activision censored the "know your history trailer" to remove clips of tiananmen square for COD Cold War - isn't that ironic

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/australia on August 31, 2020 19:28:22

lol if your going to make malware don't have address re-use lol

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on August 30, 2020 20:22:02

yes if you want to lose 100 million or some crazy amount in a fake hack, I would create the malware to steal your own bitcoin. To ensure that if the FBI want to investigate you don't get caught out in a lie... might want to take some acting lessons as well lol Although they might be lazy and dismissive and say virtual currencies aren't real get lost - which would be ideal in this case when your trying to steal from yourself.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/CryptoCurrency on August 30, 2020 19:50:25

Unless coinswap becomes really common place then I guess it might help. But your right some exchanges might refuse to cooperate if you coinswap with the wrong person.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/Bitcoin on August 30, 2020 17:50:04

It's likely you have to give up your laptop with the malware installed. IF they invistigate further you better hope your story holds. Ie for that amount you should literally create the malware your self host it some where and make sure you download the malware you posted

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/CryptoCurrency on August 30, 2020 16:37:17

That's only if the gui asks for one

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/CryptoCurrency on August 30, 2020 16:25:18

yes that's what i hope he is doing lol

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/CryptoCurrency on August 30, 2020 09:39:45

exactly it has to be properly used - if the user just clicks next- next next on the device the same thing will happen... Its certainly not fool proof

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/CryptoCurrency on August 30, 2020 09:35:59

A HW will work, if you don't trust anything on your computer screen and it still won't cover all cases. If something doesn't match up you instantly have to stop doing what your doing. You could have malware that changes BTC addresses when you're transferring BTC from the exchange to your wallet. A dedicated laptop is probably best, even a dedicated windows 10 laptop - with all the bullshit aps turned off, bloatware removed. Chrome + ublock origin and no other extensions. Every exchange bookmarked. Also create a non-admin account and use that. If its kept up-to date and your using a HW wallet, this could also be good enough

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/CryptoCurrency on August 30, 2020 09:34:13

it's really sad to see this kind of money going to some low life scum bag. If only they had some decency and decide to return at least some of that money instead of completely destroying someone.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/CryptoCurrency on August 30, 2020 09:26:48

Even if your using a HW, the wallet could swap out the addresses with their own. When you want to send to Address A - you paste it in, and the wallet asks your HW to sign a transaction to address B. If you don't check this your screwed. Likewise it can generate fake receive addresses ( without contacting the HW ) - which is why after you generate a recieve address you need to click show on HW. The trezor web app won't let you see the address untill you do this. Obviously a malicious app will not have this restriction. But how many people will not notice this. People need to learn how to use HW properly otherwise it might not help. There needs to be some training i don't know, like a video to show what it looks like to interact with a malicious wallet connected to a HW.

Commented by /u/Spartan3123 in /r/CryptoCurrency on August 30, 2020 09:16:02