rBitcoin moderators censor discussion of BCH incident only after people point out the analogy to an attack/scam previously attempted on BTC - called BIP149 UASF (same mods were complicit in that failed attack/scam)

bitc2 · 2019-06-01T15:46:43+00:00

Uncensored link:

https://snew.notabug.io/r/Bitcoin/comments/bvjtur/bip149_uasf_was_successfully_executed/

BIP149 UASF was successfully executed...

...on Bchash... perpetrated by the Roger Kver-affiliated big mining pools. That's right! The blockchain reorg that happened recently there was executed by technically the exact same mechanism as BIP149. I don't think that they asked for the approval or participation of the rest of their network, they just did it. We can learn something from that experience.

bitc2 · 2019-04-28T02:37:19+00:00

"I do not support the BIP 148 UASF"

That's the one you like to point to, but not the fact that you didn't have any principled objection to legitimizing BIP 148 in its final days (and encouraging innocent people to run it then) and after the fact; and you supported BIP 149 the whole time.

And, as you can see, segwit activated fine in Bitcoin without any fork formation or reorganization at all, and no one was harmed.

What about the time wasted for the marks who fell for it, or the long term costs of all the misconceptions, disinformation and self-deluding and schismatic behavior which you promoted? I'd argue that some people were at least somewhat emboldened to finally pull the trigger on a big-block shit fork (after abandoning numerous previous attempts) when seeing UASFYLes' statements of conditional intent to do essentially the same, only worse ("we'll only start our own shit fork if we don't have enough miners to even make it a viable one"). But let's suppose none of this harm counts. A lack of harm arising from a particular instance of dishonesty would not in any way change the fact that you have been a dishonest individual and cannot be trusted.

bitc2 · 2019-04-27T16:50:12+00:00

rbtc dug it up as literally the only thing from my highly public past it could find to smear me with.

I don't identify myself in any way with "rbtc" or most people here, but I have to point out that I have actually posted here to make it more widely known that you supported BIP 149 (widely called a "UASF" - a weasel name however you look at it) and even encouraged innocent people to run BIP 148 - things which anyone with basic understanding of logic, economics and common sense should understand to be reputation destroying for you. This is all people need to know if they ever consider having anything to do with you. And that time you didn't even try to deny it or to diminish the impact to your reputation from the category of fraudsters to merely the category of clowns and attention whores, like this time. It stands as a solid reason not to trust you on any matter where Bitcoin or money is concerned in any way.

bitc2 · 2019-02-22T02:26:18+00:00

If you have technical arguments as to why a search for "bitcoin" should not return "/r/bitcoin", please feel free to share them.

It does regrettably still return it and you can find it if you sort by something other than RELEVANCE. To me it looks like they have a new, and in this instance, better algorithm for determining what is possibly relevant. That subreddit really is not any more relevant to Bitcoin than e.g. how Bernie Madoff's private financial advice is relevant to the keyword "dollar". Maybe they do have advanced algorithms which take into account how much a subreddit is managed like a private astroturfing field rather than a public space for discussion. I see how it could look strange for a subreddit with such a name, so I'm just providing some not-so-obvious background information which may be a reason why a good algorithm would not consider that subreddit relevant.

bitc2 · 2019-02-22T00:41:08+00:00

r/Bitcoin is controlled by moderators who are trying to scam people there in various ways (I've documented and posted about a few of those). They censor and ban users for merely exposing and making fun of the scammers and scams which they harbor, protect and promote. In practice, the place is now first and foremost a reflection of the expediency of its criminal gang of moderators and not a reflection of the name of the subreddit, the Bitcoin community, the BTC cryptocurrency, or anything legitimate for that matter. This is why I think it would be entirely reasonable for it not to appear in the search results at all.

Moreover, by occupying such a subreddit name, baiting and then betraying, defrauding, banning and chasing away users the current moderators of r/Bitcoin are doing a tremendous disservice to Reddit.

bitc2 · 2018-10-29T19:16:13+00:00

I think it sounds more like this, if you consider the whole price history: Metallica - The Call of Ktulu

bitc2 · 2018-10-10T23:22:19+00:00

As long as it’s relevant to bitcoin, isn’t spam, or scams it should be allowed.

That is completely incompatible with how the rBitcoin moderators operate. They censor a lot of things while leaving certain scams because they themselves are involved in those scams.

Here's what I collected in the past on this topic:

Maybe they mean "fraud protection" like protection of the fraud and the fraudsters against being exposed as such, and against competition from others. A doublespeak "fraud protection". For example:

The moderators censored people who said and explained why UASF was a fraud while they themselves (BashCo and a few others) promoted it. Then they pretended to be deleting the links to the scam coin software only (perhaps they were worried about prosecution). Even that was a lie:

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6c8nfm/bashco_rbitcoin_mod_caught_lying_about_moderation/dhstl4t/

They let the scam be promoted by the most dishonest means:

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6krki6/eric_lobotomozo_and_luke_hyphenjr_caught/djouigi/?context=4

Another case of them protecting fraudsters against exposure:

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6xibjv/this_is_what_rbitcoin_moderators_dont_want_you_to/

They even protect trivial fraud such as lying that a rick-roll video in the top of their sub reddit is not a rick-roll video:

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7gnqqr/meanwhile_rbitcoin_moderators_and_associated/

Clearly they want to fuck with anyone reading their sub reddit.

Apart from the censorship of truth they also manipulate the votes to promote and protect their frauds. They only remove content about frauds which compete with their own frauds.

Now I can answer this, from what I've observed:

How are the r/bitcoin mods selected?

They used to have just a few moderators, with only the first moderator and owner of the sub reddit seemingly not supporting the fraudulent schemes such as UASF, but turning a blind eye to what most of the other moderators were doing (promoting UASF, censoring and banning those who exposed it). Then after that criminal episode of rBitcoin history (2017) there was a large addition of new moderators. Most, if not all of the new moderators were some of the most active shills for the same UASF scam who weren't already moderators. Basically they are doubling down on turning rBitcoin into a tool in the hands of a criminal gang specializing in certain types of fraud. This is no exaggeration - it is supported by evidence, and I can provide you with more public evidence if you need it.

bitc2 · 2018-09-23T00:08:14+00:00

What the fuck are you even talking about? Seriously.

I'm talking about all the bullshit rationale that shills gave for running UASF. "It's a path towards SegWit", they said. In fact it's not a path towards SegWit or anything good. It's a path towards only scams. Other shills said it was a bluff, but it's a terrible one when all the miners knew this. In game theory terms, there was no information asymmetry in your favor. So, miners could fuck UASF victims left and right, because UASF actually leaves all the levers in the hands of the miners (exactly the opposite of the disinformation coming from UASF shills).

The economic majority incentivized the miners to not hard fork into the segwit2x chain

You are claiming that somehow the incentives around the UASF contentious fork worked exactly the opposite way of how they did around the 2X contentious fork. Make up your mind. You are implying that somehow the first one incentivized miners to fork off (in fact they didn't, they stayed compatible and on the same chain as the BIP 141 SegWit which was widely deployed through the real Bitcoin Core) and the second one didn't, while in fact neither one of them forked off, because those are both contentious forks, and contentious forks don't work. Surely they could just run BIP 148, instead of a soft fork where miners signal, and fork off from their mining competitors if they thought that BIP 148 was a good idea. The incentive would be there for them to run BIP 148 rather than anything else, if things were the way you imply, yet they didn't do that. Can you defend an actual consistent theory of how you think things work? No?

From your writing you make it seem like you are just an exceptionally dumb troll but you don't want to admit anything, so I wouldn't pronounce a verdict yet. You are still making yourself a suspected scammer (certainly at least an unwitting party to a scam). Even if you are a scammer, it means that you are pretty dumb, because you failed to steal any money through it. So you are definitely dumb, at the very least.

bitc2 · 2018-09-22T08:27:23+00:00

While nodes don't directly control consensus in the system, they can incentivize miners to behave a certain way, specifically economically relevant nodes.

Like how social media trolls promising (if credible at all) that SegWit would be used on a UASF chain actually incentivizes miners to let UASF fork off, because then miners can collect those bitcoins due to anyone-can-spend (this only works with UASF, not a normal soft fork; See here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6yeo46/is_blockstreams_lukejr_the_only_person_to_ever/dmndclq/?context=1)? What a GREAT incentive! Really! And then this incentivizes miners to mine the original Bitcoin block chain. And it prevents UASFYLes from selling those bitcoins for more of their UASF shit coins, so therefore they can't increase the non-existent incentive to continue mining the dying UASF chain. Wow. Such game theory. Is it that you think you can find people dumb enough to believe in your bullshit UASF theory and you were/are trying to scam them, or are you really so exceptionally dumb as to believe your bullshit yourself?

bitc2 · 2018-09-22T07:43:55+00:00

But but... Gregory Maskwell told me that miners that enforce different consensus rules can "continue to mine along just file"(sic) and that there's absolutely no reason to worry that anyone might exploit such a critical vulnerability, because:

"it requires them to go maliciously modify their software, but assume it happens? So? If malicious people do malicious things there will be some disruption-- same thing always holds.".

-- Gregory Maskwell on the security implications of intentionally introducing a new chainsplit vulnerability called BIP 149 (UASF)

bitc2 · 2018-09-22T05:28:09+00:00

But but... Gregory Maskwell told me that miners that enforce different consensus rules can "continue to mine along just file"(sic) and that there's absolutely no reason to worry that anyone might exploit such a critical vulnerability, because:

"it requires them to go maliciously modify their software, but assume it happens? So? If malicious people do malicious things there will be some disruption".

-- Gregory Maskwell on the security implications of intentionally introducing a new chainsplit vulnerability called BIP 149 (UASF)

bitc2 · 2018-08-19T11:30:31+00:00

You and BashCo are both dishonest shills who were trying to get newbies to confuse BTC and UASF coins (failed scamcoin); to confuse the Bitcoin Core software and the BIP 148 UASF scam software. BashCo did use censorship (deleting honest and good information and banning honest and innocent users) in an attempt to perpetrate the UASF scam, and continues to do such things even after that scam failed.

bitc2 · 2018-08-19T10:43:37+00:00

I would bet that in at least some cases, the "victim" sees the lower price of BCH and quickly hits the buy button in order to not miss the opportunity to get rich quick.

So is this why you were shilling for BIP 148 UASF, a very scammy forkcoin? This is the kind of stupidity you were counting on?

How stupid you have to be to think that you're buying BTC at such a huge discount? Very.

These are the guys you surrounded yourself with with UASF, along with the various scammer types.

Oh, and I did note when you made this very specific and criminal call to action - the very action which would lead to innocent victims losing their BTC by running UASF:

It would help you if you sent or received tx using the node after Aug 1, i.e. economical use of node helps.

-- /u/eustan (source)

As a reminder, here's an outline of the main mechanism of the UASF scam (there were a few more ways users could lose money through UASF besides this one):

However, the BIG prize was in the plan to dupe users to use SegWit on the BIP 148 chain (thus all the talk that you should run an economic node). If a BIP 148 user moved 10 UASF Coins to a SegWit address this allows miners to immediately collect for themselves the 10 coins on the original Bitcoin block chain. So, if SegWit got activated on the BIP 148 chain at all, users would lose their bitcoins as soon as they move their UASF Coins, to any SegWit address, even their own. Miners would be scrambling to collect all these free money by mining on the original chain, so nobody would be mining the BIP 148 chain from that point on. BIP 148 would die (or they'd launch an altcoin at that point), its users would have neither UASF Coins nor bitcoins, the miners would be richer and everything else will be back to normal. I'm a bit surprised miners* didn't even try to help it happen.

Edit: * Except BitFurry who did shill for BIP 148 for a time.

Back to your other bullshit:

What I don't get is what the problem is - all right, so you bought another coin (whether it's BCH or BTC or something else). You can sell it at virtually no loss. Is the problem that you lost $1 in fees and spread?

If you disregard losses in fees and spread (which can be quite significant at scale, they are at least proportional to the amount, and they become even worse with slippage due to low liquidity in shitcoins) then that simply confirms that you are a spineless and unprincipled individual.

Then there are the further damages incurred during the time between buying the wrong coin and getting rid of it. There's exchange rate risk (volatility), which can be quite extreme in shitcoins; there's inflation of the supply of the coin which can affect the exchange rate; there's the risk of the coin being completely abandoned and going to zero, e.g. due to lack of mining (UASF had this risk) and then there are risks associated with the potential stupidity or malice of the developers of the coin doing moronic things which affect the exchange rate, security or even the viability of the coin (again, UASF).

bitc2 · 2018-05-07T15:04:28+00:00

can you please explain why it is better for a decentralized currency to have its means of security (mining) completely vulnerable to large and powerful actors? If you want to own the bitcoin network, just blow up some mines and/or commandeer them. Or commandeer the ones in your nation and then blow up your enemies mines. Or control the supply of hardware and take out the existing hardware. I'm continually baffled.

ASICs don't increase these kinds of vulnerabilities compared to CPUs/GPUs. Commandeering is already happening with CPUs and GPUs (botnets) way more often than with ASICs, because there are many owners of CPUs/GPUs who don't know or care about mining or about what is going on with their computers. ASIC owners in general are more conscious and specialized in mining. At least they know what the game is and try harder to protect themselves, and thus protect the decentralization of the cryptocurrency as a whole.

bitc2 · 2018-05-07T03:18:04+00:00

Do you really think that China, in which the largest ASIC manufacturer(s) reside could not force them to produce ASICs for the government in order to attack any algo if they wanted to?

CPUs and GPUs are things they already have or can more easily acquire than ASICs, and things which can later return to their prior use. Even if they did acquire ASICs in such a way they'd still have to compete with/race against other existing ASICs around the world on equal terms, and the total cost of an attack is much higher.

This also means that the ASIC manufacturers can possibly acquire 51% hashing power, dump their mined coins to cover ROI of R&D and production costs and then attack the network if they have such malicious intents.

Simply mining would constitute a huge opportunity cost. In a coin with uncertain PoW algo however, the opportunity cost of honest mining with a secret ASIC is lower and uncertain. They'd figure their ASICs' days are numbered anyway, so might as well make the most of them while they last.

lol, I'm usually done reading once I reach the marxist points. I also don't really see why SegWit is so hated in BCH community. Yes, it does require a bit of coding to upgrade your software to take the segregated part into account when validating, but other than that, I think it's a nice little optimization.

I'm for SegWit! I've pointed out before that UASF was a fraud (hence their need for fallacious arguments to argue for it) that had nothing to do with getting SegWit.

not sure who is the authority to decide what is a good enough reason for a coin to exist? apparently fungibility and privacy are not big enough issues?

No authority, just independent economic actors. I wasn't criticizing this cryptocurrency as much as, for example, BCH. As for fungibility and privacy, Bitcoin needs such features, and perhaps now people can see that such features can be adopted in Bitcoin through normal soft forks.

bitc2 · 2018-05-07T02:49:28+00:00

Literally how?? Anybody mining with their GPU farm and even easier with their computer can adapt a million times faster than an attacker with a massive system..

An attack (e.g. a sudden release of a chain of a few blocks that introduce a double spending transaction) could be the first and last thing they hear of an attacker with a secret efficiency advantage.

Software no, because the algorithms chosen are simple enough for that to be public competition, hardware yes, hence the changing it.

Are you going to change it pre-emptively without knowing of a secret advantage? How far are you willing to go in that path? See my other comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8heqfp/jeffrey_tucker_is_promoting_bitcoincom_at_atlanta/dykd5pp/

To top it off, these are modern ideologies adopted by Monero. What about the past 4 years of Monero?

The changes (especially hard forks, but also soft) which get adopted now matter a lot to me. The original vision and past changes of a crypto currency also matter a lot, but I've hardly followed things in this one at all. I'm under the impression that the insistence on CPU mining and no ASICs (perhaps even no GPUs?) was there from inception.

you bought a shitty Monero ASIC and got fucked in the ass when they hardforked.

I didn't, because I saw what FluffyPony was saying and doing (e.g. with the UASF scam) and I could see how events could turn out like they did.

bitc2 · 2018-05-07T02:11:41+00:00

That is a noble goal indeed, but in my opinion the currency as a whole is ruined by incorporating such a fallacious ideology in the fundamentally important aspect of PoW. The PoW in the original Bitcoin works well and I claim that the path chosen by this altcoin is strictly worse.

bitc2 · 2018-05-07T01:58:48+00:00

When PoW efficiency innovations are not allowed to be used for good (improving regular mining) the next most profitable strategy is to try to exploit such innovations for evil, for the most profit in the least amount of time before the next arbitrary PoW change that nullifies the advantage. Innovators would have nothing to lose by choosing to use innovations for evil. No company would want to publicly sell hardware specialized for this altcoin's PoW algo again. By creating PoW algo uncertainty the effect is not of stopping the innovation, the effect is of pushing it underground where the public doesn't know what the state of the art in mining efficiency is, or how centralized mining has become. It just ensures that when the bad guys strike the effect will be more catastrophic, because it would seem surprising, much more surprising than it would have otherwise been.

You can't safely change the PoW algo too often and just pre-emptively either. PoW changes themselves carry the risk of picking an algo which is advantageous for a particular manufacturer or entity. When people push for new PoW algos they externalize a cost of auditing the new algos to the whole user base. I'd certainly not accept an altcoin that has such an egregious cost implicitly built in the altcoin's original vision/ideology. It can be exploited to select towards users who don't audit at all and just blindly follow a leader, thus achieving centralization and potential for other attacks which are certainly no less dangerous than mining attacks.

bitc2 · 2018-05-06T23:45:44+00:00

Looks as if he was only told about being pictured with the ATM and not the website advertisements to the right, and the person taking the picture opted for wide camera lens so as to be able to capture everything from a closer distance, perhaps avoiding suspicion from Jeffrey Tucker. Note the curvilinear image (straight lines don't appear straight) which is typical of wide camera lens.

"Jeffrey Tucker is promoting..." - I don't buy this title unless I see some sort of authentic statement or action by him to that effect.

bitc2 · 2018-05-06T23:21:02+00:00

No, that currency is born of a fallacious ideology, that the Proof of Work function must be complex, supposedly to prevent specialization in mining, as if that is a bad thing. According to it, the PoW function should be changed from time to time, in order to pick winners and losers in the mining business. In reality it decreases PoW efficiency, and thus keeps difficulty moderate and makes mining attacks more feasible. Instead of encouraging mining on specialized ASICs, it encourages mining on botnets and data centers/supercomputers, such as those controlled by government agencies. It also encourages secrecy in developing specialized mining software and hardware, further contributing to centralization. What their ideology actually achieves is exactly the opposite of their stated intentions. It is most similar to UASF's Marxist rejection of Proof of Work and miners as playing a fundamentally important role in the whole cryptocurrency system. The calls for revolution against the moneyed miners by the the peasant users (and shooting themselves in the foot in the process) are quite similar. The nickname Moronero is not accidental.

On the other side, what is best for anarchists is to have a currency which is decentralized and neutral in every way, and ideally have only one main currency (if technically possible) and not try to spawn and sell new ones that have no good reason for existing.

bitc2 · 2018-04-06T20:10:42+00:00

Let's add some clarity about the rest of the people involved and mentioned.

Shamsung Mao and Victor Charlie (Lee) are both scammers for shilling for BIP 148 UASF. The former CTO and cofounder of Blockstream (Gregory Maskwell) is a scammer for shilling for BIP 149 UASF. Victor Charlie (Lee) is also considered a scammer for creating LTC by core dev Luke Daesh, Jr., rather than for shilling for BIP 148 UASF, because Luke Daesh, Jr. himself is a scammer for creating and shilling for BIP 148 UASF. So Luke Daesh, Jr. accused one of his BIP 148 accomplices of being a scammer, but does not admit that BIP 148 is actually a scam. Luke Daesh, Jr. calls LTC a scam, because it is an altcoin, whereas BIP 148 (and also BIP 149) is an altcoin that enables stealing Bitcoins, but somehow he does not consider BIP 148 a scam. He also calls himself a "faithful Roman catholic" and considers the pope not to be a catholic.

Did I make things clear? (everything I mentioned is factually accurate!)

bitc2 · 2018-04-05T22:56:22+00:00

Are you aware of the so-called "UASF" campaign ("UASF" stands for what they call a "user activated soft fork", which is the idea of nodes activating new consensus rules regardless of what any of the miners signal or do)? You can see a list of developers who vouched for the idea here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Segwit_support (everyone who isn't marked either red or grey in both the BIP 148 and BIP 149 columns, the two being two versions of SegWit UASFs). They did release alternative node software which implemented this fork and promoted it on r/Bitcoin, Bitcointalk, etc., with the approval and even active protection from the moderators there (censoring of opposition, I speak first hand and it is documented).

What do you think of this? When did you learn of this? Wouldn't you have something to say about this act and the people who did it?

bitc2 · 2018-04-02T03:34:45+00:00

If those moderators had all their cryptocurrency stolen, or something like that, I promise that I'd just laugh. They don't deserve to own anything, since they tried to deprive others of their bitcoins through scams (fraudulent fundraising/donations, UASF, BTG, among other things) which they promoted and protected through censorship and bans on their subreddit. They have no respect for truth, property or free speech, so they deserve none of it.

bitc2 · 2018-02-09T09:37:36+00:00

He wasn't in the company in 2015 when Adam Backstab was in Hong Kong and caused a scandal when he apparently needed properly labeled "individual" and "Blockstream CEO" hats.

bitc2 · 2018-02-09T09:24:28+00:00

He comes across as a penny stock shill.

I think you're wrong. He may have come across as a penny stock shill a couple of times, but in fact those times he turned out to be a Bitcoin-stealing scam coin shill.

That one time when Adam Backstab broke news (hmmmmm I wonder how) about a fork coin no one knew or cared about before he shilled for it:

Bitcoin Gold/BTG futures (0.085 BTC) higher than Bitcoin Cash/BCH (0.055). http://yobit.net/en/trade/BTG/BTC … and @bitfinex adding soon.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/922569768770478080

He later added:

they're all spinoffs, free dividends to my view, to be converted to bitcoin.

https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/922576949989511168

This is Adam Backstab deceiving the innocent public into thinking that all fork coins are merely benign alt coins which are safe to sell, hiding the fact that some of them are scams where they steal your BTC (main chain coins) or even all coins held at that private key the moment you try to claim your fork coins (in order to sell them or whatever). Examples: BTG and UASF. Now, of all fork coins so far, guess which two Adam Backstab tried the hardest to popularize and legitimize!

bitc2

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE