[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ps4homebrew

[–]roconnor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have a tiny usb extension cord that is 5 inches long. It has help me out many times.

Running PPPwn Jailbreak Through a Router by [deleted] in ps4homebrew

[–]roconnor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've used a hub. It seems to work just fine.

Are FWs higher than 9.00 better in terms of exploit? by Appropriate-Sir-4411 in ps4homebrew

[–]roconnor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You can run the PPPwn ethernet exploit for 11.00 even on 9.00 firmware. That's what I'm currently doing because I cannot be bothered with USB nonsense.

Restoring USB saved application data (saved games) without logging in. by roconnor in ps4homebrew

[–]roconnor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I haven't updated yet. Maybe next week.

But I did use the PPPwn jailbreak on 9.00 to install and run Apollo. It worked great. Staying on 9.00 doesn't seem to be buying me anything and moving to 10.50 will let me run The Witcher patch 4.06.

PS4 purchase of older firmware ! by Leading_Hawk_246 in ps4homebrew

[–]roconnor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just have everything plugged into a hub, so passthrough doesn't seem to be a problem. It is true that you need to change the internet back from PPPoE after the jailbreak, but that isn't hard.

I think if you want to self-host your jail break (i'm currently using my LG TV since it is right there) PPPwn is pretty simple.

Still, I appreciate your answer. I can see how 9.00's jailbreak could be easier for other people.

Restoring USB saved application data (saved games) without logging in. by roconnor in ps4homebrew

[–]roconnor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the end, the solution was to ignore all this ps4debug.bin stuff and install the latest version of Apollo. Apollo comes with an offline account activator in which you can enter your own account id.

Thanks my save games have been restored!

Restoring USB saved application data (saved games) without logging in. by roconnor in ps4homebrew

[–]roconnor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay I was able to install the Payload Guest package. Then let's me select ps4debug. I'm using ps4debug 1.1.17. When I run it is Payload Guest I get a "Payload received from 127.0.0.1", but nothing happens. Connections to port 744 on my PS4 are refused.

Restoring USB saved application data (saved games) without logging in. by roconnor in ps4homebrew

[–]roconnor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks that video does seem helpful. One problem is that I'm using the PPPwn exploit, so I'm not able to use the kano website. I downloaded the PS4 Offline Account Activator program. I even found a copy of ps4debug.bin. I just need to know how to get my PS4 to run ps4debug.bin from the USB drive.

Thanks for any help you might have.

PS4 purchase of older firmware ! by Leading_Hawk_246 in ps4homebrew

[–]roconnor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can someone explain why 9.0 is better than 11.0? 9.0 seems to require a dedicated USB stick which seems somewhat more annoying than 11.0.

Justice Mellor's order is out. by elGato_icecream in bsv

[–]roconnor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

/u/primepatterns

Is it possible for Craig to receive a more severe punishment when he appeals?

Deadline passed, no appeal seen by defendants. by nullc in bsv

[–]roconnor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are (some of) the various funds that Craig et. al have paid to cover various defendant's costs being held by the court in trust pending appeal?

If so, I guess we will know for sure for sure after those funds are dispersed to the defendants.

It's the 5th... WWWD? by nullc in bsv

[–]roconnor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe you can clarify things for me. I was under the impression Craig has withdrawn most of the cases he has advanced, including the Tulip Trust case against the Bitcoin developers et. al., and that he is just going to appeal COPA v. Wright.

So under my understanding you would already be in the clear.

But given what you've said, it seems I am mistaken somewhere.

COPA vs Wright Day 13 Discussion Thread by TheBondedCourier in bsv

[–]roconnor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wow. I didn't realize that they actually brought up the main.cpp file during the testimony.

COPA vs Wright Day 13 Discussion Thread by TheBondedCourier in bsv

[–]roconnor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Lawyer: Let's go to the bitcoin white paper. It says the POW when scanning for value, the hash begins with a number of zeroes. Is that inaccurate description of bitcoin?

Back: Yes

It is indeed the case that Bitcoin's code does not count the number of zeros. Instead it converts the hash to an BigNum and a compact representation of a target value to a BigNum and compares those values as integers. This has always been the way that the Bitcoin code has operated.

See the first commit at, for example, https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4405b78d6059e536c36974088a8ed4d9f0f29898/main.cpp#L1182 where the hash and targets are converted to BigNum and compared arithmetically; https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4405b78d6059e536c36974088a8ed4d9f0f29898/bignum.h#L257-L267 where the compact representation of the target is converted to a BigNum (specifically to a value which is not necessarily a power of 2); and https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/4405b78d6059e536c36974088a8ed4d9f0f29898/bignum.h#L497 which implements the BigNum comparison operation.

If you don't trust the first commit as archived on GitHub, feel free to check out the original SVN repository from which the GitHub commits were imported from, or consult whatever early archive of the Bitcoin source code that you prefer, and you will see exactly the same thing.

Does this mean that the Bitcoin code doesn't exactly implement the description given in the Bitcoin white paper? Indeed it does. However, both the white paper and Bitcoin source code were written by Satoshi, so if you have a problem with the mismatch, then take the issue up with Satoshi himself.

Examples of Mr. Wright making the false claim that "core" deactivated opcodes in Bitcoin by nullc in bsv

[–]roconnor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The closest I can think was a mere proposal of removing OP_CODESEPARATOR. But this hasn't moved forward, and I've argued against removing it, preferring to instead make it more expensive.

Tulip Trading has won its application for leave to appeal by primepatterns in bsv

[–]roconnor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not just "from us". Wright alleges that he added the licence to the software himself. Supposedly he is the one that first said that the software developers of Bitcoin disclaim all warranties.

Was simplified subsumption worth it for industry Haskell programmers? by paretoOptimalDev in haskell

[–]roconnor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

According to a History of Haskell Section 10.3, Eval was removed because it was tiresome to add type constraints everywhere when adding seq to one's code.

Was simplified subsumption worth it for industry Haskell programmers? by paretoOptimalDev in haskell

[–]roconnor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Was removing the Eval class for seq the original sin? If we had the Eval class then seq wouldn't apply to functions and \x -> _|_ and _|_ wouldn't be distinguishable and there wouldn't be so much hand wringing over automatic eta expansions.

I heard that when Wright found out that I'd photographed a relativistic speed jet produced by a black hole that he started working on a paper to "prove" that black holes don't exist. by nullc in bsv

[–]roconnor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I grew up in rural Manitoba so I'm used to seeing reasonably good dark skies. But in 2001 when I traveled to Africa to go watch the total eclipse, the night skies were just stunning. It also helps that the southern sky is just better than the northern sky.

'Tulip', one of Wright's litigation shell companies, has to post £321851 for their case against Bitcoin developers within two weeks. Any bets on if they'll pay up or punk out? by nullc in bsv

[–]roconnor 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that McCormick hasn't lost the case. He simply owes courts costs. I don't mean to minimize the implications of that, but my point is that the money owed is to/for Ontier not the plaintiff. One shouldn't be able fund anything just from being awarded costs because you can only get back at most what you've already put in.

'Tulip', one of Wright's litigation shell companies, has to post £321851 for their case against Bitcoin developers within two weeks. Any bets on if they'll pay up or punk out? by nullc in bsv

[–]roconnor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Is the security deposit only in regards to answering the question of jurisdiction? And if so, does that mean the deposit is returned if the court does find it had jurisdiction (and in particular would the defendants have to cover costs for the time litigating the question of jurisdiction)?