Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 07, 2017, 07:42:35 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 09:24:25 PM

1. Jihan supported before understanding the final SegWit Implementation code. After learning the Coinbase references are used, he would obviously retract that support.

This is the same kind of idiotic argument I keep seeing around here.
The problem with your story is that you simply don't know what Jihan knew, and it was Greg who broke the HK agreement, not Jihan.
I know you tried your best to pretend to be logical, but in the end you just failed the simple common sense test. This is what happens when you have to make something sound 10 times more complex than it actually is.

First off, the fact that Jihan signed the HK Agreement doesn't mean anything of any value
in relation to this current ASICBoost issue. Second, Maxwell never signed the HK agreement,
so he could not have broken the agreement that he was not a party to. So, part of your "fact #1"
is not actually factual.

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your first "fact". (0.5 out of 1.0)
Half a point because Jihan signed it, but that doesn't prove anything at issue.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 07, 2017, 07:42:35 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 09:24:25 PM

2. Extension blocks do not change the Coinbase references, only add new anchor txs.
Those anchor txs should not effect the way ASICBoost works, the way new Coinbase refs do.

You're just trying to misdirect people without technical background here, the key to ASICBoost is the rearrangement of tx in a block, SegWit makes it costly to rearrange tx, so does Ext Block.
Granted there was still a little loop hole remaining in the tx in the canonical block, but it's so easy to fix, after Greg's crying, the Ext Block devs just eliminated the entire ASICBoost issue by adding 2 words in the Ext Block spec.
Just add a little extra crap to the merkle root calculation step, and ASICBoost instantly becomes a total non-issue, that is how small an issue this is, this is how weak your speculation is.

Sadly, you are the one misdirecting people.

You stated that your "Fact #2" was that Ext Blocks also blocked covert ASICBoost and
Jihan supports that, so you imply Jihan's innocence, since he would never accept the
Ext Block proposal if it also hurt the purported covert ASICBoost advantage and patents.
This is not a correct record of the events.
Ext Blocks only recently patched it to prevent ASICBoost use, and since then, Jihan will
no longer support that Ext Block proposal. Jihan only supported the Ext Block version that
allowed Covert ASICBoosting to remain intact.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your second "fact". (0.5 out of 2.0)
Due to being totally wrong.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 07, 2017, 07:42:35 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 09:24:25 PM

3. This comment is jumping the gun. In depth investigations begin now.

And yours is a year late. The ASICBoost issue is over 2 years old, Core/Blockstream already cried about it a year ago, nobody gave a fuck. Stop pretending ASICBoost is some newly discovered game changing trick only Bitmain knew about until today.
30 Apr 2016 Luke Parker: AsicBoost claims 20% efficiency improvement in Bitcoin mining
13 May 2016 - ‏@olivierjanss: Note to miners: We, the core devs, discovered a patented optimization in your ASIC. We will make it obsolete in the next update.

Again, you are the one misdirecting people.

The issue of ASICBoost a few years ago, which I was around for, centered around the
community acknowledgment that Miners should not use it. In addition, Miners agreed
not to use it. The CURRENT ISSUE is that ASICBoost has been purportedly redesigned
to allow for covert ways to ASICBoost, which would be in violation of the community
and miner verbal agreements. I never claimed ASICBoost was newly discovered and
no one in the community is.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your third "fact". (0.5 out of 3.0)
Due to trying to arguing that no obvious evidence now, it proof of no wrongdoing.
That is equivalent to saying "there is no body now, so there was no murder ever".

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 07, 2017, 07:42:35 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 09:24:25 PM

4. This data set should be larger and go farther back in time. Likely prior to the patent dates.
The ASICBoost could be throttled from time to time to prevent obvious indicators.

So go ahead and gather older data then, you're the accuser here, the burden of proof is on you, so back up your accusations with facts instead of pure speculations, prophecies and red herrings.

Of course, the burden in on the community to determine if there is any evidence.

Your "fact #4" relied on faulty data and an incomplete examination of all the
data we could be analyzed. When you dismiss the current accusations outright
and cite a Twitter guy that only went back 3 months, that is disingenuous and
misdirection. We still need time to look over everything. It is likely, based upon
past Bitcoin events, within the next two months or less, someone will publish a
full scientific report either confirming, denying, or concluding that it is
indeterminable. As a Bitcoin supporter you should be interested in those results,
regardless of who is right. You shouldn't be prejudging.

Ultimately, you declaration that there is no evidence is very premature.
You may be correct in the end, but your "Fact #4" is not an actual fact yet.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your fourth "fact". (0.5 out of 4.0)
Due to it being not a "fact" and we will have actual "facts" in time.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 07, 2017, 07:42:35 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 09:24:25 PM

5. Fees are irrelevant here. The exploit centers around gaining more block rewards.
In a future with less block reward and more fees, this exploit is worthless.

That fact was for the idiots who keep regurgitating the 'AntPool is using ASICBoost to mine empty blocks' bullshit script.

Again, you are the one misdirecting people.

Your "fact" implies that AntPool is innocent since they only profited 14% fees.
Ultimately, that statement is irrelevant entirely. ASICBoost is about cutting the
time down on finding blocks to gain the blockreward, not to gather as many fees
as possible. In addition, it may be possible with this new proposed covert ASICBoost
design, it could account for AntPools high empty block count. This may or may not
be correct, we still don't know. The community is still looking into this.

So, I'll give you 0.5 points for your fifth "fact". (1.0 out of 5.0)
Due to it being partial correct, but wrong as a "fact" to disprove the current accusations.

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 07, 2017, 07:42:35 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 09:24:25 PM

6. We need independent verification, which will begin now.

Blockstream already spent a year digging and got nothing solid on Bitmain. All Blockstream got is 'ASICBoost maybe used in the future', but it's obvious Bitmain/AntPool will be instantly caught if they actually use ASICBoost in any meaningful way that affect results.

Again, you are the one misdirecting people.

Your "fact #6", you stated that "Greg's math is wrong" which can not be a "fact"
and then you cited Bitman's public response to the current issue, which does not
cite any math or proofs as to why "Greg's math is wrong" or what is the math
determinations in general. I only stated that the community needs to begin
independent investigation. So this "fact #6" can't be a fact as well.

So, I'll give you 0.0 points for your sixth "fact". (1.0 out of 6.0)
Due to citing something that doesn't prove your asserted "Fact #6".

Quote from: Alex.BTC on April 07, 2017, 07:42:35 AM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on April 06, 2017, 09:24:25 PM

It would likely be best for you to stop quoting Alex.BTC since it is obvious that he
is not interested in learning anything, but perpetuating the obfuscations.
In time, all will be revealed. This is a new development and nicely explains many
previously unknown factors. If motive needed to be determined, this would be a
reasonable assumption to investigate further, and so the community will.
Your adherents to your viewpoints in light of new information still being gathered, is telling.

This is hilarious, all I did was post facts, and all you did was make speculations and then justify them by acting like some cult prophet talking bullshit prophecies (read: Charles Manson/Heaven's Gate).
ASICBoost is an old issue, Greg is using it again as a distraction, get that through your head.

Here you go on to state that you provided "facts", yet as I have outlined above, your
"fact" score is around 1.0 out of a possible 6.0 facts. That is a lousy fact ratio.

Maybe the community should also investigate why your facts seem not to add up to what
the current evidence is and what it is currently pointing to. I would assume your high error
ratio has to do with being heavily biased in general and not having a problem with it, since you
are pushing an agenda that doesn't care about anything other than your own personal ego
and financial satisfaction. If you cared about Bitcoin and the community, you wouldn't post
those "facts" because they are self serving and a true distraction. "Nothing to see here guys".
"Don't try to look into any of the accusations, because there is no evidence. Case closed."

Talking about me acting like a cult prophet is laughable. Anyone can go back through my
post history and take a look if I have spoken like a prophet, alluding to communication with
God (or Satoshi, in this case), used people, attacked people, purposefully misconstrued info,
shilled positions that are unreasonable, fallen in line with "party" positions, or whatever. My
only allegiance is to the Bitcoin network and it's unencumbered unrestricted unregulated
future. The community can decide between both of us, who seems more reasonable and
genuine, and who is the bullshit artist.

The truth is that everything you are accusing me of is likely what you yourself is doing. I
haven't called you names, but if we are doing that now, I would advise you to read about
Jim Jones and The People's Temple. Since you think I'm acting like a false prophet or whatever,
I will prophesize that your future in the Bitcoin community and your false arguments will fall
along the same lines as what occurred with them. I see great disillusion in your future.