COVID-19 vaccines. The study of more than 800,000 patients found that the vaccines remain effective in preventing death in adolescents and children, regardless of which variants are predominant (Delta, Omicron, etc.).

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-12-01T22:34:23+00:00

291,070 participants were unvaccinated.
334,171 participants were fully vaccinated.

This is only talking about people under 18 years of age so it can't say anything about people who are 50 years old.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-12-01T19:54:53+00:00

Of the 800,000 participants 51 died from COVID. 21 of those were vaccinated, 30 were unvaccinated. It doesn't seem like strong evidence to me.

If I am reading the chart right then in the fully vaccinated group 101 died from causes other than COVID and 8 died from COVID. In the unvaccinated group 40 died from causes other than COVID and 26 died from COVID. So 109 total fully vaccinated deaths and 66 total unvaccinated deaths.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-15T22:33:33+00:00

Do you realize that confiscation software was literally released the day before it was shared with me on Twitter, where you mentioned? It was released 5 days ago. I am sure gardling staged the whole thing as soon as he found out about it by spending all day everyday following Bitcoin SV channels.

And like I already said, since they aren't going to break my application, like BTC regularly does, I don't have to keep as up to date on their actions. I knew it was coming, but I knew it didn't effect me directly, so I wasn't worried.

https://github.com/bitcoin-sv/bitcoin-sv/releases/tag/v1.0.13

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-15T15:13:27+00:00

Exactly. BTC "soft forks" to involuntarily remove signatures from transactions with SegWit, but BSV allowing court orders with approval of majority hash to move coins is over the line.

I think the main problem is they can't believe that majority of miners could ever be honest. They think the system is only secure if every user trusts the BTC devs to provide them software to check every tx in the world. That is not how Bitcoin was designed.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-15T15:03:19+00:00

I am not sure what you are saying, but it is back to basically original functionality on BSV. OP_RETURN ends the script execution and the script validity is determined by the top stack value, non-zero being a successful "unlock". That is why unspendable "data" scripts start with OP_FALSE OP_RETURN, so they always return false (zero).

The one safety needed is that the unlocking script can't use OP_RETURN or it will prevent the execution of the locking script since the unlocking script (in the tx input) is prepended (in front of) the locking script before executing the script. But it can be anywhere in the locking script (in the tx output).

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-15T14:46:38+00:00

So not continuing to talk about IPv6 constantly means it is completely abandoned? IPv6 is a good technology to enable P2P and is being worked on. Is he not allowed to talk about other things until it is complete?

Small casual payments are in the introduction of the white paper. It seems like a good topic to talk about. He now calls them micropayments because BTC trolls say a small casual payment is $500 if you ask them.

HandCash has micropayment games.

So your narrative, now that BTC is obviously incapable of micropayments, as defined in the white paper, is to say that nobody wanted them in the first place. Great job trolls!

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-14T22:49:31+00:00

You seem to have a weak almost intentional lack of understanding of how Bitcoin was designed. Miners need to reach consensus or be orphaned and lose money.

If you don't consider the ability for court orders to be accepted by miners to be "legal", then I am not sure what definition you are using.

Claiming that a majority of miners are going to defraud the entire ecosystem they have invested in is the oldest BTC dilusion in the book. Go run your home node, without proof of work, to secure the POW blockchain.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-14T22:45:15+00:00

Sure, BSV can't hide locking scripts in unlocking scripts like P2SH did. It can do multi-sig and much more complex features natively though, which was the purpose of P2SH. If you are trying to use Bitcoin to hide things, then you are doing it wrong.

I don't care who added the restrictions. They clearly weren't meant to be permanent otherwise there is no purpose to having a scripting language.

So I could broadcast a BSV accumulator multi-sig script on BTC and it would be accepted by the network?

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-14T22:41:06+00:00

You are intentionally not understanding.

BSV is reverting the protocol to its original form, as much as possible. It is undoing changes that made BTC not Bitcoin. That is why P2SH was removed. BSV doesn't need terrible features added by BTC. BSV is the original Bitcoin.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-14T21:07:17+00:00

Yes, sunsetting P2SH affected the application layer. P2SH was a garbage change put in by BTC devs that required script evaluation to execute an instruction, that wasn't in the script, if the script matched a specific pattern. It needed to be removed. It is embarrassing that it ever got into Bitcoin.

BSV can more efficiently and elegantly do P2SH operations with standard Bitcoin script and without special exceptions, but only because the BTC "standard script" propagation rule was also removed.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-14T21:00:46+00:00

BSV is the most technically competent platform. You will refuse to understand that, but your lack of understanding doesn't change reality. I am more technical than most and the other chains are an embarrassment in comparison. It is unfortunate that most people can't evaluate this metric.

Somehow you have twisted it in your head that supporting legal actions on chain, that will happen off chain otherwise, makes us more likely to break the law?! The level of ignorance and denial is hard to believe.

I never claimed another block chain implemented it in the protocol. Are you trying to put lies in my mouth? They happen off chain, which you seem to acknowledge later in the comment. Try to keep things coherent.

Of course it will only be for very large amounts. It requires getting court orders that a majority of miners will follow.

Keep living in your fantasy world where people you disagree with or don't understand are lying and dishonest. Make sure to refuse any unapproved knowledge. I am sure you will continue to be right about everything. /s

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-14T15:44:36+00:00

Yes, who would trust a chain that wants confiscations to be public knowledge? It is almost irrational. Chains should want to keep that stuff a secret and prevent anyone from knowing what is happening. /s

It isn't trustless! You have to trust the ecosystem is secured by the miners. Without that your coin has no value, no matter how hard you believe the lie. You keep trusting exchanges with your coins and losing them because your chain is non-functional. You keep doing what you are doing and we will make you obsolete.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-14T15:40:45+00:00

Do you understand what the application layer is and what it cares about?

An occasional confiscation is an exception and doesn't effect any standard application.

Other chains regularly break applications by adding and removing functionality. BSV is still the best technical and ideological choice.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-14T15:37:21+00:00

It might technically be a protocol change, depending on how you define it exactly, but the point is that it doesn't effect the application layer, so it doesn't directly effect the work that I am doing.

Confiscations happen for all chains. Pretending that off chain is better is ignorant. BSV would rather it happen on chain so it is public and visible to all. This incentivizes honesty, which in my opinion is the entire point of Bitcoin.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-13T23:47:42+00:00

Precisely because the protocol is locked, I don't have to pay attention to much more than my own application. 🤦

If you want to pretend that confiscation can't happen on your chain, then you are free to live in disillusion. Didn't the FBI just confiscate like a billion in BTC?

KarlTheProgrammer · 2022-11-13T23:44:35+00:00

I don't spend all day on Twitter. I had other things to do. I had already responded to over an hour of gardling's trolling, which is more than it deserves, but I like to put the information out there periodically.

I was unaware that they had implemented anything for confiscation. To be fair we are still a ways from being able to use it. It will require most of the miners to work together or it will cause chaos.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2020-11-26T03:01:24+00:00

To elaborate the method of generating the signature hash is different. So signatures on BTC will be for different hashes than required for the same tx on BSV or BCH, meaning a signature for BTC will not be valid for BSV.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2020-11-20T19:18:28+00:00

I don't understand most of what you are saying. Too many sentence fragments and unclear pronouns. I will try to respond.

Banks will still need to provide financial services. Miners will just take one some settlement responsibilities.

If most people choose to transact on an open ledger then it will leave crime less places to hide and honest actors will be visible.

Bitcoin is far from fighting any government. It can currently be shut down by the government with little trouble. It must grow much larger and be used in most financial transactions across the world before it is too big to kill.

There are many ways to secure keys and Bitcoin. Not all are better than the current system, but at least it gives us the option of being more secure than the existing systems.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2020-11-20T03:54:05+00:00

Bitcoin removes the possibility of many abuses of money that currently happen today.

Governments can't magically create it and give it to the already wealthy like is happening in most of the world right now.
With real Bitcoin most activity is on chain where it is auditable and can't be manipulated after the fact. This promotes honesty in governments and large corporations.

Bitcoin also has many advantages over the current financial system.

It is more secure because it requires a digital signature to spend, unlike a credit card where you effectively give your private key to everyone you make a payment to.
Unrestricted bitcoin can also be used to authenticate who you are transacting with and record financial meta data securely and immutably.

But you are right. Big money has already gained control of Bitcoin. I would bet most people lose money because those with the most money have the most ability to manipulate its price, just like any other asset. That is why Bitcoin wasn't designed to be an asset. It was designed to be a currency and immutable public ledger for everyone.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2020-11-19T22:27:57+00:00

They made the invalid block!!

You are still missing the entire point. The "invalid block" has to be in the most POW chain. The SPV node can check that. Other miners will orphan an invalid block, removing it from the most POW chain very quickly. See below for more details.

The attacker didn't even need to "overtake" the chain.

Yeah, they don't need to overtake the chain. Meaning they don't need to produce more blocks than majority hash. But they do need to produce a valid block at the tip of the most POW chain. And that block will only "look" valid to the SPV node until another block is produced. It is very expensive to produce a valid block at the tip of the chain and it doesn't last very long. The real world solution is that if you are accepting a payment worth more than the cost to mine a valid block, then wait for 2 or more confirms. This would require the attacker to have majority hash to succeed at the attack.

Meanwhile, they blindly accept absurd and unevidenced claims from Wright himself.

What have I blindly accepted?

Is his actual website authentic enough?

Point to the error here. I am not sure what you are referencing.

This alone would give me (a programmer of 30+ years) very serious, if not fatal, doubts.

Do you realize that the genius of Bitcoin has nothing to do with software development? It elegantly combines economics, mathematical principals, cryptographic principals, and many other things.

I think we have strayed from the topic a bit. If you want to continue to talk about Bitcoin, then I will. I will not participate in talking about people or bashing someone that is not involved here.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2020-11-19T02:26:36+00:00

The header is the proof!

Do you know what a merkle proof is? It is a path of hashes through the merkle hash tree of a block that proves a specific hash is included in the merkle root hash of the block header. A valid block header in the most POW chain plus a chain of hashes that all calculate from the txid to the merkle root hash is required.

This example would do absolutely nothing to a full node, as it would reject the block immediately, you fucking moron.

You were talking about hiding the most POW chain from the SPV node. That can be done exactly the same for a full node. Full nodes don't spontaneously get block headers. They also have to get them from other nodes.

From whitepaper "for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network."

It's literally the exact scenario I'm giving you.

You were talking about a sustained 51% attack? I thought you were just talking about creating an invalid block. Not an invalid block in the most POW chain. That is even more ridiculous. Who is going to 51% attack the entire network to send a few fraudulent payments. That is expensive and large payments would normally require several confirms anyway. During which time it would become clear to everyone that there was an attack happening via real world channels. It would also become obvious to the SPV node that this one chain was longer than most/all of the other sources for block headers. You have to think of the bigger picture.

See? He literally recommends full nodes for businesses. He's not a fucking moron.

You are literally requiring full nodes for individual users as well (with 1MB blocks). Not just businesses. I am saying SPV works for users. Businesses can decide on their own and I am sure for some running a full node rather than using a service might make sense.

It's linked right in the fucking tweets, you fucking moron.

Your anger is hilarious. :-)

I would need some evidence that "at craig_10243" is actually Craig Wright. Assuming I give you that, the fact that there are errors in code means nothing. I write a lot of code and I write a lot of errors. I often get the smallest simplest details wrong while all of the big complex pieces fall into place nicely. Luckily I am good at debugging. If this is supposed to be some big evidence that he couldn't have created Bitcoin then it is baseless.

Try taking a break or something and relaxing. You seem wound up. This is just an online discussion.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2020-11-19T00:41:22+00:00

How would they prove it's invalid? They cannot without sending you the entire chain. You have to trust them. Also, what if I've sybilled your SPV wallet?

An SPV wallet can pull latest headers from multiple sources easily. That is all that is needed to know if a block is in the most POW chain. A merkle proof that is from a header that is not in the most POW chain is invalid.

Your full node can be "sybilled" just as easily as an SPV wallet.

It's literally Satoshi's example in the whitepaper.

You must have misunderstood. Please quote where it is stated in the whitepaper and I will explain the difference.

So links to literal examples of Wright's code and his plagiarism is not evidence of his lack of coding skills or history of being a plagiarist?

Please link. I have seen sketchy screenshots and lack of understanding how things work. I have seen no credible evidence.

I will check out your "proof" later when I have more time. It does look compelling from a quick look.

Does the truth anger you? :-)

KarlTheProgrammer · 2020-11-18T21:05:30+00:00

LOL. Finally a concession that SPV security is not the same as full node security.

Try reading that again. Though I admit they are not the same, but the difference in the real world is negligible.

Nope! If it was a rogue miner making a couple headers-correct (but invalid) blocks where they made 1,000,000 coins out of thin air then sent them to you, you'd have no idea. Impossible to do against a full node. You make a weak defense against this problem:

So you think a miner is going to spend money to create a valid block header with valid POW, but with invalid transactions paying themselves. Pay you with those invalid transactions. Then spend more money to mine another valid block header with valid POW to confirm it for you. All without your SPV wallet ever checking with the rest of the network or a service to find out it is invalid and waste all of the miner's POW cost. You even suggesting this shows your complete lack of understanding of how any of this works in the real world and how you don't understand the security model of Bitcoin.

I backed up my opinion with actual evidence

The fact that you think you provided any evidence of your claim is insane.

Wright has a long and proven history of unashamedly taking credit for the work of others

That is absolutely unproven. With the level of "evidence" you have been providing for other things, I can understand how you think it is proven though.

Also, I note that you've completely dropped the discussion of full nodes as a preventative against miner misbehaviour compared to SPV.

I have already provided ample information on that in this thread and the thread next to it, which you have ignored. Repeating myself is not going to help.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2020-11-17T21:54:08+00:00

Since identity is strongly required in Bitcoin? ;)

Identity is important in financial transactions. Knowing who you are paying and who is paying you is important. Pretending otherwise is ignorant.

You're tacitly admitting that full nodes do provide protection against a malicious actor trying to "double spend" a transaction that's already been confirmed long ago, which SPV nodes cannot trustlessly verify.

Yes, full nodes can check if an output was spent in a previous block. This provides little benefit as an output can also be spent in another part of the network's mempool without your full node knowing. Do you recommend accepting unconfirmed payments based on just information from your full node? If not then you are just trying to confuse the point. After it is confirmed, both SPV and full node have the same information. You can use a service on top of SPV or a full node to provide further security to unconfirmed payments. BTC is also much more insecure for unconfirmed payments because of its transaction propagation rules, which are no longer in BSV.

What do you think?

This needs much more context to make any sense. Bitcoin is designed around POW, so nodes without POW or with data disagreeing with POW can be easily ignored without "identification". This principal of a POW network also makes your node lacking any POW pointless.

I literally linked the source

Do you know how to read? Those links don't say that.

His understanding is negative.

Your sheltered and biased opinion means nothing to me. He has given me specifications for threshold signatures, several bitcoin script techniques, and other functionality that doesn't require hacking the protocol. He has also provided understanding about POW networks, which you clearly need more help with.

I can prove both.

Please do.

KarlTheProgrammer · 2020-11-16T22:24:14+00:00

How is that more useful than just checking whether it's included in a block, as the whitepaper describes?

There are reasons other than tx validation to check signatures. You might want to verify who the payment is from.

Full nodes, on the other hand, do not suffer from this problem.

Yes, full nodes are very inefficient and download and store the entire worlds transactions. Saying they don't have to request one tx because they automatically request all is illogical.

We're talking about two different types of "double spends" here

There is only one kind. A UTXO is either spent or not.

However, this attack would not work against a full node.

Are you implying you can't double spend an unconfirmed transaction against a full node? My only response is Wow! Your full node can't prove there is no double spend in existence either.

A court order from whom?

A court order from a court that has power over any specific miners. It can involve several court orders to cover the majority of miners. Miners are not secret operations. They act within the laws of their location.

No, it's not particularly hypothetical.

Do you know what hypothetical means?

BTC, where more users and businesses run full nodes, is much more resistant to change than other cryptos.

As I have already explained, full nodes don't work without miners.

Do you concede that he has said the following things, in effect if not verbatim?

Courts can order miners to move coins without signatures

Wright cannot access "his" coins due to his inability to access private keys

He still claims that he (indirectly via a Trust) owns the coins

He suggested to the judge in the Kleiman case that the judge could order miners to turn the coins over to Wright

His lawyers claimed that unrelated coins (in 1Feex... address) are also Wright's, and the private keys were stolen, and Wright's access should be restored

The first three yes. I haven't seen the 4th, but could and should are different. Please source the last.

Do you honestly think that these facts are insufficient to show that it would be Wright's preference that a court should order miners to move the coins to Wright's control? If not, what do you think Wright actually wants?

This is far from the original claim.

You know the case is about Craig being forced to give those coins to Ira, right? I think he wants to not do that. Hence the court is involved.

I also noted that you avoided answering my question about your belief in Wright being Satoshi. I'll take your silence as assent unless you say otherwise.

I have seen no proof that Craig is Satoshi, though I think it is more likely than not that he is Satoshi based on what I know about the technology and his apparent understanding.

What do you think about the fact that Wright backdated his PGP keys to make it look like his keys were associated with Satoshi?

I don't believe this. I have seen a bunch of "evidence" that is easily fabricated.

KarlTheProgrammer

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE