christophbergmann [10:00 AM]

Hei, @vlad2vlad are you here?

[10:01]

You said CSW could answer any question I ask through your voice

vlad2vlad [10:01 AM]

Ask away

christophbergmann [10:01 AM]

cool ... I will ask several questions in next half hour

[10:01]

First ... how did it come that you have become the voice of CSW?

vlad2vlad [10:02 AM]

Destiny?

[10:02]

Or you want me to ask him?

[10:04]

I sent him the question. Any other ones.

christophbergmann [10:06 AM]

No, yes, both ... I mean, I guess he did not just call you and said: Vlad, be my voice. Did you search him? How did you win his trust?

vlad2vlad [10:06 AM]

Here's what he said: You are a little mad, as I am and I would not say you are my voice. And more than that, you never treated me like shit. You never required that I prove anything to befriend me. You are always civil.

[10:08]

I was hitting him up on twitter last year and I also sent him some emails but I didn't expect anything to come of it. I tend to try and talk to all the major industry players.

christophbergmann [10:09 AM]

When did you start believe that he is Satoshiß

[10:09]

?

[10:09]

thank you for taking the time, btw

vlad2vlad [10:11 AM]

I personally thought he was Satoshi before it was leaked, when I saw a 2 part video from like 2015 I think. That's what sold me on it. Then when he came out and all that crazy stuff happened it was confusing but I figured there had to be some logical explanation for it all so, unlike most people, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I felt he at least deserved that. Everyone does until there's real proof. Media sound bytes are never proof for me.

christophbergmann [10:12 AM]

Thanks

[10:12]

What did he do 2010-2015?

vlad2vlad [10:20 AM]

2010-2011. I was in a shit place family wise>

I was in a court battle with the Tax office (I won this in 2012)

[10:23]

In 2011 I started a co again. I moved assets in 2011. And I did contract code and security work. I was teaching at CSU until 2014. CSU runs the Police and military training.

[10:24]

From 2010 to 2013 I worked for both gaming co.s and LE. They are both the ones who cared about risk. Not that perfect security is all, but risk.

[10:25]

I had too many things answering gov questions form 2014 on

[10:26]

I had a farm, a ranch really. Middle of nowhere. No people closer than 1KM. I could work with no disturbances. I sold it to fund some of the companies as well as other assets. I loved that place. My work comes first.

[10:27]

Next question, @christophbergmann

christophbergmann [10:28 AM]

why did he leave Bitcoin in 2010?

vlad2vlad [10:38 AM]

I was in battles, one after another to keep what I was working on.

[10:39]

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/SYG746/2010/actions

[10:40]

I do not want to have people follow me. I want people to read and think. I want them to question and validate. Not to take my word or for that matter, anybodies. And worse, do not look at something in the past and make that the yardstick.

christophbergmann [10:41 AM]

didn't know this source.

[10:42]

Can you explain what happened? While you continued working on Bitcoin, your company went bankrupt?

vlad2vlad [10:48 AM]

In 2003 I had a fight with a 5% shareholder. My first wife sided with him as she wanted me to be home more. I ended up in an 11 year court battle. Settled part and got the company. I ended up winning. You have the final judgements. are district court, so not on google and people only see what they can easily google.

[10:49]

Here is what you can tell them all..

IF you need to do what I say as I am Satoshi and not because of the idea I am presenting, but the nature of my identity, then you are all lost!

If you cannot think for yourself, then all this was for nothing

[10:49]

If you judge based on an identity alone, on a perceived authority, then you are sheeple and deserve all you get

[10:52]

----

[10:52]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001

list of "8 2 9 10 11", which is the list that GNUPG started generating a year (commit e50cac1d848d332c4dbf49d5f705d3cbbf074ba1) after the date on the key.

BS utter BS.

And this was written as I write, not a paid piece, but as I do and I was the author of the Authority paper.

And it was independantly validated.

It is simple and who actually checks?

Gmax says and it is law.

[10:52]

Think. Learn that code is a tool and us humans can use tools, but it is not a panacea and can solve nothing on its own.

[10:57]

There is no form of non-repudiation. This is stated again and again by those with a past in (applied)cryptography. Yet, it is a concept that does not exist.

We live in a world of people. Code is a tool, it is a means to ensure that we can control our destiny if we use it well, but it does not remove the need to check and will never remove the need to think.

christophbergmann [10:57 AM]

Yeah, Greg seems obsessed with calling you a conman ...

vlad2vlad [10:57 AM]

Non-Repudiation can never exist as we live in a world of law. Law is Law. Crypto is a tool that adds weight to evidence, but it is not law.

I can sign and then say my key was stolen. I can pass a key to another. This is a well established principle. In the courts, it is always possible to repudiate.

I learned this the hard way. In my case, I was given a contempt citation as I argued the fact that electronic evidence supported my assertions. I learnt that law is law in 2004 when I argued that evidence of source information can be used against you and can be falsified and that it is not possible to simply show a key as proof.

[10:58]

----

MiniMax, err, Greg, is a douche. <------ my words. :)

[10:58]

---

[10:58]

Bitcoin is code. It has all the faults that code has. It does not make the world an anarchist playground and with it we are not free. We are free when we are free. We are free only when we allow our minds to be free.

[10:59]

We are in a tragic world. There are no fair solutions, the world is simply not fair and we can do no more than make it worse by interfering with markets and free choice.

[10:59]

‘a piratis et latronibus capta domimium non mutant’

Look it up. It is a concept of law.

christophbergmann [11:00 AM]

Did you sleep in this time? You had a company, a family and developed Bitcoin.

vlad2vlad [11:01 AM]

Theft of keys is a means to have access to keys, and what does it prove, only that you hold a key. Any transaction can be recovered. If you think this is not the case, deal with those with guns. Tax is forced, but try and avoid the force. Try legally.

[11:01]

I spend millions to win a case worth 1.1 million. Pyrrhic. And what was the use. It changed nothing.

[11:02]

End rant...

vlad2vlad [11:08 AM]

I have a company. I have a family and I am enrolled in a Masters degree right now. When I complete this degree, I will start another PhD.

Back then, I was also going to conferences, this I can no longer do.

I am a full fee student. I do not take money for this. I pay my own way. No scholarships. My choice.

[11:08]

So, why is this such an issue for so many people? I enjoy learning and knowledge.

[11:10]

---

[11:10]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10702001

The following is the sane response:

"grovulent 512 days ago [-]

As others have pointed out - it's arguable that publishing any claim about the identity of SN - puts the target in considerable, potential danger.

Now I can understand that there is a public interest component in knowing SN's identity. And I'd even be willing to accept (but really only for sake of argument) that this public interest overrides SN's own right to privacy and safety.

But to make these accusations when you yourself admit - as the article does - that there is a substantial degree of doubt, is to put at risk the safety and privacy of a person who doesn't deserve it in the least.

This is an absolutely appalling thing to do to anyone. And it should be prima-facie obvious to you as to why.

While I don't condone bullying of any sort - it really is the least of what these authors deserve. I personally don't feel Kanzure is bullying - merely pointing out how appalling this behaviour is, and this absolutely needs to be pointed out."

christophbergmann [11:11 AM]

are you sad that you left Bitcoin in 2010? Was it a mistake?

vlad2vlad [11:15 AM]

As for gaining... I gain nothing by proving I am Satoshi.

My family gains nothing. We go into moving again.

I do not get money and I DO NOT want fame

[11:17]

I did not leave Bitcoin. Gavin was left to manage the code with others. That is not leaving.

christophbergmann [11:18 AM]

How would you call it then?

vlad2vlad [11:23 AM]

I stopped responding to trolls. The base protocol was and is fine.

christophbergmann [11:29 AM]

what is the base protocol?

vlad2vlad [11:31 AM]

With the cap removed it remains ok.

christophbergmann [11:31 AM]

which version?

[11:32]

I'm not so interested in Blocksize things. We had this over and over, it already bored out Bitcoin

vlad2vlad [11:36 AM]

This is the answer to "what is the base protocol"?

[11:36]

The means to have miners controls the network through competition. The exchange of blocks, the format, the original script and protocols.

For example:

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp#L2249

See the comments that they all ignore.

Prove that is not Satoshi. I do not need to sign anything and I do not need to jump their hoops, it is the code.

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

christophbergmann [11:42 AM]

I wondered how can I know that this is the original codebase ...

[11:42]

Some other question

[11:42]

Why did you not publish a signed message?

vlad2vlad [11:43 AM]

Continued from last response: What we need is simple, it is competition. Not a central authority. Not a 1984 double speak committee, but open and free competition.

This means that people are allowed to build on top of the base protocol. That the miners decide (see the 08 paper). If people do not like it, they can lobby miners or better, invest in hash power.

This way, changes are made based on what the market decides. Not an authority, the market. Each tries and fails and grows based on supply to a market.

vlad2vlad [11:49 AM]

Answer to your last questing about signing a message:

[11:49]

URGH!

1. Tax. I am not offering proof that is proof. If I can access or not is MY business and it stays that way.

2. More importantly, stop looking to a bloody saviour!

Markets are the answer, free open competition. Not Satoshi on his bloody white horse. Markets!

[11:51]

Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.

They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?

[11:52]

Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.

[11:53]

In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter.

christophbergmann [11:53 AM]

Something else ... now you are Chief Scientis at nChain, right?

vlad2vlad [12:02 PM]

Yes. I will not discuss the company though.

[12:02]

The others will. I say too much and get in trouble already.

[12:03]

I am not a CEO for a good reason. I am good at maths and code, I can write responses that nobody reads that are cogent and sincere, but when it comes to politics and fronting things, I just dig holes for myself

christophbergmann [12:06 PM]

Ok, can you say when the software will go open source?

vlad2vlad [12:24 PM]

Not answering re times for Open Source. It is underway.

cryptonaut [12:34 PM]

@vlad2vlad CSW won't use slack or something? Would be interesting to get him on here.

vlad2vlad [12:35 PM]

I seriously doubt it but I'll ask him@

cryptonaut [12:36 PM]

Here's a question. Is Scronty legit or is this story just some fan fiction? (long read, but seems to align closely with the CSW story) https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5aflch/bitcoin_origins/

reddit

Bitcoin Origins • r/Bitcoin

Afternoon, All. Today marks the eighth anniversary of the publication of the Bitcoin white paper. As a special tribute, I will provide you with...

[12:38]

If CSW is true and that above thread is true, Team Satoshi appears to consist of Craig, whoever that Scronty guy is, and David

vlad2vlad [12:38 PM]

Dr. Wright says he'll come take a look in this channel but he's not gonna join.

[12:39]

Who's got a link for this channel?

cryptonaut [12:40 PM]

if you click on your name in the top left corner there should be an option to invite people by email

[12:41]

tell him to make a throwaway if he wants to check it out but not join and get harrassed

csw [12:43 PM]

joined #general

cryptonaut [12:43 PM]

:new_moon_with_face: :rocket:

csw [12:44 PM]

Scronty is a wanker

csw [12:44 PM]

I am tired of people saying they worked with me. Scronty even got the number of BTC wrong.

1 reply Today at 1:32 PM View thread

vlad2vlad [12:45 PM]

Welcome Dr. Wright!!!!

cryptonaut [12:45 PM]

so just some fan fiction then? and yes, welcome :smile:

csw [12:46 PM]

Yes, and not a fan

[12:47]

"I wondered how can I know that this is the original codebase ..."

[12:47]

It is not, it is close, but it is available on the satoshi Inst as well.

cryptonaut [12:47 PM]

Are you able to say how many there were on the team? 3, or was there more? Not that it matters really

csw [12:47 PM]

The first released code was 0.0.9

[12:47]

It crashed.

onchainscaling [12:47 PM]

Why was 21 million chosen? was it arbitrary number or is there a reason for that particular number?

csw [12:48 PM]

The first other users are Bear and Hal

[12:48]

M1

[12:48]

21 million links to global M1

christophbergmann [12:48 PM]

Hallo Mr. Wright!

csw [12:49 PM]

There are no decimal points, 21 million is the reference for people, the no. Satoshi (and I did not call them that) are related to M1 (edited)

cryptonaut [12:50 PM]

can you expand on that?

csw [12:50 PM]

http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=m0,-m1,-m2,-m3,-m4

[12:51]

If you read the 08 paper, you will note the use of fiat as a value.

[12:51]

Sect, 9. Page 5

[12:51]

In the use of 21 million x 10^8 parts you have a value that maps to the cent

[12:51]

That is, to global M1

vlad2vlad [12:52 PM]

So bitcoin is meant to displace global fiat

[12:52]

?

csw [12:52 PM]

This would be 21,000,000,000,000 USD as M1.

21,000 trillion

[12:52]

The idea is global cash.

[12:52]

A single world currency

[12:53]

Can I assume that you have read Hayek's work on global money?

vlad2vlad [12:53 PM]

You're not gonna have many friends out there. But if you can pull it off bitcoin is gonna reach astronomical levels.

[12:53]

No. But i will. :)

csw [12:53 PM]

I have few friends.

cryptonaut [12:53 PM]

section 9 is titled 'combining and splitting value" and does not mention a fiat value

csw [12:54 PM]

I am not looking for them, I work best as I am and I find having a head in maths and code does not make one amiable to others.

[12:54]

"Although it would be possible to handle coins individually, it would be unwieldy to make a

separate transaction for every cent in a transfer"

[12:55]

I believe that you will find that in S9.

cryptonaut [12:55 PM]

right

[12:56]

gotcha

csw [12:56 PM]

I am sorry, I can be a little vague... If I am, ask for explanations.

[12:56]

I make assumptions of knowledge

cryptonaut [12:57 PM]

all good, just trying to piece together

csw [12:57 PM]

It comes from too long inside universities

cryptonaut [12:57 PM]

never been :wink:

csw [12:57 PM]

Never been out...

vlad2vlad [12:57 PM]

Lol

csw [1:00 PM]

Re: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper 2008-11-10 14:09:26 UTC

James A. Donald wrote:

> Furthermore, it cannot be made to work, as in the

> proposed system the work of tracking who owns what coins

> is paid for by seigniorage, which requires inflation.

If you're having trouble with the inflation issue, it's easy to tweak it for

transaction fees instead. It's as simple as this: let the output value from

any transaction be 1 cent less than the input value. Either the client

software automatically writes transactions for 1 cent more than the intended

payment value, or it could come out of the payee's side. The incentive value

when a node finds a proof-of-work for a block could be the total of the fees in

the block.

Satoshi Nakamoto

cryptonaut [1:01 PM]

Hah. So google tells me M1 USD supply is just under 2.1 trillion. Total # of satoshis is 2100 trillion. Close enough I say lol.

csw [1:01 PM]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/util.cpp#L210

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[1:02]

Have a look at the code.

[1:03]

n /= CENT;

@212; 255; 261

in src/util.cpp

[1:03]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.h#L17

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[1:03]

Main.h

[1:03]

Defined against Cents

[1:04]

// Value

int64 nValue = (GetRand(9) + 1) * 100 * CENT;

if (GetBalance() < nValue)

{

wxMessageBox("Out of money ");

return;

}

nValue += (nRep % 100) * CENT;

[1:04]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/ui.cpp#L3178

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[1:04]

Do you require more evidence?

cryptonaut [1:08 PM]

makes sense to me. Here's one for you though: what was the thinking behind adding the 1MB block limit that we are now dealing with 2.5+ years drama to solve?

csw [1:08 PM]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[1:09]

// Transaction fee requirements, mainly only needed for flood control

// Under 10K (about 80 inputs) is free for first 100 transactions

// Base rate is 0.01 per KB

int64 nMinFee = tx.GetMinFee(pblock->vtx.size() < 100);

[1:09]

At 0.08 cents a BTC, flood control did not work.

[1:09]

At more than 100USD, it does

[1:09]

We are at more than 100USD a BTC right now.

[1:10]

In early 2010, the number of nodes (please note, nodes are always verification agents, that is miners) was low. (edited)

cryptonaut [1:10 PM]

friggin $2200 canadian on localbitcoins right now

csw [1:11 PM]

It should be higher. The more people can use BitCoin natively, the more the value will increase.

cryptonaut [1:11 PM]

spelling it BitCoin is heresy you know :stuck_out_tongue:

csw [1:12 PM]

This is not as has been suggested exponential, but logistic

[1:12]

It was in the early code as BitCoin

cryptonaut [1:12 PM]

eh, looks ugly though. But yeah, to the moon and such

csw [1:12 PM]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/readme.txt

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[1:13]

Line 1: BitCoin v0.1.3 ALPHA

cryptonaut [1:13 PM]

Line 13: Bitcoin. Inconsistent lol

csw [1:13 PM]

I have never been accused of being a designer

[1:13]

I also never said I am perfect and yes, I do go back and forth.

[1:14]

Lines 34 - 36:

To support the network by running a node, select:

Options->Generate Coins

cryptonaut [1:14 PM]

I tend to do the same when naming things

csw [1:14 PM]

Code naming conventions do not always move into the real world well.

cryptonaut [1:14 PM]

true

csw [1:14 PM]

Words are not variables as much as I would like to have this be so

[1:16]

I thought the comments in the code were rather good, then it seems they are either ignored or they are not read.

[1:16]

Either saddens me, though I cannot state which would sadden me more.

cryptonaut [1:16 PM]

which points or comments do you feel are being ignored?

csw [1:17 PM]

Have you read Brooks?

[1:17]

Mythical Man Month, 1975, 1995 re-printed

cryptonaut [1:17 PM]

I have not

csw [1:17 PM]

A shame.

[1:17]

Page 65 from memory of Brooks

[1:18]

Triple redundancy

[1:18]

//

// "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three."

// Our three chronometers are:

// - System clock

// - Median of other server's clocks

// - NTP servers

//

// note: NTP isn't implemented yet, so until then we just use the median

// of other nodes clocks to correct ours.

//

[1:18]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/util.cpp#L326

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[1:19]

I do not see why there are arguments on things link the use off NTP as a base that is averaged in the system between nodes.

[1:19]

The code has a number of comments stating that this is to be done.

[1:20]

// Only let other nodes change our clock so far before we

// go to the NTP servers

/// todo: Get time from NTP servers, then set a flag

/// to make sure it doesn't get changed again

}

[1:22]

And it should not be monolithic...

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/net.cpp#L893

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[1:22]

//// todo: start one thread per processor, use getenv("NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS")

[1:22]

And the market place was never fixed.

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/ui.cpp#L1619

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

cryptonaut [1:23 PM]

I'm not too familiar with the nuances of NTP and server clocks etc, just a humble web developer. To get back to the 1MB block size thing for a second - did you anticipate the difficulty of removing or replacing the limit that we are currently experiencing?

csw [1:23 PM]

There was supposed to be a means to have a merchant exchange a message with the purchaser. This would be a direct PoS system, no need for Visa etc.

[1:24]

2010

[1:24]

See email

[1:24]

Well before we get to where we are RIGHT NOW it is possible to preempt this and have an increase.

jp [1:25 PM]

Why did you credit Adam Back hashcash when you didn't use it?

csw [1:25 PM]

Adam intro'd Wei

[1:25]

I do not generally talk to people I do not know. Not without an intro

jp [1:26 PM]

But why credit him while you not used his? This wrong citation creates this evil blockstream

csw [1:26 PM]

Adam was helpful for all that he said it would not work, but I am used to people saying my work is not worth considering.

jp [1:26 PM]

Why you didn't credit triple entry accounting?

csw [1:27 PM]

I am not able to see the future.

cryptonaut [1:27 PM]

re: merchant exchange, decent idea but probably premature and not the best idea to put so many use cases into a single application (for example, the wallet accounts system used by Core is total garbage)

csw [1:27 PM]

The list of references would be in the 100s of pages if I was to list the giants it was built to stand upon.

jp [1:28 PM]

You used triple entry accounting in 2005 to inspire blockchain. But instead you credited something not actually used

csw [1:28 PM]

Yes, the marketplace was far too early. And my design skills are far too poor.

[1:28]

Using wxHtml was also a mistake.

jp [1:29 PM]

It is why Ian grigg was heavily undervalued while core Adam back is crook

cryptonaut [1:29 PM]

the idea for PoW is an iteration/evolution of hashcash so I don't think the citation is off base really

csw [1:29 PM]

And triple entry accounting was something I stayed away from commenting

jp [1:29 PM]

It is not too late to comment now

csw [1:29 PM]

It was something I was introduced to when I was working at BDO, an accounting firm

jp [1:29 PM]

Yes. Granger did

csw [1:31 PM]

Again, I never foresaw the world to come as it has come. I did not see the politics. I saw state actors as more the issue than Adam B(l)ack

jp [1:31 PM]

I Think you should also correct the citation. Adam back himself was surprised when he saw he was credited

christophbergmann [1:31 PM]

why was Ian Grigg heavily undervalued, @jp ?

cryptonaut [1:31 PM]

what a mind trip adam must have had lol

jp [1:32 PM]

He was the one kept looking for hmwjo SN was because he was surprised as his name was included in whitepaper while he knew hashcash was not used

csw [1:32 PM]

It is published. Papers should not be played with

[1:32]

I am not a god, I am a researcher. I code, I do maths and I am fallible. (edited)

jp [1:33 PM]

It is not late to correctly credit people whose works you used.

[1:33]

Adam back is not and should not be on whitepaper because of just an introduction email to Wei Dai

csw [1:34 PM]

Should not. Is. These are separate concepts.

tomothy

[1:34 PM]

I know you touched on the 1mb cap and mining but can you comment on the idea of the UASF, (user activated soft fork) and your thought on using it to implement segwit? Also general thoughts on segwit? Thanks.

csw [1:34 PM]

I do not want to be found. I did not want to be found.

cryptonaut [1:34 PM]

frankly unless csw somehow 100% proves he is satoshi, any whitepaper update wouldn't be taken seriously and probably a waste of time. Plus blockstream is already a thing, too late for that

csw [1:35 PM]

UASF - Miners are nodes. Nodes are miners.

[1:35]

There are NO full non-mining nodes.

[1:35]

Please read the paper.

[1:35]

It is VERY VERY clear

[1:35]

If you have issues, look at the code.

tomothy

[1:35 PM]

And then segwit generally?

csw [1:36 PM]

"Nodes" that are not mining are wallets, these are fat SPV systems and sock puppets

[1:36]

SegWit centralises the system

jp [1:36 PM]

What is your plan to stop segwit? A hard fork coming soon?

csw [1:36 PM]

It means that developers can make further changes without a consensus

bdd [1:36 PM]

joined #general

csw [1:37 PM]

There will not be an update. Mistakes on referencing or not

tomothy

[1:37 PM]

To the best of your knowledge, does segwit infringe on any patents?

csw [1:38 PM]

And I will not prove. I am not here to prove. If you need to listen as you think that I am and this is the sole reason, then it is lost to you in any event.

[1:38]

Tomothy.

[1:38]

Yes

[1:38]

I cannot expand on that here and now.

[1:39]

That will be addressed soon and in the manner that is requires

tomothy

[1:39 PM]

And is it safe to the assume that the creators of segwit had alterior motives for creating it, introducing it, and refusing to increase 1mb limit?

[1:39]

Understood. Eagerly await.

csw [1:39 PM]

I cannot speak for the motivations of others I do not know intimately

jp [1:39 PM]

What can we do to help?

csw [1:40 PM]

Law is Law.

Cryptographic tools are tools.

I know many do not see this, but when it comes to intellectual property, it is rather certain.

[1:40]

To help... compete.

[1:40]

Competition and markets are the source of human freedom and innovation.

[1:41]

Make something.

[1:41]

Develop

jp [1:41 PM]

Compete in what way? I see that the SDK is one stone two birds. Kill core and alts

csw [1:41 PM]

And if you fail for the n-th time... Start and try again.

cryptonaut [1:41 PM]

amen to that, @jp compete in all ways :stuck_out_tongue:

[1:41]

getting super late here, I'm out guys. Cheers

jp [1:41 PM]

Will there be any smart contract applications coming?

csw [1:41 PM]

I cannot discuss that./

[1:42]

I also need to go.

I am sorry, but I have a lot to do.

jp [1:42 PM]

Thank you.

tomothy

[1:42 PM]

Same, thanks for providing so many responses!

csw [1:42 PM]

Please, all I ask is do not follow me, a developer or anyone based on who they are. Look anytime, everytime on the solution, the effects and the trade-off.

bitsko [1:43 PM]

thank you for your thoughts!

csw [1:43 PM]

Please remember, this is a world of scarcity, there is always something that is a trade-off, a cost and we cannot just assume that a change comes without a cost.

[1:43]

Fair well.

jp [1:45 PM]

And he gone.

cypherblock [1:45 PM]

well that was interesting.

bitsko [1:46 PM]

:awesome: :ohyeah: :awesome: :ohyeah: :success: :success: :wut: :rocket:

norway [1:47 PM]

This is crazy.

tomothy

[1:47 PM]

Thanks for making that happen vlad

vlad2vlad [1:47 PM]

BOOM!!! Told you guys Dr Wright was the real deal!!!

tomothy

[1:47 PM]

I still expect some God damn fireworks though. That better not be the end of it.

vlad2vlad [1:47 PM]

I do what I do. ;p

[1:48]

I don't think that's the end of it. It's like core is gonna compromise.

tomothy

[1:48 PM]

We need that tabloid inquirer type juice too

jp [1:48 PM]

I told you were a working tool. Good one.

vlad2vlad [1:48 PM]

Lol.

tomothy

[1:48 PM]

LOL compromise LOL

vlad2vlad [1:48 PM]

Haha

norway [1:49 PM]

I like this one: "There are NO full non-mining nodes."

cypherblock [1:49 PM]

I thought his first post was interesting.

norway [1:50 PM]

Bitcoin mapped to current M1 makes a lot of sense.

vlad2vlad [1:50 PM]

Replace cash. Brilliant.

norway [1:51 PM]

M1 is not just physical cash. It's also spending accounts.

vlad2vlad [1:51 PM]

Yeah, cash equivalents

[1:52]

That was a solid showing

cypherblock [1:53 PM]

@vlad2vlad why did his first post here call out Scronty. Were you guys discussing him previously?

vlad2vlad [1:53 PM]

I don't think so. Not sure if someone else maybe mentioned him.

jp [1:54 PM]

Scronty is a wannabe wanker

vlad2vlad [1:54 PM]

Lol

jp [1:54 PM]

He even sent emails asking for 500k btc

norway [1:54 PM]

I made a calculation of potential bitcoin value a couple of years ago. I used M2 (Cash + spending accounts + savings accounts) as the basis. It's these pie charts: https://i.imgur.com/KA8CuED.png (231kB)

vlad2vlad [1:55 PM]

That guy messaged me telling me crazy stuff. Sounded desperate. Scammer type.

cypherblock [1:55 PM]

ah I see @cryptonaut posted question about Scronty. Scronty seems like a nice guy, either he is full of shit or he is not. Same as csw.

jp [1:57 PM]

Scronty sent emails demanding 500k btc

cypherblock [1:57 PM]

@jp please post

[1:58]

csw posted ~invalid~ faked, scammy satoshi signatures. (edited)

vlad2vlad [1:58 PM]

Scronty told me he asked for 500k BTC. Said it was owed to him

jp [1:59 PM]

uploaded this image: Screenshot_20170504-045849.jpg

Add Comment

cypherblock [2:00 PM]

@jp didn’t look like a demand there, but that is semantics I suppose. Sounds like he was involved then? Can you confirm?

jp [2:00 PM]

Oh. It was a lot of rants prior that

[2:01]

Scronty was not involved. He is pissed off because he was not

[2:01]

Like you knew someone before he/she getting famous and now you jump up and down to tell people that you two were best friend forever lol

vlad2vlad [2:02 PM]

@jp are you Joseph?

cypherblock [2:02 PM]

Not involved at all? Didn’t help author the white paper or see any drafts of it prior to publication and give feedback on that?

jp [2:02 PM]

John Paterson

[2:02]

Not involved

[2:02]

You can write that fantasy novel too

[2:02]

By gathering public info and some studies

newliberty [2:03 PM]

joined #general

cypherblock [2:03 PM]

@jp who came up with using hashcash (yes I know you hate) pow? Was that csw?

tomothy

[2:03 PM]

NL this is slack text I wanted to send or link dunno how

jp [2:04 PM]

No. Hashcash was not used

[2:04]

It is why I raised this issue

cypherblock [2:04 PM]

double sha256 as pow then. who came up with that?

jp [2:04 PM]

Adam Back was surprised when he was credited

[2:05]

He kept wondering who was Satoshi because Adam back said solutions Satoshi put, wouldn't work

[2:05]

And here we re. Adam back tries to steal everything

[2:06]

Wei Dai helped

tomtomtom7 [2:06 PM]

joined #general

tomothy

[2:07 PM]

I think he might now be in http://btcchat.slack.com

[2:07]

If you have access

cypherblock [2:07 PM]

@jp but bitcoin does use double sha256 as proof of work, so there is some basis for referencing another work that also used that.

tomothy

[2:08 PM]

For those just joining and hoping to get some answers. Was just told he got there and is talking also

jp [2:08 PM]

Read Ddos resistance paper

tomothy

[2:08 PM]

Unless this is that slack... Lol I don't think it is though, right? To many slacks

cypherblock [2:08 PM]

@timothy this is btcchat yes.

jp [2:09 PM]

Hashcash was used for email spam

tomothy

[2:09 PM]

Oh. Damn, sorry NL.

jp [2:09 PM]

It was hashcash original purpose

cypherblock [2:09 PM]

@jp yes I am aware. I completely agree that bitcoin is far far different than hashcash

jp [2:10 PM]

Too much fantasy from email spam solution to bitcoin as Adam back claims. Totally scam

cypherblock [2:11 PM]

but still the concept of proof of work, of something that is easy to verify and hard to create is important. Adam came up with good solution for that and saw its use but obviously nothing like bitcoin.

vlad2vlad [2:11 PM]

JVP?? Man, Dr. Wright brought in the big strangers. Welcome, @newliberty

jp [2:11 PM]

If the whitepaper citations were done properly, actually credit properly then we wouldn't have blockstream Adam Back of today

[2:11]

But as Dr. Wright said, he could not see the future

[2:13]

Hal Finney, Dave Kleiman. Wei Dai were the team. If anyone else claimed to be a part of It and asking for money, it is scammer

vlad2vlad [2:15 PM]

@jp What about bear? I'm pretty sure he helped out early on

jp [2:16 PM]

I won't comment on that.

vlad2vlad [2:16 PM]

The answer is yes.

cypherblock [2:16 PM]

yeah who is bear? Sorry I mean I’m not familiar with that moniker, is he referenced elsewhere?

vlad2vlad [2:16 PM]

I actually talked to him a couple weeks ago about another project

[2:16]

Ray Dillinger

[2:17]

Maybe we can get him in here too. Bring back the whole team. Minus Hal, of course.

jp [2:17 PM]

Minus Dave K

vlad2vlad [2:17 PM]

Oops. Him too.

[2:18]

I've got Gavin's email. Gonna try him

jp [2:19 PM]

Adam Back should stop riding the bitcoin whitepaper coattail

vlad2vlad [2:20 PM]

I sent bear and Gavin and invite. Maybe we'll get a super dev slack going here.

awemany [2:25 PM]

joined #general

bitsko [2:27 PM]

Was trying to get full text with slack signup as title for a pastebin. Looks like i didnt get it all, now on cell and must work. :fearful:

travin [2:27 PM]

joined #general

cypherblock [2:29 PM]

@jp were you involved with early bitcoin? You are not jvp right? Sorry so many monikers to track.

jp [2:29 PM]

As Dr. Wright said, he is tired of having people saying that they worked with him.

tomothy

[2:29 PM]

Yeah also on mobile, Vlad maybe make a pastebin of today's excitement?

1 reply Today at 2:31 PM View thread

jp [2:29 PM]

I am John Paterson

csw [2:30 PM]

No, I posted a link to read Satre.

Pinned by jp

Today at 2:32 PM Pinned by jp

[2:31]

Please read the following (translated) page for this:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1964/12/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/

The New York Review of Books

Sartre on the Nobel Prize

Jean-Paul Sartre explained his refusal to accept the Nobel Prize for Literature in a statement made to the Swedish Press on October 22, which appeared in Le Monde in a French translation approved by Sartre. The following translation into English was made by Richard Howard. I deeply regret the fact that the incident has become … (13kB)

vlad2vlad [2:32 PM]

I'm also on mobile. 4 years strong

xhiggy [2:33 PM]

joined #general

vlad2vlad [2:33 PM]

Now I remember reading that

awemany [2:34 PM]

csw, so what I am wondering, given the general hands-off attitude you seem to possess: why do you want to get involved with Bitcoin development again through nchain? Do you distrust the market? Or do you think the market simply includes you as a market participant as well, and it therefore should reflect your actions?

csw [2:34 PM]

East vs West, this is a cultural comment. It does not relate to what people see, but to order and anarchy. Neither is the way. Being a Libertarian is a means to allow free trade and market solutions, but it requires institutions.

[2:34]

The market is all I trust!

[2:35]

Am I being a wet blanket here, or does anyone understand the point of the Satre rejection letter?

[2:36]

There exists nothing to relate a free market based global money to. It is as a consequence of never truly having been free. The "Gold standard" was in fact a Gold exchange standard and worse, it was a BiMetalist system (edited)

newliberty [2:38 PM]

There've been a number of different gold standards, so there's not really a standard gold standard.

tomothy

[2:39 PM]

The point of the letter is apt and plainly similar. Thanks for sharing.

csw [2:39 PM]

Everyone seeks an authority. This is what BitCoin was created to bypass. We can all trade and we can do this as the market determines. Not as a consequence of a high priesthood, but through trial and error, failure and just sheer will to try and learn and fail again.

[2:40]

Satoshi has to be a myth. If you make me, or anyone a 'God', an infallible authority, then what is the point?

cypherblock [2:40 PM]

did you purposely want to undermine Gavin as a way to remove his authority as well? That seems a bit, well, rough.

charlieshrem [2:41 PM]

joined #general

charlieshrem [2:42 PM]

Hey

2 replies Last reply today at 2:42 PM View thread

awemany [2:42 PM]

csw: yes that authority part makes a lot of sense and also why the creator had to hide. this is why I am wondering about your personal involvement again. is nchain going to be funded by early coins?

csw [2:42 PM]

Core should not tell you what to do. They need to propose and allow the market to decide. Bitcoin solves the issue of sock puppets in a manner analogous to the gambler at the roulette table. This means we propose and allow it to compete and to see what we can have, not as a centralised system but through many groups.

newliberty [2:42 PM]

Recognizing "Satoshi" ought be more about gratitude than authority seeking. Authorities are to be questioned.

csw [2:42 PM]

nChain is funded, but I will not discuss that. There are people in the group who will.

jp [2:42 PM]

Someone pastebin this chat pls. I'm on mobile

csw [2:43 PM]

Authority NEEDS to be questioned.

[2:43]

I study and I write. More than that I do not ask.

awemany [2:43 PM]

csw: ok. Core supporters often bring forward the 'alternative implementations are menace to the network' part - what did you mean by that, in light of 'many groups' above? (edited)

tomothy

[2:44 PM]

Newliberty did.

csw [2:44 PM]

They are a menace only to those who freely decide.

wellspenttime [2:44 PM]

joined #general. Also, @joeldalais joined.

csw [2:44 PM]

If you consider the flaw in BU, it was a loss to the miner, not to the protocol

charlieshrem [2:45 PM]

BU has too many issues to safely be considered the reference client.

csw [2:45 PM]

That should be encouraged. No transaction was lost and the overall system did not suffer, so why is this a problem generally?

[2:45]

Charlie, I do agree. But the solution does not need to be so difficult

charlieshrem [2:45 PM]

Agreed.

csw [2:46 PM]

And we can scale on and off chain at the same time

charlieshrem [2:46 PM]

Agreed as well.

[2:46]

I feel like good solutions have come alight, but are blocked/put down based on who their authors are.

csw [2:46 PM]

In the 8 years, Moore's law has held and will continue.

[2:49]

Did any of you know that a 2nm transistor was created. This was something considered impossible. It is lower than the 7nm Quantum tunnelling effect.

lunar [2:49 PM]

@csw . Good afternoon. I'm just one small cog in the Bitcoin Unlimited team, but we've been trying to solve the blocksize issue for several years now. I was interested in what you thought about the emergent consensus solution? The idea BU implements, by giving miners the tools to signal between each other and come to a free market driven determination of the blocksize commodity, with an adjustable block cap. Thanks

csw [2:49 PM]

This occurred in 2012.

[2:49]

I think that miners need to decide.

joeldalais [2:50 PM]

can i ask - what is nChain bringing to the table? will it be a new client implementation? actual development (instead of this stalling we've had for years)? new teams of programmers (seems you have a very strong team)? business solutions? end user solutions? or - a mix of everything and more? or don't worry if its too early to ask (edited)

csw [2:51 PM]

In 2009/10, the value of Bitcoin was far too low for flood control to work based on fees without a cap.

tomothy

[2:51 PM]

See above, not really discussing nchain

joeldalais [2:51 PM]

fair enough :slightly_smiling_face:

Pinned by jp

Today at 2:52 PM Pinned by jp

csw [2:51 PM]

I will not discuss the business side here sorry. There is a team who do that. I focus on code and maths

[2:51]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[2:51]

Please have a quick look at the 0.1.3 and earlier code

joeldalais [2:51 PM]

ok, then i'll be quiet and soak up what knowledge i can :slightly_smiling_face:

csw [2:52 PM]

Lines 2249 as comments and on:

// Transaction fee requirements, mainly only needed for flood control

// Under 10K (about 80 inputs) is free for first 100 transactions

// Base rate is 0.01 per KB

[2:53]

It is simple to create a flood based fee system

newliberty [2:53 PM]

For QC threats over the coming years, Shor's algo for keys and Grover's for hashing are concerns, but they will hit most every other security protocol before they are problems for Bitcoin, so should ample be time to resolve, and the failures of others to learn from. I imagine these were design considerations? Care to comment on this?

csw [2:53 PM]

Offer a set amount for free and then have a capped value - not a limit, let TXs pay to be in if there are too many (as decided by the market and not a committee)

[2:54]

QC is bunk

[2:54]

Grover's algo means a large QC could solve a hash in a billion years or so... classical growth will solve this faster

[2:55]

As for Shor's, the rate of calculation would lead to a 110 or longer solution time when a private key has been exposed.

[2:55]

This means that a 20 billion USD system could solve for 3 keys a year.

[2:56]

As a consequence, large values could be moved to multiple keys or even to multi sig systems.

[2:56]

I have a paper being published in this area. It took time. I needed to study some more physics first.

satoshi [2:57 PM]

joined #general

awemany [2:57 PM]

what is "110 or longer"?

vlad2vlad [2:57 PM]

Oh look, Satoshi is here. Lol

[2:57]

This is getting good

newliberty [2:58 PM]

The double hashing resolves most the preimage issues, and one-time use of coins means there is only the window of time from transmission to mining to crack, so had guessed that these were considered from the beginning.

csw [2:58 PM]

At a discounted rate of 1 Billion USD a key per annum, the requirement would be that a key would need to have 100 BIT stored and to have a based value of 100 million USD per BTC to make attacking Bitcoin ECDSA keys valid.

[2:59]

More, the double hash means that the input to the hash needs to be of a set size. The collision problem allows for scaled solutions.

satoshi [2:59 PM]

I am not Satoshi.

csw [2:59 PM]

So, if you have a set number of collisions, you find that the possibility of a valid collision diminishes

vlad2vlad [3:00 PM]

For crying outloud @satoshi I thought you were. Lol

jp [3:01 PM]

Can we focus on the technical discussion here?

satoshi [3:01 PM]

What is the most productive thing the average user can do to support on-chain scaling?

csw [3:01 PM]

There are an estimated infinite number of collisions for any hash, but the size is indeterminate.

[3:02]

Satoshi, use bitcoin and call for real solutions. This is not 2 Mb. From 09 to now, systems have increased about 100x

[3:02]

In this time, we have not moved from a cap that was set for flood control at all.

freetrader [3:03 PM]

joined #general

csw [3:03 PM]

Can I ask people to look at the code comments in the 0.1.0 to 0.1.3 release.

joeldalais [3:03 PM]

its where its noted as 'flood control'?

csw [3:03 PM]

I think that it was rather clear, but then I have a habbit of losing people

[3:04]

Yes.

[3:04]

There should always be free TXs

joeldalais [3:04 PM]

people seem to gaze over that part and ignore it :disappointed:

csw [3:04 PM]

Where the idea of a cap should be is a market decided limit that is not stopped, but sold at value

[3:04]

Nobody reads the code comments :disappointed:

[3:05]

There was a 100 TB drive released in the last 6 months.

[3:06]

This i not a standard laptop addition, but the truth is that we are in a world were exponential scaling is occuring and against that we have a logistic one.

awemany [3:06 PM]

csw, tbh, you lost me with the above calculations. why is it '1 billion USD a key *per annum*?". Ialso do not understand " The collision problem allows for scaled solutions.". I assume that "More, the double hash means that the input to the hash needs to be of a set size." means that the input width is fixed for the 2nd SHA256? Why is that relevant and important?

newliberty [3:06 PM]

Storing the full chain costs about 0.001BTC worth of drive today

csw [3:07 PM]

Can I assume that people understand the distinction between a logistic and exponential growth system?

ajd [3:07 PM]

csw were you on IRC while you were developing Bitcoin?

joeldalais [3:07 PM]

i was looking at bandwidth+drive space (costs) some while back, the growth/cost over the last 15 years. It boggles my mind why people think this growth will suddenly stop, there is certainly room now and in the future.

csw [3:07 PM]

Shor is not the same as linear classical systems.

[3:08]

If you have a 20 Billion USD system, and you can factor 3 keys a year, a basic IRR means you come to a value a little over 1 billion USD for each key.

[3:09]

joeldalais, the Intel roadmap is strong for the next 2 decades.

tomtomtom7 [3:09 PM]

csw: Sorry if blunt, but could you comment on why you let Gavin vouch for you without going public with proof yourself?

csw [3:09 PM]

http://gizmodo.com/5807151/2-nanometer-quantum-transistors-are-the-worlds-smallest

Gizmodo

2-Nanometer Quantum Transistors Are the World's Smallest

A team of scientists at Chungbuk National University in South Korea have created a transistor that's only 2nm in size, which happens to be the smallest in the world. By comparison, the current generation of Intel processors use 32nm transistors. (35kB)

[3:10]

Moving goal posts.

[3:10]

Tomx3+7, I had never wanted what occured and I had no plans to be an authority. I will not

[3:11]

I will be a scammer with ideas that go to market before I become something I detest and people wanted that. They dressed me in a bloody turtle neck!

[3:12]

I have NEVER worn a frikin turtle neck in my life. Like I was bloody jobs or something.

[3:12]

I made stupid decisions and I, as all do, have regrets.

joeldalais [3:13 PM]

its not that bad decisions are done, but how we act after that matters

csw [3:13 PM]

I am not good with people. This is difficult for me now. Vlad and others have pushed me to be here and to be frank it scares the shit out of me

tomtomtom7 [3:14 PM]

thank you csw

joeldalais [3:14 PM]

great respect for being here at all :slightly_smiling_face:

jp [3:14 PM]

Incompleteness.

travin [3:14 PM]

Thanks for that, Craig. It's well-appreciated.

joeldalais [3:15 PM]

and for what its worth, i think you're doing fine here

csw [3:15 PM]

Ta

jp [3:17 PM]

csw: you are better with code and math.

csw [3:17 PM]

LOL

new messages

jp [3:18 PM]

Worked with you for 7 years so I know ;)

newliberty [3:23 PM]

Maybe we work up with some worthy competition in the next 7.

ajd [3:26 PM]

Have you changed your opinion on multiple implementations and if so why?

cypherblock [3:26 PM]

@csw how long did it take the write the original bitcoin source code?

csw [3:27 PM]

I am not going to play Satoshi. I am not wanting to have people think I am and I am going to imagine that nobody ever doxx'd me and that I am just some overqualified academic for the moment... ok?

tomothy

[3:28 PM]

Oh, what's the new masters you are getting?

ajd [3:28 PM]

OK. I'm asking csw that question.

jp [3:28 PM]

Csw is just a con artist and an asshole. Move along, nothing to see.

csw [3:28 PM]

The code should compete, but what matters is that there is a reference protocol

[3:29]

I am completing a MSc right now. It is in financial econometrics

[3:29]

Uni of London

joeldalais [3:29 PM]

hypothetical question .. do you think it would be possible to link 2 blockchains together via a 2nd layer (that ran the same algo). A 2nd layer that basically just read and fed back data from both chains?

csw [3:30 PM]

I have put in a proposal into Cambridge for another PhD in Pure Mathematics this time. I hope to start that in Oct

1 reply Today at 3:31 PM View thread

libitx [3:30 PM]

joined #general

joeldalais [3:30 PM]

its a good uni, think one of my sisters went there

cypherblock [3:30 PM]

any thoughts on recent ext block proposals (or ext blocks in general with ability to move coins back and forth between main and ext)?

csw [3:30 PM]

I see issues, but this is not a place to discuss that.

[3:31]

There are too many problems with the discussion of complex issues in a few words. I have a few papers and I will be publishing again soon.

joeldalais [3:31 PM]

sounds good :slightly_smiling_face:

csw [3:31 PM]

People can read and accept or dismiss the arguments that I pose in those papers.

cypherblock [3:32 PM]

expected pub date? or too soon to say?

prometheus [3:33 PM]

joined #general

csw [3:33 PM]

Peer review...

Pinned by jp

Today at 3:34 PM Pinned by jp

[3:34]

Some have been completed... peer review is a difficult mistress. Worse than my wife :slightly_smiling_face:

newliberty [3:34 PM]

Peers can be difficult to come by

awemany [3:37 PM]

csw, so I am still trying to parse your above comments on using shor to crack a priv key. what I do not understand where the double hash comes in? I only see the single rpemd160 one.

csw [3:38 PM]

Sha256

tomothy

[3:38 PM]

CSW, which alt should I buy tomorrow? (don't hurt me)

csw [3:39 PM]

:stuck_out_tongue:

jp [3:39 PM]

I guess it is Diem

awemany [3:39 PM]

ok, sure, SHA256. but where does that come into play in cracking priv/pub pairs?

newliberty [3:39 PM]

Guaranteed it will hurt if you do. Rumor is we are running out of bitcoins to buy.

csw [3:39 PM]

2 sec

tomothy

[3:41 PM]

On a serious note, thoughts on Monero, or ZEC, similar coins & code (confidential transactions) with regards to anonymity? Is anonymity something you see being brought to bitcoin in the near/far future? I know blockchain analytics have significantly improved and coin taint can be a concern for some. I.e., BTC tumblers essentially no longer working.

vlad2vlad [3:41 PM]

@tomothy Nuggets!! Buy NUGS if you wanna be rich.

awemany [3:42 PM]

@tomothy : tumblers don't work, why is that?

9 replies Last reply today at 3:48 PM View thread

klee [3:42 PM]

joined #general

awemany [3:43 PM]

@tomothy : monero is mostly BTC in constant tumbler mode and seems to be working fine, privacy wise. so I don't see how bitcoin is fundamentally lacking. Now, sure, most people do NOT anonymize their TXN because it is a PITA with the current tools, but I see no reason how BTC is lacking there in principle

Pinned by jp

Today at 3:44 PM Pinned by jp

csw [3:43 PM]

The reality is there is nothing to fear

Most importantly, bitcoin uses a double hashing algorithm. The results of this scenario is that any unused bitcoin address will not be reversible to the public key, let alone able to be attacked through a reversal of the ECDSA key pair. Algorithm such as Grover's algorithm (Grover, 1996) are touted as being able to speed up the searching through possible collisions in the reversing of hashing algorithms including SHA-256.

This algorithm is known to be at best a solution in BPP ( ), a class of decision problem that is decidable in polynomial time with an error probability bounded by 1/3 (for all inputs). The idea is that this error rate can be minimised or made to be exponentially small in 'k" using a process of iterating the algorithm 'k' times with the most frequent value returned as the result. This process ignores the noise of the quantum computer and reports an error rate based on the ideal system alone. Bennet et al. (1997) demonstrate how an ideal quantum Turning machine cannot find a solution to an NP problem in less than time . For SHA-256, this is time and is a far more difficult problem when the true problem, the solution of a bounded size hash to a hash puzzle is introduced. His conclusion was that “Anyone afraid of quantum hash-collision algorithms already has much more to fear from non-quantum hash-collision algorithms”.

More importantly, when Bernstein (2009, ) analysed the known quantum algorithms he demonstrated conclusively that “all the quantum-collision algorithms in the literature are steps backwards from the non-quantum algorithm of (Oorschot, et al. ). In other words, any attack on the hash functions of Bitcoin would be more effective using a classical computer.

Bitcoin is thus secure against (theoretical) quantum computer attacks against a key that has not been used. Once a transaction is signed and sent to the blockchain, an attacker can extract the public key. This is not a flaw in the algorithm but a standard part of the functioning of ECC and ECDSA based systems. The question is then, what is the cost to an attacker to break the ECDSA key itself?

Grover’s algorithm could be said to reduce the bit-security of such primitives by half; one might say that a 256-bit pre-quantum primitive offers only 128-bit security in a post-quantum setting. This is far too large to be broken on any QC any time in the foreseeable future. However, Bitcoin uses the Hash of a Hash. The combination of both SHA256 bit hashes of SHA256 values and the use of a 160Bit RipeMD hash of a SHA256 value for an address makes the analysis of bitcoin addresses to uncover the private key infeasible.

Attacking ECDSA with Shor

Let us for a moment assume that a working solution to the problem of creating logical qubits on a FTQC that can maintain coherence for long time periods can be achieved. We next need to note that Shor's algorithm is not simple and a Universal QC would need specialised breaks - you cannot just solve ECC in one hit as is suggested by many pundits.

The other common fallacy and assumption is that a FTQC will just factor the private key before you can spend. It is more probable that even a 1 million logical qubit FTQC system would likely take weeks or months to break 256 bit ECDSA keys.

[3:44]

On the basis of these numbers, performing a 2048-bit number Shor factorization will take on the order of 110 days and require a system size of 2 × 109 trapped ions.

Trapping 2 × 109 ions will require 23 × 23 vacuum chambers occupying an area of ca. 103.5 × 103.5 m2.

Pinned by jp

Today at 3:46 PM Pinned by jp

[3:44]

Bitcoin Mining.

As we noted from Bernstein’s (2009) results, quantum computers are slower at solving hash collision than are algorithms for the deployment on classical systems. Hence, there is no economic benefit for a miner to use Quantum Computers for the solution of hash puzzles as they would solve fewer hashes than a miner on a more traditional ASIC. This excludes the costs of the Quantum computer as well (which is significant) and does not consider the fact that qubits are slower to process than bits (Bernstein, 2009). The result is that a miner who was to deploy a Quantum computer for the mining of Bitcoin (if one was to ever exist in the first place) would be at an economic disadvantage to a miner using more traditional ASIC based systems.

Post-quantum cryptography ( ), a purported non-partisan site for the scientific dissemination of information concerning the effects of quantum computing on cryptography that is heavily used by partisan personalities including Vitalik Buterin, (co-founder of Ethereum) starts with the doom saying prophecy:

“"Imagine that it's fifteen years from now. Somebody announces that he's built a large quantum computer. RSA is dead. DSA is dead. Elliptic curves, hyperelliptic curves, class groups, whatever, dead, dead, dead. So users are going to run around screaming and say 'Oh my God, what do we do?'”

This false prophecy is clearly misleadingly designed to read as if it was a quote from Daniel Bernstein’s ( ) analysis. The removal of the line “The New York Times runs a frontpage article reporting that all of the public-key algorithms used to protect the Internet have been broken” changes the context where the author starts by stating, “A closer look reveals, however, that there is no justification for the leap from “quantum computers destroy RSA and DSA and ECDSA” to “quantum computers destroy cryptography.””

More importantly, no consideration of the costs and time in uncovering a private key has been announced. As Bernstein (2009 ) also demonstrated, the move to alternate hashing algorithms is unwarranted due to theoretical quantum computers even were they to become a reality.

So, please never listen to the FUD. Forget ideas such as Lamport Signatures. Bitcoin is as it is for a reason and the reason that these others who worry about science fiction did not create it is the reason we need to maintain it as the protocol was created.

[3:44]

Sorry... parts of a paper I am writing.

new messages

awemany [3:46 PM]

ok, thanks, let me digest that

tomothy

[3:50 PM]

CSW can you address thoughts regarding privacy concerns on the blockchain and comment on coins that attempt to address some of those issues? I mean, it's recognized that it's a "PUBLIC LEDGER" with "PUBLIC WALLETS" so... but still it's an interesting topic and I just wanted to see your thoughts.

[3:51]

Also, someone was wondering what your thoughts were about "vaults". Not sure if you've seen the article. http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/02/26/how-to-implement-secure-bitcoin-vaults/

Hacking Distributed

How to Implement Secure Bitcoin Vaults

We have come up with a simple and elegant technique for implementing hack-proof Bitcoin vaults, to deter Bitcoin thefts. (176kB)

csw [3:51 PM]

Threshold signatures.

csw [3:52 PM]

The problem with signatures is solvable using set theory. Anyone know about Cantor's use of diagonalism?

5 replies Last reply today at 3:57 PM View thread

hankdasilva [3:54 PM]

joined #general

klee [3:54 PM]

I am the guy interested for the Vault thing

newliberty [3:54 PM]

Infinite sets comparisons

klee [3:55 PM]

and also if BitCoin blockchain was made transparent (regarding anonymity, privacy) by design

[3:55]

or was the best thought back in the day

awemany [3:56 PM]

csw, so I read the above, I see most parts of where you are coming from now and it makes sense. however, the only thing remaining is the double-hashing, which is unclear to me. what does it add in terms of security in terms of QC considerations? Grover's algo will work in sqrt(n) both for a single and a double hash and the double hashing is just a constant factor in time - no?

tomothy [3:56 PM]

"jp [3 minutes ago]

csw: had a conversation with Dr. Conway about Cantor

tomothy [2 minutes ago]

JP does that have to do with anonymity or storing of txs

csw [1 minute ago]

Keys. And there are ways that you can make keys more private as well... but again, too much for slack

tomothy

[< 1 minute ago]

Thanks, will repost into slack as threads aren't stored easy."

newliberty [3:57 PM]

Surreal numbers, Conway worked on something related. JP met with him a while back

[3:57]

Not sure how it applies though

iang [3:58 PM]

joined #general

jp [3:58 PM]

Welcome Ian grigg

newliberty [3:59 PM]

This is a rich meal of food for thought

csw [3:59 PM]

Hello Ian.

iang [3:59 PM]

good morning all

jp [4:00 PM]

Our bloody buddy is here Ian.

csw [4:00 PM]

In distributed thresholds you have the (n+1) vs (2n+1) issue

[4:00]

Sorry, there is not a lot that can be explained in this without maths.

newliberty [4:02 PM]

Yes, it gives diagonalism, infinite sets which are not equal

vlad2vlad [4:03 PM]

Man, this channel is full of world class talent.

tomothy

[4:04 PM]

Do you think Grigg has been credited properly?

[4:04]

With regards to triple entry?

iang [4:05 PM]

lol. triple entry is a concept, it’s a bit difficult to just turn around and implement. A bit like smart contracts.

klee [4:05 PM]

https://youtu.be/4GuqlQvFYJo

YouTube Bitcoin News TV

Craig Wright Interview - Part 1 - 2014 - Satoshi?

luke-jr [4:07 PM]

joined #general

vlad2vlad [4:07 PM]

That video was GREAT!!!

[4:07]

Hey Luke!!

[4:07]

Glad you accepted my invite. :)

Pinned by jp

Today at 4:08 PM Pinned by jp

iang [4:07 PM]

if you look at the list of credits in the bitcoin paper, it’s very light - only 8. Misses out on the entire digital cash tradition which was a squillion references. Also, the paper wasn’t written for a conference - a thing that is a thing. There are these days a lot of papers that just don’t do the academic track.

vlad2vlad [4:08 PM]

Is it too late to get my name in the whitepaper? Just asking?

new messages

klee [4:08 PM]

$1570 at stamp

1 reply Today at 4:09 PM View thread

luke-jr [4:08 PM]

"IRC is disabled for your team. Ask your Team Owner to enable it."

klee [4:08 PM]

off topic?

awemany [4:09 PM]

@bitsko , was it you who set this up? maybe you can help @luke-jr ?

iang [4:10 PM]

What are the rules of engagement?

luke-jr [4:11 PM]

@iang Get married within months?

[4:11]

:stuck_out_tongue: (edited)

iang [4:11 PM]

@luke-jr … months? You want me in pain and trauma for months? can’t we make it days?

[4:12]

question I’ve never understood - what is the purpose of the double hash?

luke-jr [4:12 PM]

within != at

[4:12]

what double hash?

tomothy

[4:12 PM]

It's bitsko's slack. I'm pretty sure he's AFK. I don't know about the IRC stuff, never needed it in here...

awemany [4:12 PM]

@iang , agree on the double hash. there was some exchange with csw above on it regarding QC. I am really curious as well

iang [4:13 PM]

oh wait - scratch that I see there is something written above.

awemany [4:13 PM]

there is - but can you explain it to me? I am kind of lost. I don't see how it makes Grover's algo better in regards to QC, except for a constant factor

csw [4:14 PM]

Double hashing means that the input to one hash is limited to a set size. It means that the number of collisions is reduced to neatly zero from infinite,

luke-jr [4:15 PM]

oh, that. somehow I thought you meant twitter # hash :stuck_out_tongue:

iang [4:15 PM]

there’s a lot of twitter redundancy :wink:

jp [4:16 PM]

Luke-jr vs CSW scale debate ding ding ding. Everyone sit back.

Speak only if you are devs or important figures ( if u think u 're lol) (edited)

toodarkmark [4:16 PM]

joined #general

luke-jr [4:16 PM]

semi-AFK until IRC gets turned on

csw [4:16 PM]

OK. I am going to cut and paste. Email was easier on lists this thing open stuff all over

iang [4:17 PM]

(I am reading it)

csw [4:17 PM]

I want to see Bitcoin scale significantly and this means opening it up to merchants who will run a node in a back office.

To grow to be able to avoid government taking it over, we have to have 100s of thousands of globally dispersed systems.

This is possible. If you think of a Coffee shop, they have public keys on the PoS and a system in the Back office.

Each merchant will want to ensure that they have a TX propagated as fast as possible, in seconds really.

Bitcoin is not really a Gossip model, but it is the simplest way to explain this to CompSci people

It is an SEIR-C

This:

http://people.cs.vt.edu/naren/papers/wsdm2014-difnet-competing-cascades-agenda-setting-camera-ready.pdf

or https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-9-87

That is the easiest way I can say it without code or maths.

If we create a system that opens to merchants and can operate as a PoS, the end is that we have a means to transfer wealth at lower costs than Visa and the banks

That makes us competitive and thus allows more people to enter and to allow scale.

With me so far?

There are over 1 million mid sized merchants and more when you take other trading entities.

We could out scale Visa with a larger growth factor with an upfront cost of the hardware at 20,000 USD or lower a year

In ten years, we could have a 20k system that can scale to encompass all global commerce.

In 20 years, the costs of this system would be under 500USD partity

There is so much more to it, but I cannot type it on the fly.

BMC Medicine

Simulation of an SEIR infectious disease model on the dynamic contact network of conference attendees

The spread of infectious diseases crucially depends on the pattern of contacts between individuals. Knowledge of these patterns is thus essential to inform models and computational efforts. However, there are few empirical studies available that provide estimates of the number and duration of contacts between social groups. Moreover, their space and time resolutions are limited, so that data are not explicit at the person-to-person level, and the dynamic nature of the contacts is disregarded. In Show more… (40kB)

awemany [4:19 PM]

csw: ok, on the double-hashing, still working on grokking it. so basically you say: SHA256(random-length-bit-string) has potentially a lot more collisions than SHA256(256-bit-long-string)?

csw [4:19 PM]

SHA256 has an infinite number of collisions

awemany [4:19 PM]

because of the infinite bitstream length you can put into it?

csw [4:19 PM]

But, choosing a particular collision is what the problem is

[4:20]

Yes, It is an Aleph 1 problem

[4:20]

That is a second level Cantor set

tula [4:21 PM]

joined #general

csw [4:21 PM]

This is a class of sets in infinitarity problems (there is not one type of infinity but I cannot explain it here if you do not get it)

joeldalais [4:21 PM]

the 20k a year .. i think smaller businesses would find the savings really appealing (allowing them to grow), but the 20k is putting up a bit of a barrier for them... perhaps it could be 20k over X time?

iang [4:21 PM]

ok, I’ll re-read the hash commentary later, but the tl;dr is that it addresses weaknesses from QC. My immediate knee-jerk is that if QC is in place we’ve got many many other problems to worry about … but sure.

freetrader [4:21 PM]

I'm having a problem seeing the 'reduces collisions to zero'.

Is that proven math?

1 reply Today at 4:23 PM View thread

newliberty [4:21 PM]

Countable and uncountable infinities

joeldalais [4:21 PM]

optional 20k over X time, bigger businesses would be fine

csw [4:21 PM]

Joeld... There can be companies that serve companies

joeldalais [4:22 PM]

ahh yes, i see what you mean

csw [4:22 PM]

This way, the back office PoS can be distributed for smaller companies

[4:22]

Well, actually there are both an infinity of countable and uncountable infinities.

[4:22]

It send Cantor mad... literally

new messages

joeldalais [4:23 PM]

an infinite infinities :slightly_smiling_face: people used to give me weird looks when i used to say that about bitcoin

newliberty [4:23 PM]

freetrader: preimaging a hash for a collision with a dataset of unbounded size is a much easier problem than doing so with a fixed size

csw [4:23 PM]

NL... not zero, 2 as a maxima

awemany [4:23 PM]

csw, I see no aleph1 anywhere? all I see is that sha256^2 reduces from alelph0 to uint256 in the middle between the hashes?

freetrader [4:23 PM]

@newliberty : sure, but if anyone has proven that there are 'zero' SHA256 collisions on input size of 256 bits, I'd like to know

3 replies Last reply today at 4:28 PM View thread

csw [4:23 PM]

But, the collisions are infeasible to solve

joeldalais [4:23 PM]

i can see a chain of businesses forming to create what you're talking about...

pesa [4:23 PM]

joined #general

csw [4:25 PM]

Awe.. the Aleph 1 comes from an unbounded set of input functions. That is not the case when a single hash is input to a hash

[4:26]

Freetrader. Yes, the maths to prove the reduction is proven and not just by axiomic conditions that are not completely determined.

newliberty [4:26 PM]

"Nearly zero" (though I think he misspelled it as neatly zero)

awemany [4:26 PM]

where does the unbounded set of input functions come from?

2 replies Last reply today at 4:29 PM View thread

csw [4:27 PM]

In the input to a hash function, the standard calls for a stream. That stream can be of any form

newliberty [4:27 PM]

awemany: If there were sha256 not 2sha256

awemany [4:28 PM]

csw, right, but the closure of that is just aleph0?

csw [4:28 PM]

Yes, or lower when you bound the input

[4:29]

A stream is an unbounded set.

Note that this is in itself not infinite. That is finite but unbounded. Add to that infinite and the set increases again.

Joel... Yes, and in a set of companies and businesses, we create a system that can self regulate and grow.

awemany [4:31 PM]

but all the streams I actually can hash appear to be strictly enumerable? it is not like SHA256 works on *infinite* streams?

checksum0 [4:31 PM]

joined #general. Also, @mastodon joined.

csw [4:32 PM]

SHA256 works on infinite the same way any machine works on infinite... You never halt and hence it is never solved in real time. It is in the conceptual infinite

[4:33]

We have a distinction here between an implemented system and a mathematically possible state.

awemany [4:33 PM]

ok. fair enough. i can see that now. thanks!

joeldalais [4:33 PM]

when i thought that i couldn't have anymore 'epiphany' moments in bitcoin, another occurs :slightly_smiling_face: ty csw

csw [4:34 PM]

This is going to get me in so much trouble. I know it.

joeldalais [4:34 PM]

:smile:

[4:34]

nah, we've been lucky so far, no trolls, its been good sensible talking :slightly_smiling_face:

odindillinger [4:35 PM]

joined #general

csw [4:35 PM]

If we now start to look at network propagation models. In epidemic modelling we have giant nodes at the point of decision between competing epidemics

iang [4:35 PM]

r any changes necessary to base protocol to go to coffeechain?

jp [4:35 PM]

It is Hidden Markov Chain

csw [4:35 PM]

These are able to be made into propagation systems. Routers you may say.

[4:35]

Yes, the cap needs to be lifted.

iang [4:35 PM]

(I’m not familiar with the argument as to how this is done… just trying to divide and conquer…)

[4:36]

Ah, that’s easy.

csw [4:36 PM]

https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.cpp#L2249

GitHub

trottier/original-bitcoin

original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

iang [4:36 PM]

:upside_down_face:

csw [4:36 PM]

The early code (commented) notes what is needed for flood control

awemany [4:37 PM]

csw, ok thanks you cleared this up, I think. to restate to figure out whether I got this: basically, you do the double hashing pretty much to make further analysis of the hash function - if taken as a black box - easier?

csw [4:38 PM]

A double hash reduces the input to a hash and makes collisions infeasible

[4:38]

MD5, SHA1...

[4:38]

All of this goes away when you have a hash of a hash

That means that when there is a flaw in the code, the hash function I should say, you end with enough time to migrate away and to another and even those who are left do not have a more than nominal chance of compromise

new messages

awemany [4:41 PM]

ok, thanks, I think I get the idea now. there's still nothing that proves SHA256 is surjective, however, or is there?

iang [4:41 PM]

In late 2000s this was a thing, post Shandong 2004.

chritchens [4:41 PM]

joined #general

csw [4:41 PM]

No, SHA256 has not been proven in all cases

[4:42]

So, there can be a particular SHA256 hash that maps to many 256 bit values

csw [4:43 PM]

uploaded this image: image.png

Add Comment

csw [4:43 PM]

Wow. This lets me post math images :slightly_smiling_face:

[4:44]

So, no, SHA 256 has not been proven surjective... That image above. There are axioms that need to be proven for this to hold

ajd [4:44 PM]

from wikipedia?

csw [4:44 PM]

Yes :slightly_smiling_face:

ajd [4:44 PM]

:smile:

csw [4:44 PM]

I could not get it to take Latex

csw [4:45 PM]

Can you do latex in this?

1 reply Today at 4:45 PM View thread

awemany [4:45 PM]

so... that would get worse with double hashing, it potentially reduces the size of the output set. do you have any discussion on that trade-off?

csw [4:45 PM]

Not that I can really do justice to here

[4:46]

Does this thing have a whiteboard or something similar?

wpalczynski [4:46 PM]

joined #general

newliberty [4:46 PM]

No whiteboard in slack

csw [4:46 PM]

:disappointed:

newliberty [4:46 PM]

https://www.codecogs.com/latex/eqneditor.php

codecogs.com

Online LaTeX Equation Editor - create, integrate and download

HTML LaTeX equation editor that creates graphical equations (gif, png, swf, pdf, emf). Produces code for directly embedding equations into HTML websites, forums or blogs. Images may also be dragged into other applications like Word. Open source and XHTML compliant.

wpalczynski [4:47 PM]

hey!!

jp [4:47 PM]

You can livestream using 3rd app

klee [4:47 PM]

https://github.com/sand500/SlackLateX

GitHub

sand500/SlackLateX

SlackLateX - Bot that posts posts Latex pictures

csw [4:48 PM]

Got those, but no way to draw directly.

bicmac1973 [4:49 PM]

joined #general

klee [4:50 PM]

Just paste the captioned image (from elsewhere)

[4:50]

for me is the fastest way (edited)

csw [4:51 PM]

I will but answering on the fly is not so easy in latex :slightly_smiling_face:

coinspeak [4:51 PM]

joined #general

jp [4:51 PM]

Please consider doing some whiteboard videos in the future.

joeldalais [4:52 PM]

there's a paid sketch board thing for slack, but doubt this slack has it :disappointed:

csw [4:53 PM]

I have a big electronic whiteboard, but I do not think it has a slack plug

tomothy

[4:54 PM]

pretty sure bitsko's sleeping or at work, he mentioned it hours ago :confused:

jp [4:54 PM]

New slack ICO - decentralized whiteboard function included

tomothy

[4:54 PM]

( I think work) (so can't add functions or change things currently)

satoshi [4:54 PM]

Ha!

joeldalais [4:54 PM]

https://sketchboard.io/pricing - for future reference (edited)

csw [4:55 PM]

Yep

[4:55]

Got it

[4:55]

I need to run in a moment.

Other questions

iang [4:56 PM]

Which institutions do you think should emerge?

[4:56]

I for one have promoted the idea of Arbitration (complicated I know) … but there are many possibilities. (edited)

csw [4:56 PM]

Many, but this is also a market function. Arbitration is a good one as it is possible to contract law.

wings [4:56 PM]

joined #general

tomothy

[4:57 PM]

When are you coming back again? :smile:

csw [4:57 PM]

That is, you can agree on an arbitrator and make the contract conditional on that role. This then replaces the role of the court and in Rothbardian terms allows for the democratisation of the justice system

satoshi [4:57 PM]

Thanks for answering questions Craig. It went surprisingly well I think. Amazing what can be accomplished in the absence of trolling.

jp [4:58 PM]

LukeJr missed the debate. I pinned Dr. Wright scale comments here. Expect to see Luke Jr reaponse.

iang [4:58 PM]

There’s also the possibility of moving direct voting into the system - create an ability for people holding BTC to vote on a proposal. As the proposal wins some form of majority, it leads the direction on changes.

craig_s_wright [4:58 PM]

joined #general

megalodon

[4:58 PM]

lol

csw [4:58 PM]

I have a doppelganger it seems :slightly_smiling_face:

satoshi [4:59 PM]

So many Craigs, so little time.

megalodon

[4:59 PM]

will the real Craig Wright please stand up

craig_s_wright [4:59 PM]

Hi guys

checksum0 [4:59 PM]

And cue the trolls...

freetrader [4:59 PM]

lesson on identity

iang [5:00 PM]

brands are such fun… everyone should have one

tomothy

[5:00 PM]

But seriously, I'm sure there will be some interesting responses to a lot of your comments here today. You've provided a lot of food for thought. If I pester Vlad enough do you think you can make another appearance? :smile:

csw [5:00 PM]

Yes.

[5:00]

If we keep it civil

craig_s_wright [5:00 PM]

congrats on matonis

jp [5:00 PM]

Mod here will purge trollers and craig_s_wright

csw [5:01 PM]

Thanks Craig :slightly_smiling_face:

bicmac1973 [5:01 PM]

hi guys and gals, nice to be here. Let me stress that I am absolutely not craig wright!

jesse [5:01 PM]

joined #general

csw [5:01 PM]

LOL BicM...

craig_s_wright [5:01 PM]

I'm actually a famous craig_s_wright, and I wouldn't mind staying in this chat as craig_s_wright. nowhere do I claim to be the "real" Craig S Wright

csw [5:02 PM]

Well, there are a good number of Craig Wrights :slightly_smiling_face:

daniweav [5:02 PM]

joined #general

wings [5:02 PM]

be serious guys...talk on topic only plz

craig_s_wright [5:02 PM]

I'm going to bid 900 BTC on bitstamp right now

iang [5:02 PM]

ok … so here’s a rhetorical. What innovations post-2009 from the ideas / literature would have been good to put in, if only?

daniweav [5:02 PM]

Hello, newbie here. :baby_bottle:

[5:02]

Nice to meet you all. :slightly_smiling_face:

vlad2vlad [5:03 PM]

@bitsko time to come back!!!

csw [5:03 PM]

Another time Ian.

iang [5:03 PM]

k

tomothy

[5:03 PM]

Alright, well thank you for your time today CSW. I'm sure we can waste your time all day. Hope we get to do this again in a bit.

csw [5:03 PM]

I do need to go. Sorry.

joeldalais [5:03 PM]

i'm off for now, was great chatting, a lot of thanks to csw :+1: have a good one all

satoshi [5:03 PM]

Bye Craig. Ignore the trolls and keep working.

tomothy

[5:03 PM]