Assuming I was lucky enough to mine the exact same address, could I get the privkey?
Yes, if you got the exact same address, then you would have one of the 7.9 X 10 28 (on average) working private keys for that address. wait im not quite sure i understand, are you saying that every bitcoin address has more than 1 private key associated with it? I've always thought it was 1private key that links to 1 address That is correct. There are 2 256 private keys with 2 256 public keys. The public key is hashed with ripemd160(sha256(pubkey)). Ripemd160 is limited to 2 160 possible solutions thus[1] there are 2 160 possible addresses with 2 256 private keys or 2 256/2 160 = 2 96 private keys per address. 2 96 ~7.9*10 28[1] under some minor assumptions like even distribution Basically you have a better chance of winning the lottery AND being hit by lightning than guessing the correct private key for a given address. As pointed about in a prior post, the math can change drastically if a faulty RNG was used. |
|
|
|
Bf5: 7 votes (Morecoin Freeman, hermesesus, galdur, boolberry, XMRpromotions, marcus1986, languagehasmeaning)
Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4 g5 16.Qf1 Qh5 17.f3 Bf5 18.a4  |
|
|
|
I just noticed this: "edit 11/27/2015: demo version of RingCT using the MLSAG's is coded - next up is implementing 1. Diffie helman passing of masks and 2. implement a short representation of amounts" https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3pw30d/ringct_for_monero_updated_versions/Progress seems to be happening pretty quickly! After the next implementation step it sounds like the proof of concept should be pretty well established. It seems to be that RingCT is a matter of WHEN instead of IF. Yes this is very exciting; however it will require extensive peer review and testing before implementation. If peer review supports the soundness of RingCT cryptography interest could expand exponentially. There are more potential uses than I can count and this is the most promising privacy technology I have seen so far. The inability to verify the number of coins in circulation with ZeroCoin scares me. At least if something goes wrong with the money supply system with RingCT we would be able to tell. |
|
|
|
Qh5: 7 votes (XMRpromotions, chesthing, galdur, languagehasmeaning, Morecoin Freeman, marcus1986, boolberry)
Qxf1+: 1 vote (hermesesus)
Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4 g5 16.Qf1 Qh5 17.f3  |
|
|
|
Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4 g5 16.Qf1  |
|
|
|
Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4  |
|
|
|
Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3  |
|
|
|
|
Congratulations on your successful testnet run. I will continue to follow your development efforts.
|
|
|
|
♝Bd6: 7 votes (galdur, Morecoin Freeman, XMRpromotions, hermesesus, languagehasmeaning, dre1982, marcus1986)
Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1  Please follow me on Twitter if you have not already done so: https://twitter.com/chessbtc |
|
|
|
If you have the time and inclination, I would sure love to read a more elaborated (slightly more towards layman comprehension) explanation of what is subject to factorization and not related to the inability to find the multiple between two points given by ECLP
So would I. Cao kept the unknown factorisation assumption even after reducing to a single base in modular DLP, so it has nothing to do with multiple base point commitment (Fujisaki-Okamoto): http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=2B21218DC3B721C6834211C3DFEE544D?doi=10.1.1.79.5740&rep=rep1&type=pdfApparently, "if the order of the group is known, the [widened-interval] protocol becomes easy to break". It will take some time for me to figure out whether this is true or not (or maybe only applies to non-prime curves and some types of commitments). I don't know the specific attack. In short, it appears you can either employ a Hash on the relative base points or on the values committed to the base points. Afaics, your original proof in a large interval did the latter and thus was already immune to factorization of the committed values.
Possibly. Will take some time to figure out. I wish I fully understood this. Its seems important so maybe I will devote some time to learn. |
|
|
|
c6: 6 votes (hermesesus, Morecoin Freeman, newb4now, XMRpromotions, galdur, languagehasmeaning)
Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4  |
|
|
|
The new release should be coming soon. Until then you are free to compile the current code from github yourself |
|
|
|
Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5  |
|
|
|
Nxd5: 7 votes (galdur, boolberry, Hueristic, hermesesus, dre1982, XMRpromotions, Morecoin Freeman)
Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5  |
|
|
|
Maybe he´s pondering whether to propose the main Marshall line I mentioned
Sorry it took me a while to respond. I have been pretty busy lately. |
|
|
|
d5 for me
d5: 8 votes (Hueristic, boolberry, galdur, xmrpromotions, Morecoin Freeman, hermesesus, dre1982, jjacob)
h6: 1 vote (mdgreasyjohn)
d5: 9 votes (Hueristic, boolberry, galdur, xmrpromotions, Morecoin Freeman, hermesesus, dre1982, jjacob, languagehasmeaning) h6: 1 vote (mdgreasyjohn) Unlike last game when we were defending, this game we may end up the side with the initiative, albeit at the price of a pawn. Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5  |
|
|
|
O-O: 8 votes (Hueristic, Boolberry, lottery248, hermesesus, jjacob, galdur, languagehasmeaning, yxt)
d6: 1 vote (Morecoin Freeman)
Bb7: 1 vote (mammut)
O-O seems to be the overwhelming favourite. Time for letsplayagame to make his move.  Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3  |
|
|
|
Sometimes I lose and don't learn anything!  If you are not sure where you went wrong try asking your opponent after the game is over. |
|
|
|
The quote in this tweet will please many of you. I asked Peter Todd for permission to use it, so feel free to retweet. https://twitter.com/XMRpromotions/status/664123851299667968edit: Wow that was quick. Shapeshift already retweeted me! edit #2: I apologize in advance for not tweeting @xmr_to this time. My excuse is the 140 character limitation It is called cross chain mixing of Bitcoin using Monero in order to make Bitcoin private and fungible. I have argued that for this reason Monero will not replace Bitcoin on privacy / fungibility alone. Blocksize is another issue altogether. Other than the fees involved (and maximum transaction size) why are sidechains needed to "make Bitcoin private and fungible" when the above solution seems to work today? |
|
|
|
My vote for d6. We can castle next move.
b5: 7 votes (Hueristic, galdur, hermesesus, languagehasmeaning, boolberry, swogerino, actmyname)
d6 4 votes (Morecoin Freeman, mammut, dre1982, jjacob)
b5: 8 votes (Hueristic, galdur, hermesesus, languagehasmeaning, boolberry, swogerino, actmyname, XMRpromotions) d6 4 votes (Morecoin Freeman, mammut, dre1982, jjacob) Your move bitcointalk. You have the black pieces The current position is updated below: Game 2 (letsplayagame vs bitcointalk): 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
