So, the week is finished, any news to give us up please ?
I on Friday took to the bank changed data I was waiting for you and the board of directors and the bank notified me can we get a further discussion going on the importance of what was just said here please. Maybe if I understood it. here´s my broken english to broken english translation: Last friday he handed the changed data to the bank and now he´s still waiting the answer from the directors board (the bank will notify him). Thx for the translation!  Looks like the English has become more "Broken" as time passes. I wonder why? |
|
|
|
So, the week is finished, any news to give us up please ?
I on Friday took to the bank changed data I was waiting for you and the board of directors and the bank notified me can we get a further discussion going on the importance of what was just said here please. Maybe if I understood it. |
|
|
|
I think it is unwise to taunt cryptsy for being a little late to the Monero party. Whether you like them or not they are a serious player in the altcoin scene. I for one am thankful they have decided (evidently)to finally add Monero. I will trade there in appreciation of their coming on board. And I'd urge you to stay classy.
As to eth.
What a boon for our beloved little Monero. That we are the number TWO coin at Poloniex is actually a positive thing at least for a while. I think we are seeing lots of new blood at Poloniex because of eth, and some of those new folks will look at the other major coin at the exchange. This is not spin. It's just a blessing in disguise.
FUCK CRAPTSY! They can suck my ball sweat. I watched them manipulate deposits and withdrawals while they used those coins to P&D. anyone that wants in on that shit site is either already all in and looking to dump at a profit or is ill informed. That whole crew is a bunch of theifs, a shitstain on this scene. Maybe I should say what I really feel? |
|
|
|
Waiting for dump
No such thing as a dump with this coin, sell offs sure but that's it. Where is that link for the last moron that sold off at .0015 LOL |
|
|
|
...
As far as modifying PoW that is not on any active agenda. We've always open to the possibility and we've looked at cuckoo cycle and some other things but there aren't any current plans to change it.
That cuckoo cycle is interesting reading but from what I can tell it doesn't actually change the cryptography or am I having a comprehension failure? When I read the other thread I'll probably get the answer to that question. Well it's "just" a POW, so has nothing to do with EdDSA, etc. It would replace Cryptonight. Advantages: 1. Easy to verify 2.  3. Cool name Disadvantages: 1. Change is bad? Change is inevitable. This hurts my brain. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dga/crypto/cuckoo/analysis.pdfThe one thing this coin can never do is lose it's anonymity so being prepared and as future proof as possible should certainly be a focus. |
|
|
|
Removing support for payment IDs entirely could be a consensus change. I have no idea if they intend that.
The transaction format could be made a lot cleaner if tx_extra were remove and a fixed size transaction-key field were added instead. Plus it would remove one obvious way for scumbags to stuff kiddie porn on the blockchain.
Shit, only skimmed this thread but this popped out at me. Is there that shit on the chain right now or are you warning of a possibility? Is anyone with the chain getting setup? To remove would take a hard fork prune? How about adding a option to boycott specific transaction meta data and maintaining a blacklist? Is there another place where this is being discussed? |
|
|
|
edited to add: oh, you mean the cryptography thats harder to crack by quantum computers. Yeah, if the "new difficulty algorithm" means new POW function, then yeah - these random polynomials would be interesting. If the new diff means just changing how the difficulty is adjusted.... edited to add: you might enjoy posting stuff in the monero improvement technical discussion thread I started. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1139756.0I heavily moderate that thread, so stuff doesn't get lost in the "talk" portion of bitcointalk. Nice thread, I didn't even know it existed! Looks like I have alot of reading to catch up on. ...
As far as modifying PoW that is not on any active agenda. We've always open to the possibility and we've looked at cuckoo cycle and some other things but there aren't any current plans to change it.
That cuckoo cycle is interesting reading but from what I can tell it doesn't actually change the cryptography or am I having a comprehension failure? When I read the other thread I'll probably get the answer to that question. |
|
|
|
Silk, Good luck on August 17! You can do it! I second that sentiment!!  I tricond it! I truly doubt it but hope I'm wrong.  |
|
|
|
I think everyone can guess my long term sentiment towards Monero:)
Short term I don't recommend anyone use margin to speculate in either direction. There is a lot of BTC moving around right now, partially because of Ethereum. Volatility may remain high and Poloniex still does not disclose the amount of open margin loans
THIS cannot be stressed enough, Insider info can change a market in an instant with huge ramifications. I am staying divested until this info is available. I like Polo but it doesn't mean I trust them all. |
|
|
|
...
Good point.
Being a programmer I have thought about what use cases in the real world Ethereum would be good for...
I haven't really came up with anything yet as I do find the platform far too limiting. I figure I just wasn't smart enough! Apparently the founder of Ethereum is meant to be a genius so there may be real world use cases that I just can't think of?
I spent some time looking into this and got afa the current project list and found deception as well as no tangible prototypes. The bulk of all the Projects were nothing more than IPO schemes. If any of these projects actually produces something functional and the deception in the list of partners is not removed or substantiated then this coin is dead to me. Also considering under the Monero currently being researched heading there is "New Difficulty Algorithm" I would have thought my last post would be contributory. But considering the lack of responses to links I drop in this thread I don't think anyone even clicks them. Just an FYI alot of times I don't use the keyboard and just use pointing device to communicate. Makes my life easier. |
|
|
|
http://thehackernews.com/2015/08/quantum-computing-encryption.html The team has already developed a robust encryption protocol prototype that they explained can slow down cracking process by 21 percent than the versions using elliptic curve cryptography.
Rather than multiplying large prime numbers together, or using elliptic curve cryptography, the mathematical operation of new protocol is based upon multiplying polynomials together, then adding some random noise,
|
|
|
|
When was the last time tacotime did anything remotely related to monero? Serious question. EDIT: Why not call the smallest Monero denomination... a Nero. I would appreciate an answer to this as well. At 2am today (my time) -
[01:53:09] <tacotime> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-josefsson-eddsa-ed25519-03#section-5.6
[01:53:36] <tacotime> there's a step where you get r from SHA-512(prefix || M)
[01:54:10] <tacotime> where prefix is SHA-512(secret)[32:64]
[01:57:48] <tacotime> (the first half of the prefix is used to generate the scalar to use as a private key)
[01:58:08] <tacotime> my question is, can't prefix be anything and the won't the signature still be valid if it is?
[01:58:21] <tacotime> and is there any reason that doing this would be dangerous?
[01:59:27] <tacotime> i realize that if you use a bad value it might be like choosing a bad K in general
[01:59:38] <tacotime> but if your value is securely chosen, is it safe?
[02:34:26] <tacotime> and also
[02:34:26] <tacotime> is it possible to construct hd keychains from ed25519 private scalars? i don't really thing it is because there are four required bits that need to be set for an ed25519 scalar to be valid in terms of generating a signature
[02:34:26] <tacotime> i kinda wonder if there's a way around that though
[02:34:29] <tacotime> normally for an hd keychain you += hash(pubkey || index) to both the private scalar and public point
[02:35:38] <tacotime> so to get priv_i and pub_i
[02:36:06] <tacotime> priv_i = (priv + hash) mod N
[02:37:17] <tacotime> pub_i = (pub + scalarbasemult(hash))
[02:38:16] <tacotime> and how come monero doesn't run into this issue when it generates private keys through ecdh? does monero allow these scalars to be legal with the bits set anyway?
[02:38:37] <tacotime> because you'd expect 1 in every 2^4 scalars for any given derived keypair to be invalid
[02:38:42] <tacotime> but i'm probably missing something
[02:59:03] <tacotime> okay i figured out the zeroing out of the 3 lsbs
[02:59:12] <tacotime> that's just *= the cofactor
[02:59:29] <tacotime> but you do need one bit to be set in the private key for it to be useable, right??
[03:00:22] <tacotime> so when you ecdh a corresponding secret to the recipient, how can you tell with 100% certainty that the private key they will derive has a single set bit in the 254th position??
Best response ever. |
|
|
|
|
^^^^ NICE, Will check it out when I get home.
|
|
|
|
The original code apparently had nearly all the comments programmatically stripped out. (I have no idea how well commented it was before they were stripped, of course.)
What is the evidence that nearly all the comments were programmatically stripped out? There are very few comments, and little to nothing the way of design documents or notes, so either nearly all of these were removed from the tree (though "programmatically" is just a theory -- they could also have been removed by hand) or the code was never properly documented in the first place (ugh). As further evidence for the latter, there are some modules that have been identified as being from other open source libraries with the attributions and comments removed, but again it is still possible those comments were removed but the rest of the code was never commented. Have those modules comments been reinstated? The original code apparently had nearly all the comments programmatically stripped out. (I have no idea how well commented it was before they were stripped, of course.)
What is the evidence that nearly all the comments were programmatically stripped out? Also when they used our payment_id / RPC code and merged it back to their repo they stripped out all our explanatory comments. Well thats a HUGE red flag! Is there a way to permanently point this out on github for others to note? |
|
|
|
Next one that quotes that gets auto ignored.
ROFL I almost did it just because. Your already on ignore!  |
|
|
|
|
Next one that quotes that gets auto ignored.
|
|
|
|
BTW, I am not knocking the contributions made as just by my cursory looks at the code it is a daunting task to be able to contribute anything code wise. I am just pointing out the Documentation HAS to be added as the work progresses and kept up to date for proper project management. this really doesn't need to be said though. Every programmer knows this.
This has been done. The new code has extensive comments, including block comments that describe design and implementation issues and decisions. Several other areas of the code have had comments added (by various project contributors). The original code apparently had nearly all the comments programmatically stripped out. (I have no idea how well commented it was before they were stripped, of course.) We have to do the best we can with that. Good to know, are the code portions that have been fixed been commented as well? As soon as there is a flowchart the task of absorbing this project may be to the level where I can manage it. Getting old and forgetful is a real bitch. :| You should really try using doxygen to create graphs. It won't create a flowchart of the whole thing down to the individual statement level but it does create call graphs, class heirarchy graphs, usage graphs, etc. pull request We use the same git source code control for documentation and the web site itself. What this means is that if there is something in terms of documentation or the web content you think should be added, changed, improved, etc. you don't need to ask someone else to do it, you can (and should) do it yourself. Even small pieces are helpful.So I put this in the wrong place? https://github.com/monero-project/monero-site/issues/49My mind is stuck in top down structure so it it painful although not impossible for me to use other methodologies. That is why I need that. I will try to use doxygen when time allows, I took a look at it when ginger posted it. I find it hard to believe no one has this done already. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
