ttj - Tom Jones

When bitcoin experts talk about a 51% attack, by which they mean control of majority of hash power by one entity, they always talk about double-spending attacks, as tho that's the thing to worry about. Controlling majority hashpower means the controlling entity can include or exclude whatever blocks, as well as transactions, they want.  Someone else solved a block?  That's nice, until that's not the main chain anymore, because controlling entity replaced it with a longer [0] one, which by definition they can do sooner or later. The bluntest strategy by controlling entity would be to exclude all blocks solved by others.  Tho sustainable in a system where nothing else changes, such a strategy would bring about dramatic second-order effects, from directed investment in balancing hash power, to the total failure of bitcoin, or perhaps changing the proof of work element. A more subtle strategy would maintain an edge by reducing the probability, say by 10 percentage points, tha...

Unspecified "protocols", which are not really protocols, tend to require both ends to have the same implementation, often at a similar version.  Real protocols require both ends to speak the same specified protocol.  In real life there are often grey areas, but things like TCP, HTTP, and sort of SSH fit into this category.   It can be surprising how widely-used unspecified non-protocols are.  Three examples for today: rsync, openvpn, and bitcoin.  By their nature, then, all ripe for replacement with something specified. Re VPN protocols, the ipv6 stuff is specified but rubbish, and the WireGuard thing recently added to the linux kernel appears to be unspecified, tho it's probably less coupled to the whims of openssl than openvpn is.   And I managed to get a 500 internal server error out of google's main search page in the process: "This should never happen".

Last year it was Ecuador.  Last week it was Lugano.  Places keep claiming they have made Bitcoin "legal tender", and tards keep repeating it.  I watched some Max Kaiser thing on Youtube the other day.  He kept saying Bitcoin was legal tender in Ecuador. Legal tender means if it's offered in settlement of a debt, and refused, then the debt is cancelled.  So every business, and every individual, must have a capability to accept it. Example: last year I went, based on a recommendation from a friend, to a restaurant called "Wilding" on Little Clarendon St in Oxford.  They forgot the order and there was a delay of around an hour, but the food was tasty.  When it came time to pay, I took cash from my wallet.  They preciously informed me they "only accept" card payments.  I informed them that I wouldn't be doing that, and that they were free to refuse my payment in cash, but this would cancel any debt from me to them, due to the legal tender law. Le...