I recommend watching Coast to coast (7-24), scary stuff about banks being able to move money from your account without even asking for permission aka what happened in cyprus. When you deposit money into a bank, you are legally defined as an unsecured creditor. There is no "your money" after you deposit. When you deposit you have loaned the bank money. That money belongs entirely to the bank. You may then request for them to pay back some or all of that loan at a future date, but it is up to them whether or not to comply with that request. The advantages of paying you back is that it helps to maintain their reputation and ensure that they will have more creditors similar to yourself in the future. The advantage of not paying you back is, well, they have more money. This means that if the bank is in a situation where they have expectation of receiving more loans from creditors in the future than they will be incentivized to make good on their debt to you, but if they do not have such an expectation, than they will be incentivized not to make good on their debt to you. TLDR: don't ever loan a bank more money than is absolutely necessary. exactly, fortunately Monero community is already comprised of smart gentleman that are alert of such perils. Thats why i love this forum. If i just went to some general purpose anarchist forum it would be one giant circle jerk. Here its like we are united by something else, but generally all understand the same principals that would have been present in the aforementioned. |
|
|
|
I recommend watching Coast to coast (7-24), scary stuff about banks being able to move money from your account without even asking for permission aka what happened in cyprus. When you deposit money into a bank, you are legally defined as an unsecured creditor. There is no "your money" after you deposit. When you deposit you have loaned the bank money. That money belongs entirely to the bank. You may then request for them to pay back some or all of that loan at a future date, but it is up to them whether or not to comply with that request. The advantages of paying you back is that it helps to maintain their reputation and ensure that they will have more creditors similar to yourself in the future. The advantage of not paying you back is, well, they have more money. This means that if the bank is in a situation where they have expectation of receiving more loans from creditors in the future than they will be incentivized to make good on their debt to you, but if they do not have such an expectation, than they will be incentivized not to make good on their debt to you. There are verious factors which can lead to a situation where they do not have an expectation that creditors will continue to loan them money in the future. TLDR: don't ever loan a bank more money than is absolutely necessary. |
|
|
|
Because optional transparency is required against corruption.
Take the dev fund for example, dont you want to know what we received? This is a must have...
Ok so lets say that you want to buy some raw milk with out getting black bagged in the middle of the night. You can send the funds, they can look to see if you sent them and then send the product. So if you cant prove that the funds were sent than it is harder to damage the reputation of the seller but you still can. If one seller is getting more negative feedback in general, even with none of those claims having proof, it will still send a signal to people that perhaps they should use a different seller. Anyway yea obviously there are advantages to being able to prove that a payment was sent. I wont dispute that. |
|
|
|
IMPORTANT
Monero must provide the ability for transparent transactions.
IF NOT then it will never be easily accepted as a transaction medium for important (not casual) payments, for B2B transactions or transactions between the public and the state.
IF i want to pay my dept to the bank with monero I want a transparent transaction!
IF I pay my taxes the same!
IF I run a business and pay my suppliers the same!
IF I buy a house from john doe, the same!
If I pay for subscription to a news paper (online or not), or I pay for my doctor, or I pay for my tickets, or I purchase a gift for me or my family, even If i invest in some stocks or bonds I want noone to know about then I want anonymity!
Yes if you want to pay your bank or your taxes or run a business ect.. than i think it follows that you need transparent transaction. However it doesnt necessarily follow that one needs to be able to do these things with monero. That would be a matter of opinion. |
|
|
|
*edit* im sure someone is going to point out that right now we are having to load the entire blockchain in ram so if anything, for the time being, the fee should probably be increased. But perhaps this will make more sense in the future when you guys get all of that mess figured out.
Anon136, I understand that you are person with substantial vested interest in XMR and that you are providing your input here in this thread. Excellent. What I wonder is: How are you helping the process of getting that "mess all figured out?" I ask with complete sincerity, without contempt. I imagine that you donate funds of some kind to the dev team, and if so, that is also excellent. I pose the question because it seems to me that those of us with interest in the success of XMR could possibly better organize and collaborate our efforts toward the common goal. So, you seem to be a good person to discuss this with. I apologize if all this has been hashed out already in this thread, but with 500+ pages and daily activity, subjects are somewhat easily lost in here! Honestly its a little bit embarrassing but some aspects of cryptonote go over my head. The last community i really got active in was nxt and it was great because i really was able to understand everything about how it worked down to a detailed level (on a level that very few other people do infact) and write about it and explain it to people. When it comes to nxt, since i truly understand how the mechanics work, my suggestions have value. Here i dont really feel that i understand cryptonote well enough to give valuable input.  Hopefully through discussion i will understand it better and will be able to offer valuable suggestions that do help to work out problems like the one mentioned above. |
|
|
|
So here is a question. Is your position that people who are trying to act transparently in the manner you have outlined have no effect what so ever on the privacy of individuals who are concerned about privacy. Or is your position that it has a very small or relatively small effect. If it is the latter than by what mechanism is the privacy of other individuals effected.
It can't have no effect. The nature of mixing is that you are hiding a needle in a haystack. The haystack is the combinatorial explosion of other potential paths that could point to you. (The animated graphic on the cryptonite site is helpful.) If the haystack gets smaller -- either because of people identifying their transactions, or because they aren't using the coin at all -- then it obviously becomes easier to find the needle (i.e. you). We are working on various ways of making the process of finding the needle harder. Whether it is then "hard enough" for useful privacy will depend on various factors that are hard to quantify right now, including what people consider to be "useful," how much usage there is in the coin generally, and the nature of that usage. Arguably, for some use cases, it is already good enough. For other use cases it will become good enough once improved. For still others it may not be good enough until there are further improvements and/or much greater usage. Finally there may be some use cases for which it may never be good enough. I also think it is possible the latter case may not occur, since combinatorial explosions can be quite large (as in provably infeasible to untangle), but we don't know this yet. I guess the important point here is that there is not really any way to stop people from revealing information about their transactions if they chose to. So the devs may as well operate under the assumption that some people will. Hopefully we can at the very least create a social stigma against it and apply social pressure to help prevent people from doing that. Based on some of the points you made up there, it bring up the point that perhaps we should encourage blocks to always be full. It would be a simple task. Just remove the minimum transaction fee and people would begin to use the blockchain for increasingly marginal purposes. Eventually the demand for space will overtake the supply of space and a market for space will appear. Just like that. Granted there is some pressure towards having some amount of fee or else it isnt worth it to miners to take the risk of getting their block orphaned, but none the less the argument remains just as valid even given this consideration. *edit* im sure someone is going to point out that right now we are having to load the entire blockchain in ram so if anything, for the time being, the fee should probably be increased. But perhaps this will make more sense in the future when you guys get all of that mess figured out. |
|
|
|
Doesnt this impose a cost on people who want privacy? Having some of the network activity revealed allows concerned entities to deduce other information more easily. For example say you have a ring signature with 2 parties and the other party reveals which input is his, now they have deduced who the other participant is (atleast they have deduced his pseudonym, still not a good thing). This means that inorder to regain their privacy, people who want privacy now have to use a higher mixin count to achieve the same thing.
It seems to me that, unless this evaluation is totally wrong, this charity should just use bitcoin.
That's not the way it works. The "reveal" does not reveal which transaction it is, it reveals that they were involved in a transaction (this we could deduce already) and the exact amount (ie. let's ignore spurious outputs / change outputs), so it's not the same as revealing the one-time private key for a transaction. What we're talking about is a reveal that is no different to a screenshot of a person transacting (as has been posted in this thread) that contains full details of their transaction (destination address, amount, mixin count, payment ID). How exactly would you prevent that information from being revealed? You can't. Monero is meant to solve that exact problem - what happens if we know the address of the recipient? Can we do anything with it? It's a stealth address, so good luck getting anything out of that. Ring signatures are an additional layer on top of that, and they exist to protect you when a transaction is compromised. They're a level of ambiguity, not a level of anonymity. Privacy is accorded by the stealth addresses, ambiguity gives you plausible deniability in the event that someone else in in the signature group for a particular input is compromised. Edit: just to add, this stuff is inherent in the protocol. We're not suggesting changes, we're telling you what is already there. Reading the whitepaper is probably a good starting point to understanding why this exists in the protocol:) Yes I read the whitepaper. Of course i would be lying if i said that i understood all of it. I do think I understood it well enough to see the value in cryptonote especially as compared to other proposed anonymity schemes. I was also aware that there is technically no way to prevent people from revealing this information. People could reveal every single bit of information about their transactions except for their private key if they wanted. So here is a question. Is your position that people who are trying to act transparently in the manner you have outlined have no effect what so ever on the privacy of individuals who are concerned about privacy. Or is your position that it has a very small or relatively small effect. If it is the latter than by what mechanism is the privacy of other individuals effected. |
|
|
|
This is a scary thing to read. The jack of all trades will always be the master of none. Any one who makes transparent transactions reduces the anonymity of all other participants or forces them to pay a higher cost to regain the same level of protection. It imposes externalities on other actors. Anyone who wants transparent transactions can just go use bitcoin, there is no need to have a single network that does both when we have 2 networks, where each does one of the two. I hope this sentiment is not echoed by too many on the dev team. As dga has already pointed out, you don't want to create a scenario where guilt-by-association exists. Monero's privacy is a feature, but it's not the only feature. David's quote is misleading, he didn't mean that regulators can magically peer into the blockchain and trace transactions. He meant that in a situation where you run a charity, for instance, you would publish the viewkey along with some form of per-tx signature so regulators concerned with ensuring charities are run appropriately can peek into your books and see your accounts. Another use-case could be for a company to let its accountants, bookkeepers, and exco have visibility on the account and on the movement of funds. Or a married couple that want a shared account. Monero is private by default, transparent optional. The choice of whether privacy is relinquished for a particular wallet is the user's and the user's alone. I'm glad to see this. Having options is better than having none Actually it isn't, if you want a high degree of anonymity. The more transparent transactions you have, the more you undermine the anonymity of the non-transparent transactions. Yes this is what I am thinking. This talk worries me greatly. |
|
|
|
This is a scary thing to read. The jack of all trades will always be the master of none. Any one who makes transparent transactions reduces the anonymity of all other participants or forces them to pay a higher cost to regain the same level of protection. It imposes externalities on other actors. Anyone who wants transparent transactions can just go use bitcoin, there is no need to have a single network that does both when we have 2 networks, where each does one of the two. I hope this sentiment is not echoed by too many on the dev team. As dga has already pointed out, you don't want to create a scenario where guilt-by-association exists. Monero's privacy is a feature, but it's not the only feature. David's quote is misleading, he didn't mean that regulators can magically peer into the blockchain and trace transactions. He meant that in a situation where you run a charity, for instance, you would publish the viewkey along with some form of per-tx signature so regulators concerned with ensuring charities are run appropriately can peek into your books and see your accounts. Another use-case could be for a company to let its accountants, bookkeepers, and exco have visibility on the account and on the movement of funds. Or a married couple that want a shared account. Monero is private by default, transparent optional. The choice of whether privacy is relinquished for a particular wallet is the user's and the user's alone. Doesnt this impose a cost on people who want privacy? Having some of the network activity revealed allows concerned entities to deduce other information more easily. For example say you have a ring signature with 2 parties and the other party reveals which input is his, now they have deduced who the other participant is (atleast they have deduced his pseudonym, still not a good thing). This means that inorder to regain their privacy, people who want privacy now have to use a higher mixin count to achieve the same thing. It seems to me that, unless this evaluation is totally wrong, this charity should just use bitcoin. |
|
|
|
This is a scary thing to read. The jack of all trades will always be the master of none. Any one who makes transparent transactions reduces the anonymity of all other participants or forces them to pay a higher cost to regain the same level of protection. It imposes externalities on other actors. Anyone who wants transparent transactions can just go use bitcoin, there is no need to have a single network that does both when we have 2 networks, where each does one of the two. I hope this sentiment is not echoed by too many on the dev team. Actually, that's an interesting bigger-picture question. Is the network stronger if an anonymous technology is used for all transactions, where a fraction of them are deliberately made transparent; or is the network stronger if BTC is used for transparent transactions and XMR/BBR/foo is used only for anonymous transactions? My concern about the latter is guilt-by-association. We know, for example, that the NSA archives permanently all encrypted data, but (publicly says) that it does not retain certain classes of unencrypted data. One or two anonymous transactions per minute may be much more easily traced via traffic analysis than 1000 anonymous transactions per minute mixed together with 10 deanonymized transactions. This is based, admittedly, on the assumption that people who don't carefully ask the question of whether they want anonymity will default to BTC. We're working now to add better privacy features, like mandatory participation in anonymity sets, a proper I2P protocol for transaction submission to network nodes, and more elaborate methods of transferring funds that obfuscate transaction submission time to the network and transaction destinations. Of course, if the NSA is sitting sniffing your personal packets off your network, there may not be a lot to help you at the current time. Other persons are working on some censorship free networks for the near future, and there are becoming better ways to enter the internet using physical cash. Privacy online is a difficult thing to achieve. This is a very reassuring thing to read. Particularly this "mandatory participation in anonymity sets" i am very strongly in favor of. What sort of mixin minimums are you guys thinking of at this time? it seems like a mixin count of 2 or greater would probably get the job done well enough and be a good trade off where as mixin 1 is probably too low. |
|
|
|
This is a scary thing to read. The jack of all trades will always be the master of none. Any one who makes transparent transactions reduces the anonymity of all other participants or forces them to pay a higher cost to regain the same level of protection. It imposes externalities on other actors. Anyone who wants transparent transactions can just go use bitcoin, there is no need to have a single network that does both when we have 2 networks, where each does one of the two. I hope this sentiment is not echoed by too many on the dev team. |
|
|
|
Hello and good day After much effort I can finanly inform you that:
GREEK TRANSLATION=DONE
no google translate and of course i am a native speaker. I hope it helps the coin to gain traction among Greek miners and traders. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702724.msg7943676#msg7943676I will put some effort to get some Greek crypto-players to get interested in XMR. paid 10 monero for greek translation |
|
|
|
As the community grows I decided to create a social network based on other popular networks to increase the popularity of Monero currency,registration is now open,you are welcome to join http://monero-community.com/Its neat but im skeptical about how successful and active it will be. Ill send a small amount for the effort and more if it becomes a big thing. Since you clearly have the talent for this sort of thing, we really could use our own simple machines forum. There is some sort of monero forum out there but it kinda sucks compared to simple machines. pm me your address. |
|
|
|
Going on 16 hours withdrawal from Poloniex to BTER...anyone else having similar issues? I have now sent support tickets to both exchanges  Yes. There was bug with payment IDs for a while. See this post from hitBTC for some info. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7987831#msg7987831It really sucks to have money in limbo. I do too. Yesterday I decided to do an arbitrage from Poloniex to Hitbtc. It could be effective: there is a price difference between two exchanges + hitbtc has 0% fees. But I could not withdraw money fast enough from poloniex, so lost time and could not do what I set out to. I'll try again later, hope they'll be no such issues this time. Anyone planning to arbitrage on any exchanges should have plenty of BTC and their coin of choice on the exchanges ahead of time, surely? Seeing an arbitrage and waiting on a transfer before you can execute, is like seeing a sexy girl in a club and waiting for the DJ to play a slow jam before making your move... what you think you're the only guy in the room with eyes?! Whilst you wait eyeing her up, some other guy will walk over, run some game and end up dry-humping her to some dubstep and you're left cursing (with umpteen others) the fact that slow jams came on too late. PS - isn't life too short to arbitrage? Ew. I cant help but hear morgan freemans voice in the back of my head narrating this sort of behavior when ever i hear people talk about "the club". "In the sapien species males compete for the females attention through a series of jestures and rythmic motions. Watch as this male sapien attempts to lure a mate with his flamboyant display." -morgan freeman Like literally aliens could make a documentary about humans and not even pause for breath when moving from some obscure species of bird to people who do this sort of thing. |
|
|
|
I wonder what the chances are that we are on their radar yet. 100% they have an entire floor with people with tabs open on bitcointalk Why do you believe this? |
|
|
|
I wonder what the chances are that we are on their radar yet. |
|
|
|
That video was so dumb. If you dick around all day than accept that you arnt going to have nice things. That person with all of those nice things had to give up the opportunity to live their life style in order to get those nice things. He cant have both. He can dick around and also have nice things. He has to work to have nice things. Why should they get to dick around and also have nice things when he cant? |
|
|
|
Nothing has been revealed about any parties involves.
Not true, you have revealed to Alice where your coins came from. If Alice gets coins from multiple customers that share some common history she can link the sources of those coins. In fact a third party can also start to make those links, though individual identities won't be known. However, if some identities are discovered later, that information can then be used to make links with other transactions. If you are assuming that Alice can't tell where the coins come from without mixing because they are pre-anonymized (mixed), then you haven't really accomplished anything. You still need a mix in between each change of ownership. Also, once you send the coins to Alice, you can trace what Alice does with them, unless there is mixing. Again, you need a mixing on every change of ownership. thanks for the insightful reply! |
|
|
|
Tell me where im wrong here smart guys. Or if i right.
So you shouldn't need to actually use ring signatures very often. Say that we have 3 inputs in our wallet of 2, 4, 5 and monero. Say that we need to pay alice 10 monero.
We use alices public address plus nonce_a to generate 1_time_address_a and send our 5 monero input to it.
We use alices public address plus nonce_b to generate 1_time_address_b and send our 4 monero input to it.
We use alices public address plus nonce_c to generate 1_time_address_c and our own public address plus nonce_d to generate 1_time_address_d and send 1 monero from our 2 monero input to 1 _time_address_c and 1 monero from our 2 monero input to 1_time_address_d.
Nothing has been revealed about any parties involves. No ring signatures have been used. The only problem here is that transactions, over time, are becoming more and more dusty. So inorder to avoid creating more dust on the network, the only ring signature you would need to use is to send that 1 monero back to an address you already control instead of a new one that you have just created for yourself.
I think you still need ring signatures. The one time addresses provide unlinkability so that the three payments made by Alice are not known to be sent to the same person receiving. But the payments don't have untraceability since you can still see that Alice sent all three payments. If ring signatures were used (and assuming you used mixin > 0) then you have the case where an observer can't tell if Alice sent it or another party did. Yea sure they would be linked if you made them all part of the same transaction. But you could do 3 separate transactions. That way you have unlinkability, untraceability, and no ring signatures (though still the aforementioned problem of creating dust). |
|
|
|
|
Tell me where im wrong here smart guys. Or if i right.
So you shouldn't need to actually use ring signatures very often. Say that we have 3 inputs in our wallet of 2, 4, 5 and monero. Say that we need to pay alice 10 monero.
We use alices public address plus nonce_a to generate 1_time_address_a and send our 5 monero input to it.
We use alices public address plus nonce_b to generate 1_time_address_b and send our 4 monero input to it.
We use alices public address plus nonce_c to generate 1_time_address_c and our own public address plus nonce_d to generate 1_time_address_d and send 1 monero from our 2 monero input to 1 _time_address_c and 1 monero from our 2 monero input to 1_time_address_d.
Nothing has been revealed about any parties involves. No ring signatures have been used. The only problem here is that transactions, over time, are becoming more and more dusty. So inorder to avoid creating more dust on the network, the only ring signature you would need to use is to send that 1 monero back to an address you already control instead of a new one that you have just created for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
