Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 17, 2017, 03:32:18 AM

Quote from: jbreher on February 16, 2017, 11:25:57 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 16, 2017, 09:22:47 PM

...

And in that entire tirade, your only argument is 'someone else called it a problem'.

Quote

And now you won't even quote me or respond on point, because you got #REKT.

If you say so. Of course, you've still not responded to a single element of my claim.

The "someone else" is Gavin.

I realize you are not yet very familiar with him or his infamous work on defanging XT and Classic's careless exaggeration of Bitcoin's quadratic sig validation time problem, but please do pursue the links I ~~spoon fed to you like a baby~~ provided earlier.

And it's not just Gavin (and me) calling the quadratic sig validation time issue a "problem."

"O(n^2) attacks are a problem" is the uncontroversial strong consensus of the entire Bitcoin (and wider Computer Science) community, including both sides of the Grand Schism. I just used Gavin's words because he explains the problematic nature of the issue very well.

I did in fact respond to more than "a single element" of your claim. Perhaps you are simply incapable of understanding those responses.

Here are two examples.

Example One

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 16, 2017, 09:22:47 PM

Your anointed vision, epistemological closure, and metaphysical certainty don't count as evidence.

Here I've responded to the element of your claim whereby you believe yourself capable of deducing future events with perfect, irreproachable clarity. Obviously that's insane, and so I do indulge in a bit of pushing back against your imaginative hubris.

Example Two

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on February 16, 2017, 09:22:47 PM

Incentives appeal to motivations. Different people have different motivations. In this case, an attacker responds to your precious magical "mining incentives" differently than an honest (or at least non-adversarial) miner.

Here I've responded to the element of your claim's internal logic, ie the mechanism of action which you believe understanding gives you singular prescient insight into empirical (to be determined) outcomes. Like the other elements of your silly claim, it is simultaneously reprehensible and laughable.

Your argument has been destroyed from within and without, its purported external and internal logic have been completely debunked.

You've made an extraordinary claim at odds with everyone else in the universe, but failed to provide any evidence besides the courage of your conviction (which, sorry, doesn't count). And so I dissolved your specious claims in a vat of basic logic and acidic wit.

Trifle with me again, and I shall mock thee a second time! Kiss

REALITY

Quote from: https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoinxt/commit/821e223ccc4c8ab967399371761718f1015c766b#commitcomment-11782713

IMAGINATIONLAND

Quote from: jbreher on February 15, 2017, 09:46:32 PM

That picture from github is quite telling. The fact that such a generlistic solution is provided for a specific yet very serious problem goes to show how little thought has been put into this project as a whole.