I would like to similarly point out that the occasional text editor *ahem* has to be explicitly told not to put two spaces after a period by enabling "French Spacing" for when you auto-reformat a paragraph.

This appears to me to be a generational disconnect between fashion and aesthetics, and typographic habit. I would fully expect that in the dark-ages of usenet as well, that the double-space after the period would have a histogram over time that just drops slowly as the old style fell out of .. fashion.

I find it irritating that anyone is focusing so much on this minor, completely arbitrary and capricious detail. To me, it is a very strong indicator of a weak mind who considers minor details in Satoshi's English output even relevant as a stylometric detail for fingerprinting in the first place.

It was just a time-based anchor. It does not prove the lack of a pre-mine. The proof of no premine was something any miner at the time could prove for themselves just by winning blocks.

Rootstock is **not** a Bitcoin sidechain as per the sidechains whitepaper. It does **not** benefit from Bitcoin hashrate.

Find me a Foundry USA taproot block earlier than Slush's 0000000000000000000c5fc4ba692dc2cf016b8f45ec75eea2e12274879945a8.


All people who say things like the above should have their Internet access revoked.

No, incorrect.

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/38994/will-there-be-21-million-bitcoins-eventually/38998

This is the as-of-the-answer correct number of coins that there will eventually be.

So that hard figure it definitely wrong.

Sorry I did my things that made it forever wrong.

You are making a fool of yourself. I have directly vetted and hired a number software architects who went on to be extremely successful. You are definitely not someone I would hire. You do not exhibit any of the characteristics of any software architect who would be capable of succeeding in any environment I've ever built. And now your unfounded arrogance and unthinking mindlessness are on display forever. Congratulations.

I think peeps need to step back a step or two and be calm. There were a lot of times that bitcoin.org could've gone wrong but didn't ultimately. I think maybe some folks are assigning too much retrospective probability to Cøbra's potential to be malign. Functionally and operationally, and especially authoritatively nothing's changed, far as I can tell..?

Ze password, she is ze blank. It is so: she is ze blank. And yet she speaks. What's zis strange sorcery.

Eh. I asked this person a few questions and the answers missed pretty much all of the information that the BTC_Bear who did actually spend all that time with me on IRC would have known instantly. It would have been nice to have seen that my (polite and friendly) acquaintance had returned to say hello. Oh well.

I won't share the PM content without permission from..  whoever this person is. Or, I guess, the real BTC_Bear who can answer my questions and/or sign messages with the known keys that BTC_Bear would normally be able to identify themself with.

I suppose it's possible that BTC_Bear had some kind of stroke or.. maybe like a brain injury or illness of some sort and in that case I'm going to feel like a real asshole. If that's really you, old-schooler, I apologize for being an asshole, but your old self would hopefully have understood. I mean you are the one who set things up just-so..

*shrug*

Honestly, the old BTC_Bear (at least the one I knew on IRC) would have immediately understood the need to lock his account down.

Sadly, the fact that this is even an issue at all means I can no longer fondly reminisce about the Old Days w.r.t the BTC_Bear I knew with any new friends. That sucks.

It bothers me a lot that so many old names have disappeared and gone away in this fashion. These people had a natural and facile agility with Bitcoin and related topics, and seemed to understand in a way the social nature of what was going on—enough to know that being a person in this space has long-term consequences far more dire than, in BTC_Bear's case—not being a person does.

Mr. Bear, if you do read this, I hope this note finds you well and happy, on whatever sandy shore or remote towering rock or dark woods that you're most content with. One day the rest of us will be gone too, and no trace will remain that we'd even shared a laugh. But in the end, wasn't it just our laugh to share anyway?

Oh well.

(edit: Of course, all I know is what I saw on IRC, and I've been bitten before by old-schoolers who turned out to be scammers in the end. So who knows, right? Time and the fondness of memories, and all that..)

Hey. PM me, BTC_Bear.

How many times are people going to get ripped off before randos posting Javascript keygenerators actually tweaks your scamdar? Even if he's not actively ripping off people who use this (and seriously? Why would you think otherwise?!) what makes you think he won't do exactly that in the near future?

So, the discussion has been going on for quite some time (many years now) as to the commercial content on the Wiki. Unfortunately, and much too often lately, we have been caught hosting links to outright thieving sites who persistently add themselves back into the wiki under new names that are impossible to identify until money has already been stolen.

The purpose of the commercial links in the Wiki, early on, was to give a special boost to commercial entities who accepted Bitcoin in order to reward them for coming on-board so early, and to encourage others to do so. There is no longer any reason to do that—simple Google and other search engines are better at it, and paid listings were done, and better, at other sites anyway.

bitcoin.it is a volunteer service, for the edification of its readership. The technical content is relevant (though sometimes a bit out-of-date,) and those parts of it are strong enough that some people have even included large chunks of it in their books.

It is no longer serving that purpose. The commercial aspect of it can't be verified; it can't be patrolled; it can't be vouched-for. All it is is a linkdump/liability.

In terms of *acquiring* Bitcoins, and in terms of widely-affecting events such as exchange exit scams or the history of Bitcoin, some commercial aspects should remain in place.

But in terms of pointing towards businesses?

What's the point when we can't do these businesses the justice and courtesy of effort they deserve?

Really, the businesses themselves should be building their own collective directory. A commercial effort would fare better, would provide a more trustworthy place to point users to, and could provide membership in ways that the Bitcoin Wiki—really, really can't.

Pretty much. And claiming so is also pretty much a slap in the face to literally the hundreds of other contributors sending patches to wumpus—since the implication is clearly that they're too braindead to make up their own mind and instead just go along with whatever gmax says. This is partly the reason why the crazy people have basically zero developers helping them seize control.

And gmax doesn't have commit access to the repo anyway. Duh.

So, assuming the 15,000 BTC guy just lost access but someone *else* now has access to it, then since the last update:

134634.39864659+0.0004+0.02+40+0.009395+0.015+0.008+0.01+0.01+0.03+0.5+0.5

= 134675.50144159

+ 3.5 from here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4pjkyi/after_3_years_im_off_the_bitcoin_bandwagon/

= 134679.00144159

Note that the docs on plainsite are technically out-of-date.

There is an "amended" complaint, and Lowe's answer, along with audio from a hearing where cypherdoc's lawyer compares him to a superstar basketball player re: Bitcoin marketing to justify the vast sum of cash for shilling.

cypherdoc justifies this with pointers to his gold threads early on: apparently he thinks this not only qualifies him as a bitcoin expert, but also a bitcoin marketing expert worth $360,000 or $11,000 per day.

I am unaware of any marketing expert in any software business, professional or not, who makes $11,000/day. The only people I know who make that much are owners of companies who've hit it big with a major product release.

There is no directly-established link between even a significant fraction of customers' purchases of babyjets and his activity on bitcointalk.

I have the amended complaint, the audio of the hearing, and the reply to the amended complaint available on a site, which I can provide to people upon request when asked, in PM, on Freenode. My nickname there is "midnightmagic", same as here.

My mistake. It's a pretty easy fix, non-impactful. I'm working on it now and should have it in a pullreq for forrest soon.

The reason you would want something like this is because normally, p2pool pays out to the same address over and over when it constructs its coinbases. But this isn't ideal: if you are ever identified, then your entire mining history might be laid bare for the world to see. You must maintain perfect opsec, forever, if you desire stronger financial privacy under this method of mining.

If you rotate keys on a programmable basis, then you get payouts to *different* addresses with no additional effort on your behalf and it is somewhat more difficult to correlate which addresses are grouped with one another until you spend them and group them yourself.

You could have achieved an approximation of this by having miners who were inputting some different addresses and accepting miner-supplied payout addresses, but then you have to do it by hand and it was really annoying.

In my opinion, p2pool users now have arguably more privacy even then solo miners, by using this option, at the expense of a larger coinbase.

(fwiw, considering the spam nonsense going into the blockchain right now, I hardly think miners demanding additional privacy is at the top of the list of UTXO bloat.)

"Matthew Adair" or Skele or whoever it is moderating the Vocal thread for Vocal "coin" decided to summarily delete my perfectly legitimate request in his official announce thread, regardless of the fact that a pumper spammed the IRC #bitcoin* channels on Freenode with links to his "coin". I initially thought it was just Vocal being reactionary dicks, but upon reading a chunk of the announce thread, realised that while the claims of transparency would normally have been the reason to keep the complaint and issue a statement requesting supporters be respectful of other communities, the fact that my request was deleted instead suggests they aren't interested in transparency nor respect at all.

The fact that there's some kind of ID posted has obviously not prevented the spamming of other communities.

Way to make a stance on the matter guys... as though being a pointless altcoin wasn't enough of a scam indicator.

* FWIW, I am an op on #bitcoin, one of Freenode's largest channels and have always wanted to be able to complain back at rando spammers who I've just kickbanned. I'm glad there was a bitcointalk.org thread, because I can finally post a complaint right beside the ultimate source of the spam. Hooray.

Oy. Vocal coin pumpcoiners. Please tell your people and your supporters NOT to spam IRC channels with URL-match-evading links, regular and repetitive spam links, and unregistered nicknames.

I made this request in your "announce" thread and was instantly deleted. So, I assume you are either encouraging it, are the ones doing it, don't care that you're spamming another community with spam, or otherwise are being negligent dicks. So, I'll make a thread here about it.

Please don't mass-spam this into the #bitcoin* IRC channels; there are a few of them that you spammed this link into which are.. euphemistically.. some of the worst possible places you could've advertised to request help.

DaT, people are misinterpreting your post to suggest that miners can expect to earn less when they solo with smaller hashrate. The expected return is identical for any hashrate between solo'ing, and pool-mining, no matter the combined hashrate, ignoring all other factors (e.g. central pools stealing fees or just plain stealing, or latency tricks like what p2pool does to achieve lower orphan rates than anybody.)

I recognise you are trying to explain that variance in return is less with pooled mining or higher hashrate, but this is meaningful only because humans think that way because of our weird broken minds. That is, a lower variance in return, and especially a more-frequent payout, feels like it is worth more to humans just because we all know we might get hit by a bus tomorrow.

What you are doing is showing in a calculation a way for people to calculate payout schedules they are more-comfortable with.

People should recognise that mining in a pool like P2Pool which has at the moment a daily payout, can be expected over time to payout identically to higher-hashrate collectives.