Worked for me.

Especially if you are just using a generic hardware wallet like a trezor. It just stores generic deterministic keys. Without knowing the password and checking the resulting keys against a million different potential applications, there is no way to know what the device is even being used for. It could be bitcoin, or litecoin, or monero, or you could be using it to start your car or sign contracts.

If monero ever makes it to the mainstream that dump video will be a legend that dwarfs the 100,000 dollar bitcoin pizzas. People will watch that and go, omg he just dumped a billion dollars at the absolute low. People will be unable to fathom that kind of money and they will watch him wash it down the drain at the bottom of the bottom. They will want to scream and pull out their eyes if they have an empathetic bone in their body. Oh and the guy who made this video, we will finally learn who it was via a confession in his suicide note.

ok so than another question. why do we technically need to wait for 6 blocks to do this process 6 times? cant you in theory set up the protocol in such a way for outputs from other transactions in the same block to be valid inputs to a transaction in that same block? of course if you were the only person who did this than it would give you away right away, but if everyone was doing it all the time, well maybe it could work. If it did work it would be effectively non linear signatures.

honestly i suspect it doesn't, it would limit the total number of available participants to the other people in that block rather than all participants in the networks history. less than ideal. additionally you would need to coordinate off blockchain with other people. but hey maybe its an interesting conversation. ive always been firmly of the opinion that bad ideas are still worth talking about so long as they are sufficiently interesting.

Its even cheaper that way right? Because, say you are using mixin 3 and you do it 6 times, than you get 6^3 partners (216) but only 6*3 (18) in signature size rather than a signature size of 218 that you would get if you just used 1 transaction with a mixin of 218 instead. Am i thinking about this right?

*edit* if this is right than maybe the implication is that, when we need super security, we should be having our clients "tumble" coins in the background like darkcoin with low mixin on each transaction rather than using high mixin when we need to make the transaction. wouldnt that be funny.

It is probably something we should really look at if someone figures out non linear signatures. if its possible to do mixin 1000 or mixin 10,000 numbers could become very specific. probably some genius would use his favorate number 13284 every time

Probably only a dummy.

Well its not that. Its just that an outside observer can see how many participants there are in a ring signature, that in its self leaks some amount of information. Albeit a small amount, it could be used in combination with other analytical methods we can imagine, or perhaps ones we cant. Perhaps that small ammount of information would end up being the marginal factor allowing an attacker to deobfuscate parts of the network.

And no im not suggesting random values, though that could work too, im suggesting standardized denominations. i.e. 20 is an option and 25 is an option but 21,22,23,and24 are not options.

so i just wanted to point out that there is the potential for some small amount of information to be leaked by people using very specific mixin values. for example, for 2 transactions which both used a mixin value of 23 might be surmised that its more likely than a random sample that these two transactions were initiated by the same party. standardized mixin denominations offering a range of options might be preferable. 3, 5, 7, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, ect.... (just as an example) plenty of flexability there. its unlikey that someone who wants more than 20 mixin couldnt be happy with 25 and would feel very strongly that they wanted 22 very specifically. so in this way there would be little cost to the user in inconvenience, but potentially reasonable gain to the privacy of the network for that very small inconvenience cost.

That's fine when the business has large reputational constraints. Quite different when dealing with an actor who might be on the margins. Which would include most non brick and mortar businesses. That is to say if the reputational constraints are extremely dispraportionate than what you are discibing works fine. I.E. the difference in the value of starbucks reputation compared to the value of my reputation. However if the two parties are at all similar, than there exists a risk where if you accuse him of being dishonest, he can turn around and say no it was actually you who was dishonest, he is in a position to inflict equal damage to your reputation as you are to his. Cryptographic proof shows, atleast more clearly, who is in the right.

so i made a private key and an address and gave it to the dev and he added the address to his database. is there anything else i need to do?

Honestly I vote +1 for manipulation. I dont think ive ever seen a pattern like this any where in the crypto word. This just isnt how crypto trades in my experience. Its trading like a highly liquid market. XMR is fairly liquid for crypto, but i mean liquid like a sovereign bond market. Either way it appears super technically strong if you believe in momentum trading, the direction is clear. At this point im considering over committing a little bit (relative to how i planned on apportioning my portfolio in relative terms) just so that i can turn around and sell some xmr in a week and buy back more of other things.

Yes there are so many accusations of censorship on the part of that community coming from so many different angles that i am quite inclined to believe it. That doesn't reflect well on the long term prospects of the project.

*edit* speak of the devil. i just had a post from this very thread deleted by a monerator which just so happened to have the word sha0wcash in it. (if i say the actual word it will show up in searches and this post will be deleted too)

Isn't the market amazing like that. Cops cant manage to subdue a homeless maniac with a pen knife who has 2 dozen armed to the teeth cops surrounding him without unloading 50 bullets in the guy. But private actors can some how manage to solve all of these sorts of problems without ever hurting anyone.

This was hilarious to read, thanks for sharing.

so what do you think guys. this thread will be a success if it managed to redirect some of the debate in our respective threads. is it a success? have you dark boys noticed a reduction in anti dark coin rhetoric in your thread since the creation of this thread? monero boys, have you noticed a reduction in anti monero rhetoric in your thread? just curious.

Sure. So let me say first, it is kinda arbitrary, that's a legitimate criticism of my argument.

So its all about that trade off. The more the stake is distributed the more secure the platform. But proof of stake is infact better than poof of work. Thats the reason for switching to it. So if you are running proof of stake too long than you are going too long without switching to the system thats better, the opportunity cost associated with not switching to POW begins to outweigh the benefits of fairer distribution. It would make something of a u shaped curve, the first day is the most benefitical, than the second one is less benefitial but still benefitial, until the day comes when the costs begin to outweigh the benefits and the curve benins to slope back up. The point where that curve is perfectly flat is the perfect point to switch.  It would be difficult to determine where this but you could create a model of sorts that would go some way towards giving an idea of the best trade off.

I cant really say what the best trade off would be, but i am pretty confident that it wouldn't be on either of the extreme ends, it wouldn't be 2 weeks and it wouldn't be 100 years.

Sort of the whole point is that POW proves that the devs arnt controlling some ridiculous percentage of the currency supply. Alteast its some reasonable evidence towards that fact. They cant just issue a bunch of currency and then "prove" that they sold it on the market because who knows who is on the other side of the trade. And something like what nxt did, who knows how many of those initial donations were made by the same entity. Who knows how many of them were made by someone sending bitcoin back to himeself. The pow is a solution to this problem, but the extent to which it is a solution is dependent upon there being opportunity for lots of other people besides the devs to get involved.

Really i dont mind a modest premine. I think it gives good incentives. If the devs are holding 5% of the currency supply than i see this as fair and good for the project since they have incentives to make their stake more valuable. But im forced to wonder if, as a result of such a short mining period, if the devs are holding much more than 5%. It worries me, and i think a lot of other people as well.

Yea. I saw the pump. I even bought 10 dollars worth at the pump valuations. But really im mostly here because im a huge fan of proof of stake and a huge fan of cryptonote and a huge fan of the idea of using POW to distribute stake. So this coin has everything i would ever ever want.

I'm just deeply skeptical of any and all devs. I kind of just assume they are all scammers because 99% of them are.

*edit* Is it true that the pow phase only lasted 2 weeks? If so how do you guys justify that? It should clearly be at least a year long process, probably more. If fairness and decentralized distribution is the goal. Which it should be because more distributed stake means attacks on the network are more expensive and confirmations are more secure.

Please dont mistake hard questions for trolling.

A time locked premine would be a great way to fund the development of a crypto project. Like a 10 year long lock. Good luck getting away with a 10 year long pump not adding anything of value to the project.

Cant they just cut down the tree with him in it?

Pesky tort liability always ruining good opportunities for hilarity.

I was just poking fun. I know what you mean.