|
Title: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: farFX on July 27, 2015, 09:40:08 PM Hello Everyone,
I am looking to get an interesting discussion going on what could be done better with new forks of the CryptoNote algorithm. Below is a pic of all the forks that have come about from BCN. There are many, but I really don't want to focus the disucssion on just one coin. I would like to get your thoughts on what makes each of these coins good and what does not. What improvements could be made in these coins or if you could take all of the good out of each of these coins and make them into one, what would that be? Anyway hope we can get a good discussion out of this as I am really interested in the CryptoNote community and future developments. http://i61.tinypic.com/ny5q1w.jpg Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: kazuki49 on July 27, 2015, 09:58:55 PM You have to research the history (https://web.archive.org/web/20141204145921/http://bitcoinbarbie.com/cryptonote-open-source-technology-concept/) (or lack thereof) of each yourself, but always follow the emission:
https://i.imgur.com/V0azhnC.png the most promissing CryptoNote (The Good): XMR (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1129446.msg11934186#msg11934186), AEON (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641696.msg11973347#msg11973347), XDN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1082745.msg11841164#msg11841164), BBR (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=577267.msg6302714#msg6302714). The plain clone (Ugly): DSH (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1020627.msg11049578#msg11049578), and the scam that unironically started everything (Bad): BCN (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0) edit: added links to the point Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: ArticMine on July 27, 2015, 11:04:00 PM The question as to whether Bytecoin was a premine fraudulently disguised as a ninjamine (the most likely scenario) or an actual ninjamine (the claim made by Bytecoin's supporters) is the main subject of the following thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.msg8361633#msg8361633 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.msg8361633#msg8361633).
In either case we are talking of an 82% premine or even if we accept the Bytecoin supporters claim then it is an 82% ninjamine. The choice becomes really ugly + fraud (the most likely) or just really ugly. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: redpepper on July 28, 2015, 05:42:43 AM Much of what I've seen in CryptoNote I really like. I do have some questions. I know that XMR has some public developers, do any of the other forks have known people working on them? I'm specifically interested in XDN. Most of the commits in GitHub are from ducknote and xdn-project and I don't know they are in real life.
A concern, I've read some "conspiracy theories" putting the NSA behind CryptoNote. I haven't gotten to deep into that research, so I'd love to hear from people that have. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: kazuki49 on July 29, 2015, 03:05:11 AM A concern, I've read some "conspiracy theories" putting the NSA behind CryptoNote. I haven't gotten to deep into that research, so I'd love to hear from people that have. They said NSA was behind Bitcoin too, and they actually are in one way at least (SHA256), Monero doesnt use SHA256 and its elliptic curve is quite respected outside cryptocurrencies as well (used in TOR), BTC curve is not used anywhere else. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: smooth on July 29, 2015, 06:42:28 AM That graph is wrong in at least one place. AEON is a fork of XMR.
Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: Liquid71 on July 29, 2015, 07:24:51 AM That graph is wrong in at least one place. AEON is a fork of XMR. That's like saying Litecoin isn't a fork of Bitcoin, it's a fork of Tenebrix :-\A cryptonote fork with a sustainable emission rate, GUI wallet, and optimized miners publicly available on launch would be the winning combination for a successful CN fork. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: smooth on July 29, 2015, 07:32:05 AM That graph is wrong in at least one place. AEON is a fork of XMR. That's like saying Litecoin isn't a fork of Bitcoin, it's a fork of Tenebrix :-\I don't know the code history of Litecoin that well so I can't comment, but I'm saying that AEON is direct fork of Monero (i.e. it has Monero copyright notices, and features added by Monero, such as mnemonics), which in turn was a fork of Bytecoin, and the graph doesn't show that lineage properly. Notice how the graph does (correctly, I presume) show other coins which are second-generation forks from BCN, but the AEON link is incorrect. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: kazuki49 on July 29, 2015, 07:32:14 AM A cryptonote fork with a sustainable emission rate, GUI wallet, and optimized miners publicly available on launch would be the winning combination for a successful CN fork. Bitcoin had none of this when it was launched, and it is a success. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: markm on July 29, 2015, 07:44:02 AM A cryptonote fork with a sustainable emission rate, GUI wallet, and optimized miners publicly available on launch would be the winning combination for a successful CN fork. Bitcoin had none of this when it was launched, and it is a success. Sure, but thats because Bitcoin was a fork of, uh... waitasec... someone's got this, don't they... -MarkM- Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: smooth on July 29, 2015, 07:52:45 AM A cryptonote fork with a sustainable emission rate, GUI wallet, and optimized miners publicly available on launch would be the winning combination for a successful CN fork. Bitcoin had none of this when it was launched, and it is a success. Sure, but thats because Bitcoin was a fork of, uh... waitasec... someone's got this, don't they... -MarkM- Bit gold Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: kazuki49 on July 29, 2015, 07:55:01 AM Sure, but thats because Bitcoin was a fork of, uh... waitasec... someone's got this, don't they... -MarkM- I got it, a fork of hashcash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash), but thats OK not everything can have the nicety of spawning out from nothing. -kazuki49- Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: markm on July 29, 2015, 08:27:19 AM Sure, but thats because Bitcoin was a fork of, uh... waitasec... someone's got this, don't they... -MarkM- I got it, a fork of hashcash (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash), but thats OK not everything can have the nicety of spawning out from nothing. -kazuki49- And that had a GUI wallet? -MarkM- Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: pandher on July 29, 2015, 08:41:25 AM And that had a GUI wallet? -MarkM- Did Bitcoin had a GUI wallet in early days? Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: smooth on July 29, 2015, 08:47:56 AM And that had a GUI wallet? -MarkM- Did Bitcoin had a GUI wallet in early days? Yes Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: gjhiggins on July 29, 2015, 09:39:00 AM It seems to be the case that there are some genuine semantics pertinent to the provenance. Looks like I need to add a “cloneparent” relation to the DOACC ontology (plain OWL (https://github.com/DOACC/DOACC) (in github repos) or fancy HTML (https://minkiz.co/doaccdoc/doacc-owl.html) (on Minkiz *).
I somehow managed to miss ASAPcoin and have not yet added Tavos to the DOACC (https://github.com/DOACC) graph but here's a SPARQL query that lists the name and symbol of each DOACC entry listed as using the protocol named “cryptonote”. Code: PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> Results (output format edited for inclusion here). Hyperlinks are to Minkiz' own version of a Linked Open Data browser *
For convenience, here's a canned version of the query (https://minkiz.co/sparql/query?query=PREFIX+skos%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2004%2F02%2Fskos%2Fcore%23%3E%0D%0APREFIX+doacc%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Fnet%2Fbel-epa%2Fdoacc%23%3E%0D%0A%0D%0ASELECT+%3Fnode+%3Fsym+%3Flab+WHERE+%0D%0A%7B%3Fprot+skos%3AprefLabel+%22cryptonote%22%40en+.+%0D%0A++%3Fnode+doacc%3Aprotocol+%3Fprot+.%0D%0A++%3Fnode+skos%3AprefLabel+%3Flab+.+%0D%0A++%3Fnode+doacc%3Asymbol+%3Fsym+%0D%0A%7D+ORDER+BY+%3Flab%0D%0A&output=html) * that renders the results as HTML. As regards collating features, I'm rather impressed with the polish of the DigitalNote GUI wallet, very promising indeed. Introducing a slider bar for degree of anonymity solves one very important but much under-appreciated issue - the fact that users with only a shallow model will naturally but mistakenly treat anonymity as a binary state when the reality is that it is a ratio scale of the brute force required to crack the crypto. A slider bar acts to help prevent such a misperception occurring in the first place. Nice work. * self-signed SSL cert, CA cert (http://bel-epa.com/X509), DYR: archive.org (http://web.archive.org/web/19970416033248/http://www.bel-epa.com/) Cheers Graham Edit: added CAcert note Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: smooth on July 29, 2015, 12:20:56 PM I've no note of a cryptonote coin with a PLD symbol, can't find any results searching for PLD on bitcointalk or for “cryptonote PLD” on DDG. Would be grateful for more info. Paladincoin and Budhacoin are both fake coins that never existed but were invented as forks that supposedly were created during the alleged "two years in the darknet" Bytecoin backstory. Anyone who creates or disseminates material that includes those coins or explicitly mentions (often in a context that makes a sensible reader ask why it is being mentioned) Bytecoin having been launched in 2012 is either part of the ongoing Bytecoin premine fraud whitewashing effort or has been fooled by it. You will notice the oddly conspicuous "launched in 2012" comments, for example, in nearly every article or "interview" that has been sprinkled around the web by their astroturfing efforts. Of course every single one of those references (as in fully 100%) only came into existence since the Bytecoin fraud started (late 2013 to early 2014). Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: gjhiggins on July 29, 2015, 12:36:17 PM Paladincoin and Budhacoin are both fake coins Thank you. Just saw your response. I'd deleted my post after I found the info I needed on map of coins. Cheers Graham Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: dNote on August 08, 2015, 10:24:24 AM i would like to mention:
with DigitalNote XDN quantum leap 2.0 we made XDN source code refracting, we made lots of new features, but also we took lots of cryptonote source code parts https://github.com/cryptonotefoundation/cryptonote Now i would say digitalnote is 1/3 bytecoin source code, 1/3 cryptonote source code and 1/3 of XDN-devs work. I wish they have some coin "features tree" on that map. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: TPTB_need_war on August 09, 2015, 05:16:39 PM A concern, I've read some "conspiracy theories" putting the NSA behind CryptoNote. I haven't gotten to deep into that research, so I'd love to hear from people that have. CN uses Daniel Berstein's EdDSA (specifically curve Ed25519). Berstein has fought the USG in court and has been outspoken about threats against our cryptography freedom. The main problem with CN is that ring signatures require equal denominations, thus Monero has to maintain power-of-10 balances, which bloats the block chain and complicates the wallet programming. Then when you need to recombine the change from multiple transactions, if don't mix these you break unlinkability. Also because Monero does not force all ring mixes to be mandatory amongst preset groupings, it could be subject to combinatorial attack which could unmask the anonymity. Their researchers are studying my complaint on this issue and my suggested fix. Confidental Transactions from Blockstream hides the values of a transaction so business privacy is retained. CN doesn't do this. No CN coins and in fact no altcoins that I am aware of, have really solved the issue that centralization of mining can cause transactions to be censored. This is an open problem for cryptocurrency. The other problem for all anonymous coins is that neither I2P nor Tor are reliable anonymity against a national security agency. And the nations are compiling these records to compile future tax and criminal cases against you. (yes of course I have solutions to all of these weaknesses) Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: boolberry on August 09, 2015, 07:35:48 PM I just wanted to remind everyone that BBR has a very friendly emission curve for later adopters. No fastmine or premine here! Today is a great day to start mining boolberry.
Unlike some other coins on the list above (with much higher market caps) most of BBR has yet to be mined. We also have an official GUI and a unique method of dealing with mixins and blockchain bloat: http://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-solves-cryptonoteflaws-37055246 http://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-reduces-blockchain-bloat Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: canth on August 09, 2015, 09:10:28 PM A concern, I've read some "conspiracy theories" putting the NSA behind CryptoNote. I haven't gotten to deep into that research, so I'd love to hear from people that have. <snip> Confidental Transactions from Blockstream hides the values of a transaction so business privacy is retained. CN doesn't do this. Agreed - this is a great feature, although given the head start that CN coins have and the likely lack of trust for using side chains for 'real' transactions for the next few years, I see this as more of an academic solution rather than a real one, in the short term. Quote No CN coins and in fact no altcoins that I am aware of, have really solved the issue that centralization of mining can cause transactions to be censored. This is an open problem for cryptocurrency. This is only a problem if the miner can identify which transactions they want to censor by linkability or other analysis. Presuming that you can maintain unlinkability, miners won't censor transactions unless they want to censor all transactions. There's no easy fix for that - if someone wants to spend lots of money suppressing nearly all transactions, you are correct - they can do this. Quote The other problem for all anonymous coins is that neither I2P nor Tor are reliable anonymity against a national security agency. And the nations are compiling these records to compile future tax and criminal cases against you. (yes of course I have solutions to all of these weaknesses) Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: smooth on August 10, 2015, 12:02:27 AM Confidental Transactions from Blockstream hides the values of a transaction so business privacy is retained. CN doesn't do this. It does to some extent because there are multiple outputs with some being change and some being payment (or payments). How they are grouped is not visible, so combinatorially this can give reasonable privacy of the payment amount. The choice of outputs affects how much actual privacy there is in practice and the current algorithm in Monero is not great, but is being improved. As for size I gather that CT and CN are similar but I haven't reviewed it carefully. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: TPTB_need_war on August 10, 2015, 07:11:01 AM No CN coins and in fact no altcoins that I am aware of, have really solved the issue that centralization of mining can cause transactions to be censored. This is an open problem for cryptocurrency. This is only a problem if the miner can identify which transactions they want to censor by linkability or other analysis. Presuming that you can maintain unlinkability, miners won't censor transactions unless they want to censor all transactions. There's no easy fix for that - if someone wants to spend lots of money suppressing nearly all transactions, you are correct - they can do this. CN has a viewkey. If the government takes control of the mining because due to centralization they can regulate 51% of network hash rate, then they can require every transaction publicize its viewkey. Effectively the government can force anonymity to be turned off, if they control 51% of the network hash rate. Being able to guarantee that the mining will always be decentralized, is required to be able guarantee non-censorship. This is probably the major flaw of crypto-currency. I do believe I have a design solution and this should be published this year (hopefully). At this point, I wouldn't take my assertion as 100% given, because without peer review and implementation, one has to remember "devil is in the details" and faults could be discovered. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: TPTB_need_war on August 10, 2015, 07:21:17 AM Confidental Transactions from Blockstream hides the values of a transaction so business privacy is retained. CN doesn't do this. It does to some extent because there are multiple outputs with some being change and some being payment (or payments). How they are grouped is not visible, so combinatorially this can give reasonable privacy of the payment amount. The choice of outputs affects how much actual privacy there is in practice and the current algorithm in Monero is not great, but is being improved. As for size I gather that CT and CN are similar but I haven't reviewed it carefully. You could hide value with CN. Split your value into small morsels, mix, then recombine through mixes. So then no one knows who owns that large balance. Or simply use Monero as it is with balances split into powers-of-10 and thus (in theory) no one knows which sets of transactions are really the same transaction. Thus I agree with smooth's statement. However, I have my doubts as to whether those powers-of-10 balances are not correlated via timing analysis. I don't have a specific algorithm nor research paper to cite, but rather just that we are dropping patterns all over the place. In an ideal anonymity set, everything should look the same, so there is no entropy to analyze. So thus hiding value has the advantage of removing information that can be used to aid in combinatorial and timing analysis (combined). Also it has another advantage which I won't mention yet... In any case, I want to acceded that CN does in theory effectively add value privacy. I am just not confident that Monero is sufficient against the 5 Eyes and powerful analysis research that might be forthcoming if ever these CN coins become popular. Think of my work as (an attempt at) the second stage of furthering the technology. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: smooth on August 10, 2015, 07:33:08 AM Confidental Transactions from Blockstream hides the values of a transaction so business privacy is retained. CN doesn't do this. It does to some extent because there are multiple outputs with some being change and some being payment (or payments). How they are grouped is not visible, so combinatorially this can give reasonable privacy of the payment amount. The choice of outputs affects how much actual privacy there is in practice and the current algorithm in Monero is not great, but is being improved. As for size I gather that CT and CN are similar but I haven't reviewed it carefully. You could hide value with CN. Split your value into small morsels, mix, then recombine through mixes. So then no one knows who owns that large balance. Or simply use Monero as it is with balances split into powers-of-10 and thus (in theory) no one knows which sets of transactions are really the same transaction. Thus I agree with smooth's statement. However, I have my doubts as to whether those powers-of-10 balances are not correlated via timing analysis. I don't have a specific algorithm nor research paper to cite, but rather just that we are dropping patterns all over the place. In an ideal anonymity set, everything should look the same, so there is no entropy to analyze. So thus hiding value has the advantage of removing information that can be used to aid in combinatorial and timing analysis (combined). Also it has another advantage which I won't mention yet... In any case, I want to acceded that CN does in theory effectively add value privacy. I am just not confident that Monero is sufficient against the 5 Eyes and powerful analysis research that might be forthcoming if ever these CN coins become popular. Think of my work as (an attempt at) the second stage of furthering the technology. I'd just add that power-of-10 is not required by the protocol even today. That is just a convention. One might imagine other useful conventions that when further defined require only implementation in wallets. Anyway, the last part isn't too important since protocol changes are fine and even expected at this level of maturity. That doesn't invalidate or disagree with your comments about timing attacks, etc. I think careful use can mitigate most timing attacks even today, but that's not a solution for end users who don't know how to be careful and won't. So none of these solutions is fully ready for prime time today. Some are better than others is about the best we can claim right now. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: smooth on August 10, 2015, 07:36:43 AM No CN coins and in fact no altcoins that I am aware of, have really solved the issue that centralization of mining can cause transactions to be censored. This is an open problem for cryptocurrency. This is only a problem if the miner can identify which transactions they want to censor by linkability or other analysis. Presuming that you can maintain unlinkability, miners won't censor transactions unless they want to censor all transactions. There's no easy fix for that - if someone wants to spend lots of money suppressing nearly all transactions, you are correct - they can do this. CN has a viewkey. If the government takes control of the mining because due to centralization they can regulate 51% of network hash rate, then they can require every transaction publicize its viewkey. Effectively the government can force anonymity to be turned off, if they control 51% of the network hash rate. That's essentially the same as blocking all transactions and thereby preventing the protocol from being used at all (so people would then have to use another, transparent, one, which doesn't even need to be limited to a view key but could include signing it with your name). Anyway, I made exactly this point last year. Too much crap got posted last year for me to find it though, but the conclusion was identical. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: TPTB_need_war on August 10, 2015, 10:19:20 AM No CN coins and in fact no altcoins that I am aware of, have really solved the issue that centralization of mining can cause transactions to be censored. This is an open problem for cryptocurrency. This is only a problem if the miner can identify which transactions they want to censor by linkability or other analysis. Presuming that you can maintain unlinkability, miners won't censor transactions unless they want to censor all transactions. There's no easy fix for that - if someone wants to spend lots of money suppressing nearly all transactions, you are correct - they can do this. CN has a viewkey. If the government takes control of the mining because due to centralization they can regulate 51% of network hash rate, then they can require every transaction publicize its viewkey. Effectively the government can force anonymity to be turned off, if they control 51% of the network hash rate. That's essentially the same as blocking all transactions and thereby preventing the protocol from being used at all (so people would then have to use another, transparent, one, which doesn't even need to be limited to a view key but could include signing it with your name). Anyway, I made exactly this point last year. Too much crap got posted last year for me to find it though, but the conclusion was identical. I remember. We've had this same discussion at least twice in the past. Well there is a difference between shutting the coin down entirely and demanding that you must present your signed KYC serial number before your transaction will be allowed through the network. And that is essentially where I see Bitcoin and all crypto-currency headed. And I am trying to do something about that. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: smooth on August 10, 2015, 10:21:37 AM No CN coins and in fact no altcoins that I am aware of, have really solved the issue that centralization of mining can cause transactions to be censored. This is an open problem for cryptocurrency. This is only a problem if the miner can identify which transactions they want to censor by linkability or other analysis. Presuming that you can maintain unlinkability, miners won't censor transactions unless they want to censor all transactions. There's no easy fix for that - if someone wants to spend lots of money suppressing nearly all transactions, you are correct - they can do this. CN has a viewkey. If the government takes control of the mining because due to centralization they can regulate 51% of network hash rate, then they can require every transaction publicize its viewkey. Effectively the government can force anonymity to be turned off, if they control 51% of the network hash rate. That's essentially the same as blocking all transactions and thereby preventing the protocol from being used at all (so people would then have to use another, transparent, one, which doesn't even need to be limited to a view key but could include signing it with your name). Anyway, I made exactly this point last year. Too much crap got posted last year for me to find it though, but the conclusion was identical. I remember. We've had this same discussion at least twice in the past. Well there is a difference between shutting the coin down entirely and demanding that you must present your signed KYC serial number before your transaction will be allowed through the network. And that is essentially where I see Bitcoin and all crypto-currency headed. And I am trying to do something about that. It's more of a philosophical question if you even consider such a requirement to be the same coin at all. Not really an important distinction imo. We agree in substance. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: TPTB_need_war on August 10, 2015, 10:23:51 AM Confidental Transactions from Blockstream hides the values of a transaction so business privacy is retained. CN doesn't do this. It does to some extent because there are multiple outputs with some being change and some being payment (or payments). How they are grouped is not visible, so combinatorially this can give reasonable privacy of the payment amount. The choice of outputs affects how much actual privacy there is in practice and the current algorithm in Monero is not great, but is being improved. As for size I gather that CT and CN are similar but I haven't reviewed it carefully. You could hide value with CN. Split your value into small morsels, mix, then recombine through mixes. So then no one knows who owns that large balance. Or simply use Monero as it is with balances split into powers-of-10 and thus (in theory) no one knows which sets of transactions are really the same transaction. Thus I agree with smooth's statement. However, I have my doubts as to whether those powers-of-10 balances are not correlated via timing analysis. I don't have a specific algorithm nor research paper to cite, but rather just that we are dropping patterns all over the place. In an ideal anonymity set, everything should look the same, so there is no entropy to analyze. So thus hiding value has the advantage of removing information that can be used to aid in combinatorial and timing analysis (combined). Also it has another advantage which I won't mention yet... In any case, I want to acceded that CN does in theory effectively add value privacy. I am just not confident that Monero is sufficient against the 5 Eyes and powerful analysis research that might be forthcoming if ever these CN coins become popular. Think of my work as (an attempt at) the second stage of furthering the technology. I'd just add that power-of-10 is not required by the protocol even today. That is just a convention. One might imagine other useful conventions that when further defined require only implementation in wallets. Anyway, the last part isn't too important since protocol changes are fine and even expected at this level of maturity. That doesn't invalidate or disagree with your comments about timing attacks, etc. I think careful use can mitigate most timing attacks even today, but that's not a solution for end users who don't know how to be careful and won't. So none of these solutions is fully ready for prime time today. Some are better than others is about the best we can claim right now. Yes flexibility and users (or their wallets) decide. I presume convention is often followed to maximize anonymity sets and reduce simultaneity conflicts. And agree that perfection exists only in words and we do live in here and now. And if one needs anonymity on chain here and now, Monero is probably the best option available. Even if someone were to design something "better" (different or some claimed advancement), will it even have enough adoption and all bugs worked out in time? Of course I don't know that either, even being on the inside as a developer. We appear to be in agreement. I am not telling anyone to not buy Monero, except for my advice to lighten up (on all crypto and gold) for the coming low in crypto this Spring 2016. For those who have well diversified and want to HODL through any sell off, then they can ignore my warning on that. Edit: it is possible I end up using Monero because it is what is working best when I need it. Well we've already used XMR in fact. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: TPTB_need_war on August 10, 2015, 10:33:23 AM It's more of a philosophical question if you even consider such a requirement to be the same coin at all. Not really an important distinction imo. We agree in substance. To recap past discussions, one can not be entirely sure how the world politics will play out. So it is even philosophical from the standpoint of each person's view on the landscape out there. I understand you meant philosophical on whether removal of anonymity is equivalent to a shut down. The reason I make the distinction is because humans have a tendency to conform in order to cope, so the government can maybe get what it wants which is compliance without destroying the entire Monero economy. Again that is one person's view point on the world landscape, so not to be taken as gospel. Last time I checked, my crystal ball wasn't perfect, lol. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: canth on August 10, 2015, 01:09:23 PM It's more of a philosophical question if you even consider such a requirement to be the same coin at all. Not really an important distinction imo. We agree in substance. To recap past discussions, one can not be entirely sure how the world politics will play out. So it is even philosophical from the standpoint of each person's view on the landscape out there. I understand you meant philosophical on whether removal of anonymity is equivalent to a shut down. The reason I make the distinction is because humans have a tendency to conform in order to cope, so the government can maybe get what it wants which is compliance without destroying the entire Monero economy. Again that is one person's view point on the world landscape, so not to be taken as gospel. Last time I checked, my crystal ball wasn't perfect, lol. As long as some percentage of mining power doesn't require pub viewkeys to include transactions in a block, then private transactions are still possible - however, with really slow confirmations. Unless we're of course talking about a 51% attack which is a problem that all cryptocurrencies have. There's no defense against a 51% attack when your attacker suffers no repercussions and is equipped with essentially unlimited funds - aka, a state actor. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: TPTB_need_war on August 13, 2015, 08:55:02 AM Unless we're of course talking about a 51% attack which is a problem that all cryptocurrencies have. There's no defense against a 51% attack when your attacker suffers no repercussions and is equipped with essentially unlimited funds - aka, a state actor. I believe I know a defense. Await a white paper. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: boolberry on August 19, 2015, 05:05:41 AM Its time to get more active on social media and emphasize why Boolberry is important and unique. Lets start here:
On blockchain bloat: https://www.reddit.com/r/boolberry/comments/3hjmuc/cryptonote_blockchain_bloat_and_the_unique https://twitter.com/BBRcurrency/status/633855890945257472 source: http://boolberry.org/files/Boolberry_Reduces_Blockchain_Bloat.pdf On mixins and their impact on CryptoNote unlinkability: https://www.reddit.com/r/boolberry/comments/3hjmfl/mixins_and_their_impact_on_cryptonote https://twitter.com/BBRcurrency/status/633859728884367362 source: http://boolberry.com/files/Boolberry_Solves_CryptoNote_Flaws.pdf Feel free to share this information with anyone who cares about privacy. Boolberry truly is one of a kind. Many technical advantages a fair launch and a user friendly GUI. Price remains low because there has not been much marketing or visibility yet. Lets focus on introducing more people to Boolberry so that we can gain some market adoption. Title: Re: CryptoNote | The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly Post by: P-Funk on August 19, 2015, 10:06:02 AM Its time to get more active on social media and emphasize why Boolberry is important and unique. Lets start here: On blockchain bloat: https://www.reddit.com/r/boolberry/comments/3hjmuc/cryptonote_blockchain_bloat_and_the_unique https://twitter.com/BBRcurrency/status/633855890945257472 source: http://boolberry.org/files/Boolberry_Reduces_Blockchain_Bloat.pdf On mixins and their impact on CryptoNote unlinkability: https://www.reddit.com/r/boolberry/comments/3hjmfl/mixins_and_their_impact_on_cryptonote https://twitter.com/BBRcurrency/status/633859728884367362 source: http://boolberry.com/files/Boolberry_Solves_CryptoNote_Flaws.pdf Feel free to share this information with anyone who cares about privacy. Boolberry truly is one of a kind. Many technical advantages a fair launch and a user friendly GUI. Price remains low because there has not been much marketing or visibility yet. Lets focus on introducing more people to Boolberry so that we can gain some market adoption. That's all great but your currency's name sucks. |
