Yes, I am Belorussian on an American internet forum dabbling in cryptographic software without proper State license (also, connecting without proper MAC address registration, which is illegal since 2010 here ). That naturally means I have something to hide, which is, meself

Or maybe I am Satoshi pretending to be above, and thus too, I have something to hide, which is the fact that I am Satoshi. ^__~

Who knows...  

This is getting progressively more and more puerile.

Also, I sort of think that SC2.0 would rather use some kind of "licensed mining + PKI framework" approach rather than lame "police nodes + civilian nodes" approach.


'Peer<---> Trusted "Policeman" Hash Node<---> Peer' architecture is just too unbelievably lame to be true.

That would allow to fairly easy identify me, so no (I am, however, responsible for GG and TBX logos. IMHO, not bad ones for less than an hour of work , so you might count those as "examples" )

Well, exchanges are known to do silly things (ref: that Polish dude who pwnt his own exchange), and a big-time attacker could run his own exchange (the loss is essentially passed to the users who bought "pwnage coins" in that scenario)

1) Laundry fund isn't 7.7 mil. Given that I have pledged 2 mils to the faucet(s) aka Late Adopters and that about ~1.5 mils are reserved for dev-endeavors, it's quite less than 7.7 mils.

2) In my humble opinion, loss of laundry will be catastrophic enough to doom the project irrespective of whether the funds are dumped or "merely" lost forever

3) In about 6 years, 7.7 mil superfund will be not that super, and its ability to ruin the market won't be so immense. That is even more true for a fund of ~4 mil that is actually intended for laundry per most recent agreement.


Well, like I said in the postscript (that I sadly added only moments before your response), I consider creation of "miners that do not accept laundry-killer tx" to be pretty imminent irrespective of what I, or for that matter the majority of miners, think (even if majority goes "duh", some miners will run such a thing)

I do also think that adding a Laundry-Watcher and Notification thingie to ABE would be verily nice and might get quite popular irrespective of how "laundry lockdown miner code" fares.

P.S.:
I'd like to use this opportunity to remind everyone that per current agreement, Laundry-fund isn't whole whoppin' 7.7 mils

Well, that gives "me" more power over the network, not less.

Right now, I can "merely" disrupt the market and murder a potentially very lucrative laundry business which I myself am supposed to benefit from (with my ability to disrupt market in any meaningful way constantly shrinking, though perhaps not as fast as some would have preferred), and in scenario "some miners accept laundry-murdering transactions, some don't", the person who controls the laundry has "magical network-splitting powers".

And, if your threat model is not so much "Lolcust goes insane, decides to kill his own laundry and like 98% of TBX market", but "attacker takes over the laundry, tries to sell it off" (Seems to me that the exact distinction between the two scenarios has not been made so far , and now is as good time as any), the attacker only needs to get as much as possible to an exchange before the reorg-storm invalidates his little game (as per your description "because people will likely not want to stay on their fork where the laundry fund is being misused"), with the exchange being the one to pick up the slack when reorg happens (I bet exchanges would verily not like such a prospect).

Besides, I doubt that TBX laundry could recover after having it's wallet hacked (that's why I want to avoid exposing laundry wallet to any web-like frontends, and for that matter expose the laundry-server to any incoming connections) irrespective of whether some reorg later invalidates the hacker's incursion.

Such affairs are trust-based (though BTW, people are already giving me far more trust than needed to let me run an x-mil laundry by downloading and running binaries I make, as a matter of fact), and having the laundry pwnt destroys this trust irrespective of whether the TBX in buffers are spilled on the market or not.

P.S.:

Having said all that, as TBX's genesis states, "if a technological feat is possible, man will do it. Almost as if it's wired into the core of our being", so I think creation of "miners that don't accept laundry-killing transactions" is pretty imminent

Well, like I said on IRC, I like this idea - it has elegance to it

However, since the IRC discussion, I have developed a concern as to how it affects an average miner's plausible deniability in regards to involvement in the laundry Quasi-Value token transaction mixing business. Right now, a miner is not technically involved in superfund's operation anymore than an ixcoin miner is involved in fakepanese guy's operations.
With "LolcustLaundryWatch" code being part of every Tenebrix miner forever, the degree of plausible deniability as to connection with laundry-op available to a miner will become, basically, nil.

I also think that performance issues will need to be accounted for early on, since upgrading miners "down the line" is liable to become very painful, very fast (how many slowpoke BTC clients of v <0.3 are still trawling the BTC net ?) but I hope that code magicians can take care of that issue  .

Now, since such a change would affect the status of TBX miner (changing it from "dude who mines cpu-coinz because he has a beefy CPU and coinz can be sold" to "dude who is directly involved with ensuring secure operation of Lolcust laundry Quasi-Value token transaction mixing system", a difference not unlike difference between "having 500 euro bills because they fit in the pocket nicely" and "being directly involved in ensuring that deals carried out via 500 euro bills do not involve double-crossing of any kind"), I think that some sorta-kinda poll should be constructed to make sure that people mining TBX have a say in a decision that will affect their activity "from  block X and forevermore" in a potentially unpleasant way.

But I think that automatic "laundry checker code" should be developed irrespective of whether we decide to splice it into miners, as there are people (to the best of my knowledge, about 6 currently, but who knows how many in the future) who would like to keep an eye on my stuff automatically, and giving them a pre-baked solution (perhaps a pre-baked ABE mod) would be neat (besides, presence of potentially unlimited number of laundry-watch stations ready to raise a horrible fuss on every available venue the moment something fishy happens to it's buffers is almost as strong a deterrent to "fishy acts" as direct "code lock", but one that operates without making every miner in the net part of laundry Quasi-Value token transaction mixing system's immediate operations.

P.S.:

Tenebrix and GG will get a little additional forum home soon. Just sayn'

P.P.S.:

keep forgetting to address a certain... issue

Dude, to be completely fair  , would you kindly remove the implication that high-performance FPGAs and such are likely for Tenebrix from your site ?

Current research suggests that FPGAs are economically and, as far as reasonably-priced ones are concerned, performance-wise, inferior to CPUs in this game.

Oh for the love of great Cthulhu in the seas, I've already confessed that I am Satoshi pretending to be a coding-impaired Belorussian graphic designer so that you don't start suspecting that I am Satoshi and in fact I am confessing this so that even when evidence surfaces, you will dismiss it as part of a retarded "lololololcust is satoshi" joke.

What's wrong with you people? It's goddamn obvious! Connect the dots!

I am Satoshi.

I thought it's quite obvious, really.

Method of acquisition matters

Mine did not involve taking what was produced via resources of others

But I was primarily riffing at (hopefully ironic) suggestion that the hacker should use those coins for bounties

Yes, ineed, TBX has been doing surprisingly well. I can help you with setting it up if needed

So premining coins for bounties is not okay, but wrestling them from legitimate miners via overwhelming force is okay?

No offense, but that is a rather peculiar way of looking at things. I'd say, almost cartoonishly communist

1) ya know, there is no such thing as "remaining 5% of tenebrix" since there is no such thing as tenebrix upper limit. Or rather, there is  -136 billions, give or take something.

I'll leave it up to you to calculate how much of "total possible TBX I've squatted.

2) hacking tenebrix faucet's wallet will give you 500 TBX at most - the whole point of fueling it in batches of 500 is to make it less lucrative target for break-ins

3) I've just noticed that your site mildly implies that efficient FPGA implementations of TBX are likely. This is not true, see "scaling questions" thread.

I didn't know Real Solid killed Steve.

That would explain why BTCEx dislikes RS

Well, coblee said in adjacent thread that he's interested in doing it with Fairbrix, which I think is good in terms of "innovation is good", but I would be reluctant to bet any money onto how much this will be accepted and whether it would operate as intended.

I only followed the discourse on github, current version of multisign from most recent multicoin-exp works, tho requires nonstandard transactions to be enabled (I think I said that in the faq and in the thread...)

Testing done - making and redeeming escrows, making and redeeming in different order (key order, that is), trying to use bullshit keys (with predictable result)

A bunch of other folks tried it out without dramatic fail (though I specifically warn users that this thing is verily experimental in the "crutches" tabs dedicated to sending and redeeming escrow)

Hmmmm... you know, maybe when I finally update TBX (can't quite make up my mind about how to go about fixpile) I might release a proper GUI for GG with no nonstandards and no escrow (just for people who feel uncomfortable with nonstandards, would rather not deal with them, and just need to move their GG to the exchange, lol)

Eh. nvm me then - probably misunderstood a PM exchange (thought the Fairbrix w/auto-lockin code was gonna have a new name for some reason...)

Okay guys, now I am confused (probably that's my isolation from IRC speaking)

I thought Fairbrix code is getting a major overhaul with introduction of "Exchange lockin" code and a rebrand, no ?

Well, I think it might also need the faq in the links section, and the "premined" part of the statistic to link to the FAQ so that people can sort of get all the drama and question/answers quickly

It won't be very profitable if it gets haxored, and CoinHunter did all he could to maximize the probability of getting himself hacked

Which is strictly synonymous with transaction anonymization service