I didn't want to withhold this from you guys, it is pretty hilarious in fact -> http://pastebin.com/pPNf8y6LMight have, next to the awareness Peter Todd raised, sparkled some of the rally. That was funny. Thanks for sharing.  |
|
|
|
What if monero was funded through fundraising website/programs? I know those websites usually dont allow you to give something in return to those who donate, but they could be directed to a monero exchange where they could buy some if theyd like.
Well, I got excited about checking out kickstarter, but they don't allow projects for "cash equivalent" things... they used some other word than things. I forget. As I've said before, and i will probably say it again in the future. If we ever want to do a kickstarter type crowd funding campaign I continue to be more than happy to escrow it. No need to do a kickstarter, just donate directly to devs! http://getmonero.org/getting-started/donate/All of these people agree: http://getmonero.org/getting-started/donate/hall-of-fameI definitely think there is some value to the crowd funding model. People dont know what they are getting from a random donation. They dont know whether they effected anything. Maybe if they hadnt donated nothing would have been any different. Maybe the devs would have accomplished exactly as much as if they hadnt donated. With a crowd funding campaign we could do something like, if we are able to raise X resources by Y date than these three devs will be able to work full time on monero for 6 months rather than as a side project. Or something like this. Then contributors know what they are purchasing, rather than just some nebulous idea of maybe monero will be made better. Additionally it gives people a goal that they can push for, people can say look we only need 1,000 more monero before we reach the goal. They can track the progress. People have conversations about it and so follow the progress in a way that they dont with just people giving random donations when ever. Its definitely not the same. |
|
|
|
What if monero was funded through fundraising website/programs? I know those websites usually dont allow you to give something in return to those who donate, but they could be directed to a monero exchange where they could buy some if theyd like.
Well, I got excited about checking out kickstarter, but they don't allow projects for "cash equivalent" things... they used some other word than things. I forget. As I've said before, and i will probably say it again in the future. If we ever want to do a kickstarter type crowd funding campaign I continue to be more than happy to escrow it. |
|
|
|
hash the destination address + the block header of the previous block
Two problems here. One is the the destination address is one time and the sender can change it with a different choice of r. The other is that you could just wait for another block. Something like this might be possible based on the key image. That's something I've thought about a bit for another purpose. Well thats all i really hoped to accomplish was to see if i could get the devs thinking about the general principal in a more abstract sense. if you already are than awesome. *edit* also, 0.003 |
|
|
|
So I just had an idea. I literally just thought of it like 1 second ago so i haven't really thought it through. So i was thinking about this post. Monero gets you closer, but it's not perfect.
The problem with Monero's ring signatures in this situation is an exchange can notice that one of the pubkeys in your ring signature comes from a "stolen" coin and tell you to resubmit the tx with that pubkey left out of the signature.
What really solves this thoroughly is Zerocash, where essentially the "ring signature set" is all unspent Zerocash, and you can't leave any coins out of that set.
And hes right of course. But what if there was a way to prevent transaction authors from being able to chose which mixin partners they used. So for an extremely rough example of the idea. Certainly not saying we should do this, just to demonstrate the principal in a very abstract form. What if for a given transaction to be considered valid you had to hash the destination address + the block header of the previous block and then select the mixin partners that are numerically closest to that hash in terms of absolute value. That way transaction authors would have no choice in who their partners were. This would completely solve the fungibility concerns. Again im not saying, HEY LETS GO DO THIS, i just want to get the gears turning in peoples heads. maybe be inspiration for some idea that is similar in some way but better. Doesn't work as a malicious entity spamming the blockchain during few blocks would own all unspents to be used after that for a while. (and then cascading from then on...). Anyway I disagree he's right with the issue. You can spend the "blacklisted" inputs into others that are not. In the extreme case you end up with what is described in one of the reddit answer: The thief can just cycle the stolen coins to a new wallet in every single block, thereby mixing the coins with every other coin sent in those blocks.
The thief can easily afford the transaction fees to do this for a week.
The exchange cannot afford to reject every single deposit from every single customer for a full week.
What he describes is basically MRL-0001 and what MRL-0004 fixes +1 right you are sir. thanks for a good post. *edit* i was thinking the other day, if monero's anonymity is not sufficient for your needs you can always run monero through a tumbler like bitcoin fog. its crazy to think about the difficulty of tracking monero that's been through a tumbler. |
|
|
|
So I just had an idea. I literally just thought of it like 1 second ago so i haven't really thought it through. So i was thinking about this post. Monero gets you closer, but it's not perfect.
The problem with Monero's ring signatures in this situation is an exchange can notice that one of the pubkeys in your ring signature comes from a "stolen" coin and tell you to resubmit the tx with that pubkey left out of the signature.
What really solves this thoroughly is Zerocash, where essentially the "ring signature set" is all unspent Zerocash, and you can't leave any coins out of that set.
And hes right of course. But what if there was a way to prevent transaction authors from being able to chose which mixin partners they used. So for an extremely rough example of the idea. Certainly not saying we should do this, just to demonstrate the principal in a very abstract form. What if for a given transaction to be considered valid you had to hash the destination address + the block header of the previous block and then select the mixin partners that are numerically closest to that hash in terms of absolute value. That way transaction authors would have no choice in who their partners were. This would completely solve the fungibility concerns. Again im not saying, HEY LETS GO DO THIS, i just want to get the gears turning in peoples heads. maybe be inspiration for some idea that is similar in some way but better. |
|
|
|
This may just be the typical weekend pump in anticipation of Monday's news.
Since dark and monero are rising in tandem, it suggest the possibility that this rally may be a reaction to bitcoin fungibility concerns resulting from btc-e blocking evolution stolen bitcoins. |
|
|
|
A. fiat -> monerohttp://www.ebay.com/itm/15-XMR-Monero-like-Litecoin-Ripple-Darkcoin-U-S-seller-/121600620272?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c4ff636f0ebay. Its a hack, but it...... works. B. Finally found (or the universe presented) the solution to the "how do I really keep my shopping private with monero" problem, considering anything you buy online will be shipping to you. Say hello to roadie https://www.roadie.com/this little peer to peer company is trying to disrupt shipping. So how is this used in the monero private online shopping economy? 1. network of "shyptos" would exist (shypto is a horrible portmanteau of ship, cryptography, and shop. It might not be the best. Maybe shoptopgraphy) 2. Alice wants to buy something from amazon, but doesn't want anyone to know about it. And she means ANYONE. 3. Alice goes to shypto network and places a buy ticket - basically lists the item she wants. Someone from shypto network claims that ticket (bob), engages with Alice via some secure, encrypted messaging system. Main information that needs to be sent Alice -> shypto member is the destination wafflehouse (yes, because wafflehouse is involved in the roadie system) http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/24/waffle-house-partners-with-roadie/#lcX6TT:1i6d3b. Alice and Bob work out some way to trust each other re: reimbursement. 4. Bob orders the item from amazon (using FIAT!!), has it shipped to his house. based on whatever he and alice figured out, he proves to alice he bought it (or alice had paid upfront, whatever). Alice then sends the XMR payment to Bob. 5. Bob then finds a gig on Roadie to deliver the package. He drops it off at the wafflehouse, roadie person drives it from bobs wafflehouse to alice's wafflehouse. 6. Alice picks up her package at the wafflehouse. And there yah have it. Alice now bought something from amazon, and only Bob really knows what it is, but bob really doesn't know who Alice is, because Alice contacted bob on some anonymouse straw purchase network website and alice paid with monero, so.... hey thanks for showing me this. someone here lets try to use monero + roadie to make transaction. it will be fun! i could sell some silver if anyone is interested. ill see if i can think of anything else i could sell. |
|
|
|
For a 2-way pegged sidechain to work, the parent chain must be able to understand proofs of consensus in the child chain. So you could not directly have a proof of stake sidechain hanging off of Bitcoin; Bitcoin does not understand stake proofs, nor are there any plans for it to understand stake proofs, nor can I imagine there ever being such plans, because my view of the Bitcoin community is that we'd never get consensus on this. This is fine. Whatever mechanism for sidechains does exist, we can create "adaptor" sidechains which are children of Bitcoin and parents of other chains. They'd use a proof-of-work that Bitcoin understands, but their transaction script would understand proofs of [insert consensus mechanism here] to allow them to be parents. Then to move Bitcoins onto the pos-chain and back you'd have to first go through the adaptor sidechain. (Atomic swaps, of course, would not need to use the adaptor chain.) Having said all that, it's really not clear that proof-of-stake chains can be sidechains at all. It appears to be impossible to form consensus from proof of stake without external trusted parties, but a sidechain peg necessarily has to be mechanical and unable to access external trusted parties. Can you clarify how you imagine this working? I don't know about side chains specifically but if you want to talk about whether proof of stake can work more generally the answer is yes it definitely can. BCNext and cunicula collaborated to figure it out and their solution was genius. I just assume it would work the same way that nxt works. Do you want to talk about how nxt works under the hood? It is a bit off topic but i dont mind at all. |
|
|
|
|
thanks guys. appreciate you taking the time to address my question.
|
|
|
|
It would be very nice to have a functioning proof of stake sidechain just in case proof of work ever failed us. Perhaps some malicious actor produces asics in bulk at a nano-meter scale above the current best. Maybe a manufacturer creating cutting edge devices decides to sell them all to some shadowy alphabet soup agency. Maybe pools that appear on the surface to be distinct entities are actually the same entity. Its not hard to imagine proof of work dooms day scenarios. The paper talks about a lot of interesting ways that bitcoin could be experimented with, but it doesnt seem to make mention of experimenting with side chains with alternate consensus mechanisms. I wondering if this is because it is assumed that all sidechains would necessarily need to rely on bitcoin miners for security. I mean while that resource is there and basically a public good for sidechains it definitely makes sense to make use of it, but it would be very nice to have alternate consensus mechanisms in sidechains not so much for immediate use, but as a contingency. As far as I can tell from reading the whitepaper the basic idea is to "lock" your bitcoins in a special transaction on the bitcoin block chain, and then if you wish to ever remove the coins from a side chain you dont actually need to make any sort of transaction for that on the side chain, you just undo that lock on the bitcoins on the bitcoin block chain, and then participants in the side chain will consider the coins that used to be locked to be an invalid input to a transaction on their chain. If I am understanding this correctly than it should be perfectly possible to create alternative consensus mechanisms on sidechains. Sorry in advance if this was already explained in the white paper and it just went over my head and thanks in advance to the brainiacs who respond to my senseless rambling. |
|
|
|
|
someone got tired of waiting for their buy orders to fill
|
|
|
|
As long as they accept one crypto of any kind we can just shapeshift.io This is all just so exciting! I'm so glad to be here and be part of what can only be called the beginnings of a new (peaceful) revolution. that if they ever add Monero to shapeshift... I just mean it as a concept. Not meaning to make it about that exact website specifically. |
|
|
|
They will catch on eventually. Its unique codebase makes it a good hedge should flaws be found in the Bitcoin codebase. Should this scenario manifest itself all Bitcoin based coins (DRK/ASH) would be rendered useless as well.
The flaw of everything related to Bitcoin being highly political and subject to a thicket of conflicting entrenched interests can't be easily fixed. That's why, for example, they have been talking about the block size for years and are no closer to a solution. People in the crypto world need to just get used to the idea that crypto markets never will be like more traditional markets. Bitcoin never will be like gold. Crypto currencies are going to be constantly upturned and replaced and capital will constantly be flowing all over the place. Bitcoin will come and go, and what ever replaces it will come and go, and so to with what ever replaces bitcoins replacement. The solution to the blockchain size problem is to not attempt to arrive at a consensus, it is to just let the fork happen and let people go their own way. Crypto currencies will never be a place for savers, they will be vehicles for transferring value and for dedicated and nimble speculators. Scripted blockchain based derivatives contracts will allow people to hedge against volatility for a fee if they are just simple users so the tumultuous nature of these markets wont necessarily need to deter mom and pop. If you want to save, buy a gold coin. When you want to move the value that that gold coin represents to the other side of the planet instantly, that is when you need crypto. Yeah, the evolution over time will be interesting. I.e., for those cryptocurrencies that are actually currencies (bitcoin, litecoin, monero), I can see things just constantly getting replaced and upgraded. The in-betweens will be interesting for speculators, but it will really all depend on merchant and customer adoption. "Oh, we don't accept bitcoin here because confirmations take too long, the network is centralized, and transactions are traceable. But we do accept monero" and then "Oh, we don't accept monero here because (insert some reason that is sure to exist eventually), but we do accept SuperMonero." Yes, will be interesting to watch these things evolve. As long as they accept one crypto of any kind we can just shapeshift.io This is all just so exciting! I'm so glad to be here and be part of what can only be called the beginnings of a new (peaceful) revolution. |
|
|
|
They will catch on eventually. Its unique codebase makes it a good hedge should flaws be found in the Bitcoin codebase. Should this scenario manifest itself all Bitcoin based coins (DRK/ASH) would be rendered useless as well.
The flaw of everything related to Bitcoin being highly political and subject to a thicket of conflicting entrenched interests can't be easily fixed. That's why, for example, they have been talking about the block size for years and are no closer to a solution. People in the crypto world need to just get used to the idea that crypto markets never will be like more traditional markets. Bitcoin never will be like gold. Crypto currencies are going to be constantly upturned and replaced and capital will constantly be flowing all over the place. Bitcoin will come and go, and what ever replaces it will come and go, and so to with what ever replaces bitcoins replacement. The solution to the blockchain size problem is to not attempt to arrive at a consensus, it is to just let the fork happen and let people go their own way. Crypto currencies will never be a place for savers, they will be vehicles for transferring value and for dedicated and nimble speculators. Scripted blockchain based derivatives contracts will allow people to hedge against volatility for a fee if they are just simple users so the tumultuous nature of these markets wont necessarily need to deter mom and pop. If you want to save, buy a gold coin. When you want to move the value that that gold coin represents to the other side of the planet instantly, that is when you need crypto. |
|
|
|
Any plans to give an interview on the Let's Talk Bitcoin network (alt channel so to speak). I just listened to an interview with the creator of DRK/dash and it was interesting to say the least. I would have liked a Monero guy on there to give an opposing/alternaive viewpoint. I think a little debate will help the stronger coin out. I'm in XMR's corner of course, but not reading much these days on its main competitor makes me feel a bit out of touch.
Related, can we ever have a wallet app on e.g. Android, for XMR as opposed to a web wallet- is there anything creative we can do?
IAS
Porting LightWallet to Android seems possible given reasonable inputs of time/effort/skill and/or funding/bounties. XMR competes with BTC; Darshcoin competes with CLOAK and other shitcoins. XMR has no serious competition in the 'legitimately trustless privacy-enabling digicash' sector. Bitcoin, with its high-volume array of 3rd party tumblers/mixers, comes the closest. Darsh enjoys 1st mover status in the 'scamcoin marketed as privacy-enabling digicash' field. But its technology is unproven, and outside of the cult (who stand to profit from their Ponzi nodes) not many will trust it for security-sensitive applications. 10000 this, you'll rarely or almost never see any Bitcoin stuff making the slighest hint about Monero, unless the person really likes/understands it, after the scamcoin "bought"(subverted) dashcoin I have enough evidence to support my paranoia that Bitcoins already started to rolling behind the scenes to stop or slow down XMR acceptation. At minimum there is a silent conspiracy to ignore Monero/cryptonote. They will catch on eventually. Its unique codebase makes it a good hedge should flaws be found in the Bitcoin codebase. Should this scenario manifest itself all Bitcoin based coins (DRK/ASH) would be rendered useless as well. Does anyone know how many fairly unique code bases exist in this crazy altcoin ecosystem? bitcoin nxt monero ripple (though im not sure its really a crypto currency, you have to decide yourself) bitshares These are the only ones i know, can anyone add to this list |
|
|
|
Thank god the natural trend happened to be going the way that it was going. It just as easily could have gone the other way. Can you imagine if it had? Can you imagine what it would mean if the government had been handed the amount of power that it wants? Which it might have if the natural trend had happened to be warming. The fact that it happened to go the direction that it did may have saved our species from extinction. If gods were real i would thank one of them. |
|
|
|
wanna hear something funny? of course you do. i dont actually know how much monero i own. i dont remember how much it was, and i don't have enough ram on my computer to run the client and see, and i cant just look up the address on the explorer.  ha! I do know that its less than i wish i had.  https://mymonero.com/#/Import it. Yea i know i could do that. I just dont really care how much i have. Its not a big deal. I have a general idea. I know to the nearest thousand. If it was as easy as looking it up on the explorer than i would, but since it requires some effort i dont care enough to put in effort to find out. I just wanted to tell you guys that story because i thought it would be entertaining. Im not "looking for a solution" per say. |
|
|
|
wanna hear something funny? of course you do. i dont actually know how much monero i own. i dont remember how much it was, and i don't have enough ram on my computer to run the client and see, and i cant just look up the address on the explorer. ha! I do know that its less than i wish i had. |
|
|
|
I used to be a Darkcoin supporter. But I'm done with it since I don't like where it's headed. It's masternode concept is taking liquidity and decentralization out of the picture, and pretty much going against what a "crypto"(Decentralization) currency(Liquidity) is supposed to be. The instamine didn't help either.
Welcome friend. Glad to have you. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
