Quote from: MoonShadow on December 03, 2013, 02:47:14 PM

Also, I was here when Satoshi was still posting. I know some other things that aren't even mentioned in the white paper regarding security, some that are already in the main client, others that are not; that complicate (although don't render impossible) the execution of several general methods of attacking the blockchain or the network. I know, personally, that Satoshi foresaw much more than most of us understood. Bitcoin's elegant design was not luck. Personally, I came to the conclusion that the Satoshi on this forum was only a front man for a team of pros; because even thought a true polymath could do this, he often had some rather large delays between the asking of hard questions and their associated responses, implying to me that he was consulting someone out of view.

I am glad you noticed he was delaying replies. That was also one of the factors I used to determine he was not likely one person.

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 03, 2013, 02:47:14 PM

He makes too many assumptions about how other nodes will respond.

Exactly the opposite. I make far fewer assumptions about the choices of nodes. See the Cracking the Code thread in the Bitcoin discussion subforum where they assume that 100% of the nodes will run a centralized designed client software. And where they assume that the convergence of nodes will be to the attacked chain. I make no assumptions. I call it a risk.

Since when did 100% become more likely than a range of possibilities? That defies a fundamental comprehension of entropy, chaos and nature.

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 03, 2013, 02:47:14 PM

He assumes that all (non-negligible) nodes will react in what he considers to be the highest profit seeking manner; thus completely ignoring the fact that many nodes have economic incentives to resist the formation of a cartel,

Rather I assume that miners can't continue if their electricity costs more than the income they receive. That seems to be a basic accepted economic fact.

And he will again I am sure try to argue the same non-point he made upthread, which I refuted already upthread. Not every miner is running cheaper electricity (i.e. getting it for lower cost by extracting heat, etc), and those who aren't will be first to go bankrupt. Then later when only those with the cheapest electricity are still mining, then ditto them. Don't assume that Amazon can't run the same efficiencies. And then my point applies which is they drive the difficulty higher, but they parasite their % of the transactions.

MoonShadow continues to miss the point that if the cartel can withhold its share of the transactions for the mining, while factoring this into its profit on mining, then the rest of the miners have to compete with a higher difficulty yet they don't receive the extra income for doing so. Thus assuming Amazon can run their mining at the same efficiency as other miners, those other miners will be mining at a return-on-investment loss w.r.t. to their hardware and electricity costs. MoonShadow assumes that some miners can leverage clever means to obtain net lower cost energy that Amazon (the cartel) would not be able to. The only way this could be true is if that energy was obtained in low economy-of-scale that would be too small for Amazon to pursue, e.g. searching out small streams for micro-hydropower. So by definition, these small economies-of-scale wouldn't comprise most of the mining. If anything, ASICs are raising the economies-of-scale.

He still won't understand that basic math. So he will repeat his same non-point.

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 03, 2013, 02:47:14 PM

that many nodes have economic incentives to try to outcompete and otherwise undermine the primary cartel membership (in this case Amazon, and because Amazon has real competitors, just not direct ones) and that many nodes have no significant economic incentive in either case, but do have a vested interest in the network's 'status quo'.

Noise sounds good. But is completely devoid of relevant information content. I will not explain.

Quote from: anth0ny on December 03, 2013, 02:37:31 PM

Quote from: CoinCube on December 03, 2013, 06:15:13 AM

Quote from: MoonShadow on December 03, 2013, 06:05:40 AM

I don't deny that he is smart, but he is still out of his depth here. Really, no one cares what his credentials might be, true or false, only his arguments matter here. So far, I find his arguments sorely lacking in substance or merit. His economic writings are bullshit.

Why do you think they are bullshit? I read them multiple times and I came to the opposite conclusion.

Seems to me that he is not out of his league at all in fact I think he is holding his own rather well.

What sources did you use to evaluate the correctness of his assertions? Are you yourself an expert in the field?

He seems to me to be a very intelligent crackpot (although a very intelligent troll is also a possibility). When challenged he reverts to attacking the person challenging him personally and/or saying that he's already addressed the issue even though he hasn't (often along with linking to long diatribes he has written in the past which don't address the issue which he is being challenged on).

If I am so out-of-my league then how come I keep dissecting the technical analysis within minutes of reading a white paper:

Here I identified the flaws in BitShares proof-of-stake proposal within 5 minutes:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=354573.msg3805394#msg3805394

Here I showed the P2Pool is vulnerable to a share withholding attack:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=339902.msg3715641#msg3715641

Here I solved the selfish-mining problem that has been plastered all over the news lately:

http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/09/no-you-dint/#comment-1136318528

CoinCube my suggestion is shut up. Because if they can't turn you against me, I expect they will then try to discredit you.

The reason I don't repeat what is written already upthread is because fact is that most people can't process a complex model in their mind. So they try to section off parts of the model and address it piecemeal. This is what the continued postings have been about. And that is why they can't understand the model.

And it doesn't matter how much of my time they waste, they will never get the model until they are ready to.

I WILL NOT ALLOW THEM TO FILIBUSTER MY PROGRAMMING TIME ANY MORE.

THERE WILL BE NO MORE REPLIES FROM ME IN THIS THREAD.

It is time to kick ass. Enough talk.

Edit: anth0ny, is this you acting like an inane fool over at hackingdistributed?

http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/11/25/block-propagation-speeds/#comment-1140084768

Quote

...

P.S. Please refrain from changing your user identity or posting multiple times under different names. The post above, which is currently shown as coming from "Guest", was posted under the name "Anthony."

Quote from: ltc_foundry on December 03, 2013, 08:31:33 PM

But but but, the Amazon Cartel is going to deploy a yottaflop mining core to capture a percentage of txn fees! REFUTED REFUTED REFUTED!

And we will continue to have idiots who don't understand the profit model of a cartel, which was clearly explained in the thread.