Yes, but if the protocol is giving you away if you don't use IP obfuscation, then how is that anonymous in itself?
Anonymous is an ambiguous term, it means different things to different people, in different contexts Look back at the first post on this thread. Monero (really Cryptonote, on which it is based) does not promise anonymity. It promises things like "blockchain analysis resistance." The Monero team in particular is not promising "anonymity" to anyone. We are saying that this technology protects your privacy much better than alternatives such as bitcoin, which it most certainly does. Used carefully (which includes care about revealing your IP address), it can probably maintain anonymity, but no one is promising that. Who knows what back doors there might be in any encryption algorithm, your computer's chips, etc. IF you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you can't promise -- nor be confident about -- anything. So let's keep the straw men to a minimum and focus the conversation on what MRO does, is trying to do, and might do in the future. These are all correct points. Tacotime wanted the thread name and OP to use the word privacy instead of anonymity, but I made the change for marketing reasons. Other coins do use the word anonymous improperly, so we too have to play the marketing game. Most users will not bother looking at details to see which actually has more privacy; they'll assume anonymity > privacy. In a world with finite population, there's no such thing as anonymity. You're always "1 of N" possible participants. Zero knowledge gives N -> everyone using the currency, ring signatures give N -> your choice, and CoinJoin gives N -> people who happen to be spending around the same amount of money as you at around the same time. This is actually the critical weakness of CoinJoin: the anonymity set is small and it's fairly susceptible to blockchain analysis. Its main advantage is that you can stick to Bitcoin without hard forking. Another calculated marketing decision: I made most of the OP about ring signatures. In reality, stealth addressing (i.e. one-time public keys) already provides you with 90% of the privacy you need. Ring signatures are more of a trump card that cannot be broken. But Bitcoin already has manual stealth addressing so the distinguishing technological factor in CryptoNote is the use of ring signatures. This is why I think having a coin based on CoinJoin is silly: Bitcoin already has some privacy if you care enough. A separate currency needs to go way beyond mediocre privacy improvements and provide true indistinguishably. This is true thanks to ring signatures: you can never break the 1/N probability of guessing correctly. There's no additional circumstantial evidence like with CoinJoin (save for IP addresses, but that's a problem independent of cryptocurrencies). Thread name is fine, its just a headline before you get into details. I mean privacy is vague term too, compared to say "unlinkable transactions" which can at least potentially have a precise definition. I don't agree that one-time addresses are enough for privacy and/or anonymity (as those terms are loosely used). Without ring signatures or some substitute such as mixing, the recipient of a payment can trace backwards, even if third parties can't. If I receive my salary payment and then pay my rent, the landlord can trace that payment back and see how much I was paid in salary. |
|
|
|
@ amphibian
One little question...
Mining using the daemon and wallet worries me a bit. I see a lot of those "Connect failed..." TBH one of that and then the "Connecting to..." Really small amount of yellow and green text.
Is it normal?
Asking cause the QCN and MRO daemons are acting a lot less like that... Worrying about efficency of mining.
Those have nothing to do with the wallet. They involve connections of the p2p network. It really shouldn't produce so many messages for normal events such as a p2p connection failing (since nodes come and go constantly, and many aren't even reachable behind NAT, etc.), but all of the cryptonote coins are rather rough at this point. |
|
|
|
But then what exactly determines the size and the reward definition does not imply such a thing; it should be a previously known number for every future block.
The definition at OP does have exceptions then?
What I think happens is if the reward penalty applies, then the reward is deferred and then allocated to future blocks so the total supply is unaffected, but I'm not sure. Someone can look at the code. |
|
|
|
This is what Pliskov, the developper of the Cryptonote technology, just said regarding its integration within the code of bitcoin: CryptoNote's main privacy features adoption into Bitcoin and its forks is not so easy as it seems at first glance. If somone desided to do it he would have to rewrite cryptographic functions, change the tranzactions’sctucture, and add a lot of new functions to process it. Thus it would be a hardfork. Of course you can do it from scratch but you’ll have to wait till all your users update their binaries and suppport a lot of exceptions for the old blockchain part. This is arelly difficult task. Nevertheless what benefits do you want to get by getting CN’s code inside the BTC’code? source: https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=192You can pretty much forget about anything significant being added to BTC, unless there is a major change of leaders and philosophy. BTC in the year 2100 will look about the same as BTC of 2014. Maybe the side chains thing will go in, but even that seems questionable. This is normal, and probably healthy. Technological progress often happens by leapfrogging, not evolution. The idea that "we can just merge the features" don't work once something because mature and (often well-founded) conservatism sets in. |
|
|
|
I want to sell 400 for 0.5 BTC
No longer available, at least until I find my FCN wallet. Oops. |
|
|
|
Can someone pleae explain me what happens with the recent block?
The reward was all around 150k BCN but the recent ones reward like 15k?! And is the size much much bigger on these block, what does "size" actually represent?
Sorry for the basic questions :-)
There is a short term adjustment to the reward based on the size of the block. It goes back to normal in time. This is described in the cryptonote paper I think. |
|
|
|
[18:18] <xxnirvana69xx> !calc 225
[18:18] <MoneroBot> With 225 H/s you should get 2.80 MRO per Day
I WISH I was making that right now. I've gotten 0 from solo mining for 2 days and .5 for pool mining lol.
Check back in a few weeks on the solo mining. 2.8 MRO per day means roughly one block per week. You might get two in a week or go two or more weeks with none. You can't look at solo mining (on one computer) as something that will throw off coins regularly on a daily basis. |
|
|
|
As I said the fee structure should reflect the actual cost of processing the transactions, or perhaps modestly higher to prevent spam but only impose a small extra cost on legitimate users. What that looks like exactly is TBD. It may not be necessary to exactly adjust to all the factors that account for cost as long as the fee is always a little higher than cost. We can start with something more than the negligible fee that is used now and go from there.
I suggest 0.0001 MRO as a starting point. We know BTC's relay fee isn't high enough to entirely prevent spam but it to keep it under control somewhat. BTC's fee now is 0.00001 or 0.0001 if you are are using an older version (and some other numbers for other older versions). That's around $0.005 so whatever that translates into in MRO is probably about right. Eventually this should be dynamic, of course, and BTC is looking at doing that as well, but we do need a realistic fee that prevents millions of spam transactions as an attack. |
|
|
|
2: exactly the same as a dust attack on the Bitcoin blockchain. Do we not remember the 1Enjoy 1Sochi dust attack? Attackers attempting this quickly run out of funds, which is kinda the point of transaction fees:)
The tx fees with Monero are extremely low compared to Bitcoin, especially considering the price difference. I could send 1 million transactions for 2 USD right now. The level of transaction fees is definitely TBD. As I mentioned they should be somewhat close to the cost of actually processing the transaction (at which point if someone sends a million transactions, great, that's more business for miners), and right now that is likely not the case. Do tx costs scale depending the laundry depth? If not, the attack vector can be to use maximum laundering per tx to create as much bloat as possible. But if they are charged proportionally then it might give away the laundry depth (?). As I said the fee structure should reflect the actual cost of processing the transactions, or perhaps modestly higher to prevent spam but only impose a small extra cost on legitimate users. What that looks like exactly is TBD. It may not be necessary to exactly adjust to all the factors that account for cost as long as the fee is always a little higher than cost. We can start with something more than the negligible fee that is used now and go from there. |
|
|
|
2: exactly the same as a dust attack on the Bitcoin blockchain. Do we not remember the 1Enjoy 1Sochi dust attack? Attackers attempting this quickly run out of funds, which is kinda the point of transaction fees:)
The tx fees with Monero are extremely low compared to Bitcoin, especially considering the price difference. I could send 1 million transactions for 2 USD right now. If this is true something will have to be done because every coin that had very low fees has suffered attacks when it mattered (litecoin, dogecoin), in doge case it required a hard fork which I'm sure Monero will be able to deliver, possible together with lager time between blocks, which would require large blocks so emission remains the same... There will likely need to be a client/node update to impose a realistic relay (anti-spam/anti-dust) fee. It's not really a hard fork, just something we will want people with nodes/wallets to update, which they probably will anyway, and there is no hard fork required to rationalize the miner transaction fees (probably; I may be missing some secondary change needed). |
|
|
|
2: exactly the same as a dust attack on the Bitcoin blockchain. Do we not remember the 1Enjoy 1Sochi dust attack? Attackers attempting this quickly run out of funds, which is kinda the point of transaction fees:)
The tx fees with Monero are extremely low compared to Bitcoin, especially considering the price difference. I could send 1 million transactions for 2 USD right now. The level of transaction fees is definitely TBD. As I mentioned they should be somewhat close to the cost of actually processing the transaction (at which point if someone sends a million transactions, great, that's more business for miners), and right now that is likely not the case. |
|
|
|
I am starting to see higher lows and higher highs on a 15 min chart, so I am starting to feel vindicated in the claim that 0.0026 was the bottom. I expected a faster recovery to .005, which was wrong, but I am happy to wait for it in this, more sustainable, regime.
I love your market analysis. Please keep it coming. |
|
|
|
On the issue of bloat, there is a very simple way to reduce it. Just use a mixin count of 1 (mixing two outputs). This still gives deniability although it does not give great tracing resistance. But to get back tracing resistance, do multiple transactions in sequence. If you do 7 transactions each with 2-way mixing, you have tracing resistance of 128 with bloat of only 13x. In practice there is per-transaction overhead not just per signature so maybe something like 3 or 4 is better than two. But you certainly never need to use very high mixin counts. Eventually wallets can be made to do this automatically.
Question 1: Can it be set with something like a slide-bar, on demand, per transaction? Like I want to launder it 5 times or 2 times. Sure. Currently the wallet asks for a mixin count, but it can also ask for a sequential mix count. The tradeoff here is that the wallet will need to remain active to send the sequence over time and there needs to be enough of a volume of transactions on the network in which to hide your sequence. With enormous volume on the network it might be acceptable to blast out the entire chain at once, but that won't be for a very long time. If you just blast out the sequence in an otherwise low-volume network, it is obvious what you did and the true input must come from one of the two inputs of the first in the chain. This ends up being something in between coinjoin and a static mixin in terms of tradoffs, though I think with a somewhat less extreme example than 2x10 (say mixin of 5 done 2-3 times) the exposure to blockchain tracing is pretty small. Question 2: Can an evil entity attack the blockchain by artificially bloating it with tons of bogus transactions? What would be the estimated cost of the attacker in order to make the blockchain unusable?
This is why there need to be transaction fees set at close to the actual cost of handling transactions, ideally using a market-based mechanism since central planning on what transcation costs "should be" will likely fail. There is such a mechanism in the cryptonote paper but it is currently not fully implemented and not at all tested (that we know -- it is possible that cryptonote did sims). |
|
|
|
Yes, but if the protocol is giving you away if you don't use IP obfuscation, then how is that anonymous in itself?
Anonymous is an ambiguous term, it means different things to different people, in different contexts Look back at the first post on this thread. Monero (really Cryptonote, on which it is based) does not promise anonymity. It promises things like "blockchain analysis resistance." The Monero team in particular is not promising "anonymity" to anyone. We are saying that this technology protects your privacy much better than alternatives such as bitcoin, which it most certainly does. Used carefully (which includes care about revealing your IP address), it can probably maintain anonymity, but no one is promising that. Who knows what back doors there might be in any encryption algorithm, your computer's chips, etc. IF you go far enough down the rabbit hole, you can't promise -- nor be confident about -- anything. So let's keep the straw men to a minimum and focus the conversation on what MRO does, is trying to do, and might do in the future. |
|
|
|
Have you forgotten that he critics Darkcoin even more ?
Dude, even though you seem to be on the MRO side of this debate, your post has nothing to do with MRO. Please take it elsewhere.If we have to we will switch to a self-moderated thread but I'd rather not do that. |
|
|
|
|
On the issue of bloat, there is a very simple way to reduce it. Just use a mixin count of 1 (mixing two outputs). This still gives deniability although it does not give great tracing resistance. But to get back tracing resistance, do multiple transactions in sequence. If you do 7 transactions each with 2-way mixing, you have tracing resistance of 128 with bloat of only 13x. In practice there is per-transaction overhead not just per signature so maybe something like 3 or 4 is better than two. But you certainly never need to use very high mixin counts. Eventually wallets can be made to do this automatically.
On pruning there are definitely solutions. An really obvious one with some equally obvious tradeoffs is to drop everything more than a year old. It means if you want to keep your coins you have to move them once a year (or use a service provider to do it), and that you don't want to choose mixins from very old transactions. I think there are other solutions as well.
|
|
|
|
I've had some withdrawal issues with cryptonote coins as well. They seem to be working out the bugs and their support has been helpful. So far no funds have been lost. So I would say be cautious but would not make a blanket statement to avoid the exchange. This is my personal opinion. |
|
|
|
How can we learn of OTC bids and asks? Will the OP be updated?
OP will not be updated. You can make a new thread to do this if you like. I've put as much time as I care to into maintaining an organized OTC (when it was more needed that it is today). |
|
|
|
How is Bytecoin different from Monero?
Monero is BCN fork  Without 80% premine Congratulations! We have new annoying guy here. You are invited into "International Smooth's Annoying Team". All members of this perfect team can post helpful info about premine several times a day. Great achievement in my view =) How many coins have been mined ? You can use blockexplorer: https://minergate.com/blockchain/bcn/blocks154 billions Does Monero have same mint rates at Bytecoin? No they are completely different. Currently MRO mints a little under 17 coins every minute and BCN mints a little under 120000 coins every two minutes. |
|
|
|
17 posts made by you in this topic in the last 24 hours, all bashing Monero and trying to spread fud  Have much of an agenda? lol. good catch. He must be a major investor protecting his assets. With that said, the past 25 pages of this thread has been a DRK/MRO pissing contest. I thought we agreed to stop discussing this. Please do stop. People come here looking for information about MRO. Also, if you think you are going to win an argument or even score meaningful points against the haters, trolls, and FUDsters, you are mistaken. Just let it go. If you want to have a pissing contest, bash DRK (even if deserved), or do anything else not directly related to MRO, please do it somewhere else. (Not addressed to you personally SFT.) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
