I am not musing over a whitepaper having never had an intention to write one. I have been musing over how to make sure everything can work rather than diving into coding something with various and numerous flaws. From this, I have a fairly unique perspective on how to design a cryptocurrency that is not reliant on proof-of-work for its security, nor centralization. The emunie devs could benefit greatly from this, but would apparently rather protect the first-run flawed design and flawed philosophy of programming first and bugfixing second. This *is not* the correct way to do it. There are far too many things that can go wrong. And Dan did not take my ideas, at least not by any stretch that I can figure.


MAC addresses are not transmitted over a WAN. MAC addresses are used to identify hardware over a local network, or hardware to an ISP to verify that you're a customer. They cannot be used to keep track of people connected to a distributed network. And they are easily spoofed. And there is no way to come to a distributed consensus as to what MAC addresses or IP addresses are connected to the network. It is a completely flawed premise. If you don't understand that--whatever. If Dan doesn't understand that, emunie has serious problems ahead of it.

The "typical" QT? emunie is not a bitcoin clone, buddy.

I am not butthurt, and especially not about your logo as your poor formatting would seem to imply. I called out bitcoin's bullshit within a week of learning of it, and my account was squelched, that is why this one is named Etlase2. I have also not resorted to personal attacks--referring to the fact that you lack significant knowledge in the area of distributed networking is not a personal attack, it is the obvious truth. Whenever I bring this up, you ignore it because you know it is true. Have I called out the emunie devs for being full of shit? Absolutely, as is my right to post on the internet until the local powers that be decide I need to be silenced. I'm not giving emunie any leeway because of promises and wishes, facts need to be provided, plain and simple. When that starts happening, I will shut up about the lack of facts and spend a little time on pointing out flaws if I can find any. To interpret this as being butthurt is your prerogative, but all it does is reek of fanboyism and continuing the lie-filled PR box surrounding cryptocurrencies that started with the huge pyramid scheme known as bitcoin.

Imagine that.


Agile of course being another word for centralized. It is not an excuse for flawed designs, nor is it really a solution.

The posts that say "etlase2" next to them are the ones that I write, not any others. I used the word sycophant.

Questioning the legitimacy of a poorly designed monetary system is secondary to scalability and security issues. Hell, it's tertiary. Mistakes like these:

"As [interest is] also capped at 1EMU [per account],"

Are not critical vulnerabilities, but they suggest a lack of true game theory design development. Not a good sign combined with the fact that we don't even have any details on how basic transactions work.

Created NFC? Not according to the horse's mouth. But subtleties tend to be lost on mouth breathers. And when video games and near field communication apps are in the same universe as a distributed currency network, let me know.


Oh look, ad hominems in lieu of any whit of valuable discussion. Such progress.

The problem is when emotions get in the way of common sense. This silliness that the dev can do no wrong is very reminiscent of SolidCoin during its initial (closed source, totally controlled) phases. Although most of you folks were probably not around for that. And guess what, SolidCoin still has about the same 10 users it had 2 years ago.

Fuserleer has had mistakes and misconceptions on some very basic concepts and has revised what emunie "does" as a result. I am not faulting him for that, but to pretend that this project can be released successfully without any analysis even on the basic ideas or letting people know how it works is asinine. Because right now there is no explanation for how anything works. This needs to be corrected toute de suite. Otherwise it just looks like another attempt to sucker in some people to the benefit of the early adoption pump n dump.

Dan needs to learn how "ooh forks are fine" does not do anything to solve the double spending problem. You need to learn how to get a clue besides knob slobbing. You don't even understand the basic concepts behind MAC addresses or how a distributed network works, so anything you say is completely and absolutely ignorable.

Dan does need to waste his time talking to people like me who can actually provide attacks, vulnerabilities, and feedback. Dan is not some infallible god as evidenced by the fact that he has completely changed how emunie works like 4 times now because of vulnerabilities that he did not consider.

What Dan does not need is sycophants. You are useless and in fact detrimental.

Unlike you, I am not so easily impressed by infographics and false explanations. Neither will anyone else be who understands the dynamics behind a p2p distributed shared file. The time to discuss what actually will make emunie tick is now, so people can find vulnerabilities in the logic, not a year down the road when the source code is finally released.

I did say probably full of shit because fuserleer has not once satisfactorily answered a technical question. I have been told to "check the forum" several times--where there is nothing more than the same lack of real info, and again by another mouth breather, but I have started two topics (unanswered) already, and will continue to post more depending on whether or not fuserleer actually wants to gain some credibility.

http://forum.emunie.com/threads/how-do-hatchers-choose-transactions.194/
http://forum.emunie.com/threads/so-whats-a-mediator.193/

but.. but.. it's a stock! like apple! but... whoever gets there first wins! look at facebook! but... the utility bitcoin creates is unique! buy! buy! buy!

Oh please. Besides, I don't know why you're responding to my post as it had nothing to do with the sourceness of emunie, just the fact that fuserleer is probably full of shit. I don't believe emunie has a proper system for preventing double spending, and I believe it is totally unscalable if any of the silly ideas that ecoinomist talks about are implemented. But I can't really be sure since no one who actually knows stuff wants to discuss anything. This does not, believe it or not, require releasing the source code.

PS - I have yet to receive one satisfactory answer to any question by anyone that matters. I am willing to poke holes, but if the policy is to keep the wool drawn, what the heck is there to learn or discuss? So far all there is is some technobabble-disguised bullshit that fools less technically inclined people. I don't buy it.

 

He can't. The "decentralized" exchange is just a huge waste of bandwidth making *everyone* keep track of bids and asks over the protocol while your fiat money is still just as centralized sitting on dev-approved, regular ol' centralized exchanges. It is all-around a dumb idea.

Aggregate and Verifiably Encrypted Signatures from Bilinear Maps - Boneh et al

An aggregate signature scheme is a digital signature that supports aggregation: Given n
signatures on n distinct messages from n distinct users, it is possible to aggregate all these
signatures into a single short signature. This single signature (and the n original messages)
will convince the verifier that the n users did indeed sign the n original messages (i.e., user i
signed message Mi for i = 1; : : : ; n).


Don't know about ECDSA, but bilinear map-based signature schemes are all the rage these days...

What's a mediator? And your pretty infographic has nothing to do with the money supply. It also explains precisely nothing.

It's a shame that factorization to prime numbers is not a brute force attack.

His intentions don't matter if the system is not secure. They likely won't matter if the system is centralized or completely unscalable, either.

Can break or game what? You guys won't even answer basic questions, so how could anyone try to break the system? It doesn't have to be open source, as long as it is planned eventually, and a premine (imo) is not a big deal as long as a lot of the money is given away and the emunie developers won't have any control over the monetary system like ripple. Those things make sense from certain viewpoints regardless of what the majority of the get-rich-quick jokers here think.

But not one actual formula for anything has been posted, or even any actual detailed mechanics, and ecoinomist essentially admitted in my thread that the monetary system will be centralized. That is a problem.

Some things need clarification:

A 256-bit EC key has an effective security level of 128 bits against brute force attacks. EC keys can be broken in minutes regardless of the number of bits, theoretically as long as the QC has enough qubits. Shor's.

A hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 would be reduced to the sqrt of 256-bits which is 128 bits, not 16. Grover's. So any hashing algorithm or public key system that does not rely on factoring is as secure with double the bits.

Banks do not store your money via public/private keypairs that are accessible to everyone. Arguing that banks will be insecure is downright stupid. Yes their websites will be insecure, but the money will be fine. Bitcoin is far, far more vulnerable than the traditional banking system to quantum computing.