Social Courtesies: the witless and pointless example

The Story of Pointless and Witless

I wasn’t going to blog about this, but he insisted over and over.

zentropicmaximillist wrote:

First of all, the fact the the author is using the term UTXO should be a big tipoff that they don't actualy understand how Monero works.
…
Basically this is nothing but FUD from someone that doesn't actually understand their own arguments.

zentropicmaximillist wrote:

How is that you cannot understand that responding to the slightest criticism with hate filled vulgarity is not only rude but extremely anti-social.

Oh the feigned (I’m not really an inept wannabe wolf in) sheepskin defense (so don’t hold me responsible for my actions because meritocracies don’t exist and everyone is required to pretend they are a sheepskin and society collapses). Let’s deconstruct.

Have you not read the link I provided to you? Let me quote for you:

More comments from Monero private chats are being forwarded to me:

Needmoney90, [01.08.17 22:00]
Like, that was the first paper released by the MRL, and it describes why the 'attack' in this article doesnt work

Yes it was written because of I communicated the possible attack to @smooth who relayed it to their cryptographers. I caused that paper to be written. I explained that in my blog.

Needmoney90, [01.08.17 22:00]
Basic statistics

Needmoney90, [01.08.17 22:01]
Its not even an intermediate paper, if this guy had done any research at all, he would know his method didnt work :/

Needmoney90, [01.08.17 22:01]
He didnt even skim the first research paper published by us lol"

No you snobbish Monerotard. You asshurls never change. You didn’t read carefully the damn paper you’re citing and the model’s relationship to my blog.

"He claims miners can create outputs for free - MRL-001 established that it's pointless without owning like 80% of the outputs. We'd realize very quickly if a miner was creating 80% spurious outputs, because the tx growth would be insane, we'd outstrip Bitcoin."

No you would not realize an 80% increase if it was gradually raised or had been going on for a long time. You have no way to know whether the existing transaction volume already includes the 80%, i.e. if Monero has been a honeypot ongoing. Did you even read the Really? section of my blog wherein I made that point already! You Monerotards don’t even take the time to read carefully.

You can’t extrapolate that statistically derived 80% factor when the model they used doesn’t even apply as explained above. That chart they showed assumed that the perpetrator is not continuing to compromise more transactions ongoing, so it is inane to claim that it is pointless to do so, when the model doesn’t even factor in doing so. Once you factor in those things they didn’t model the quantitative results of the model can change. The authors even admit…

Click also the link quoted above “never change” for more examples going back years. The same crap has been going on over and over again. It is endemic to the high pride and snobbish attitude of the Monero community that thinks just because they have a PhD cryptographer and a lot of open source contribution that nothing can possibly surprise them. Ha! I love a challenge when egos become over inflated and overconfident.

How can you claim that the above is “slight criticism” when:

1. They did it behind my back on IRC where they knew I was not reading and wouldn’t respond if several others hadn’t forwarded it to me.

2. They attempted to belittle my entire reputation claiming that I was not even at a beginner level of knowledge in this field.

3. They were entirely wrong on every single point and it clearly demonstrated that they (like you) hadn’t even read and entirely understood all the points in my blog.

From the very start you have resorted to personal attacks.

It is disingenuous and impossible to have rational discussion with you, if you can’t admit that you and @Needmoney90 (and numerous others in the Monero community) tried to belittle my expertise in this anonymity field and both of you fell flat on your facepalms as deserved for being arrogant, overconfident, mischievous, vengeful, condescending, and incorrect. And then whining about “social courtesies” when you met the fate that you sought and earned with such attitude and ineptitude. Let me remind readers that I also refuted your points which comprised the very first comment in this Redditard wherein you bloviated “should be a big tipoff that they don't actualy understand how Monero works”.

Please explain how that is explaining anything in a calm manner.

I already wrote at this Redditard that my blog (at least not in the final draft) contained no personal attacks. You Monerotards started the ad hominem crap as you always do (but this doesn’t mean every member of Monero’s community does). That is a fact.

Finally, the term UTXO males sense for currencies where it is possible to determine which transactions have been spent but with Monero, it is not possible to make this determination. Calling transactions UTXOs in Monero is conveying that they are definitely unspent.

That is a reasonable argument to make, but it by no means backs up your claim, “should be a big tipoff that they don't actualy understand how Monero works”. The only way you could sanely make such a claim would be to not read and understand my blog, or simply decide you were going to be insanely untruthful and make ad hominem attacks any way.

Note I have linked to our discussion here in my layman’s summary of Cryptonote’s ring signatures, which I also posted as an answer at Monero Stackexchange.

Furthermore I had already explained to you upthread that from the perspective of the blockchain validators and the public view of the blockchain, those transaction outputs will forever remain unspent. That is the entire point of the anonymity is that it can’t be publicly known which transaction outputs were spent and when.

I understand your point about the confusion of “definitely unspent” and in fact, I have made that point also years ago on BCT. I choose to use the term UTXO because it is the common terminology for transaction outputs that can still be included in new transactions, which is the case also for Monero! For you to not call them UTXO is also confusing for some readers, because they can be included in new transactions. So if they’re not unspent from the perspective of blockchain validators then how can they be included in new transactions? That they are known to be spent by parties to each transaction is irrelevant! So in the interests of keeping my blog reasonably concise and not going off on tedious irrelevant tangents, I chose to use the canonical blockchain terminology.

Since it is possible to make definitely make this determination the term should not be used. With Monero we can determine that there are transaction but not which transactions are spent or unspent.

Incorrect. Actually you are the one who does not understand Monero/Cryptonote ring signatures, lol.

Therefore in Monero there are only TXO's.

Well we could say that but then nobody would understand WTF we mean if we are double-spending already spent TXO.

If you had bothered to learn about Monero you would know this. When I pointed this out, you basically lost it and and went on a hate filled vulgar diatribe. Very mature of you.

Facepalm. Overconfidence shattered. Now go cry in your milk and learn from this. Humbling experiences like this will teach you to be sharper on your game and to be very wary of flippantly attacking the reputation of others. Many of us had to learn this lesson, so don’t feel like you’re special and get downtrodden.

P.S. I am going to blog this. Next time you grandstand, realize there are repercussions to attacking someone’s reputation and wasting my very scarce time.

---

Follow-up:

Just can't resist making personal attacks can you. Your insistence on using personal attacks while claiming personal grievance is extremely hypocritical. Any rational person will therefore automatically discount your arguments as you have shown a complete disregard for honest civil discourse.

Time to face reality your sleazy disrespectful behavior has completely undermined anything that you have to say.

When you accept responsibility for your attempt to attack my personal reputation, then you realize that your reputation will suffer if you are incorrect.

You can dish it out, but then you can’t accept the repercussions.

If you ever say, “I was wrong, I am sorry and hope we can be more respectful to each other”, then I might be able to accept that you’ve learned and matured and deserve of another chance for my mutual respect.

Until then, I see you as you are, which is a witless fool (with ostensibly irrationally high pride because you can’t seem to accept your mistake and apologize) who is trying to snipe attacks and then claim the other person is evil when the ad hominem which you initiated then blows up in your face.

Do you prefer I lie to you and pretend that what you did was rational? Society will collapse if we continue to pretend that incorrect is correct, and rewarding destructive misinformation and other witless nonsense.