https://medium.com/@bramcohen/double-billing-is-not-healthy-competition-b698c345b11eRight now there’s a proposal for a hard fork of Bitcoin called ‘Bitcoin Classic’. It’s called that for purely marketing reasons, it would be a new fork, the adjective ‘classic’ is a lie, but for clarity I will continue to refer to it by that name. The technical details of this are a little silly: Classic has a doubling of the block size, but rejects an upcoming proposal which would have the same effect, resulting in it being incompatible with no tangible benefit whatsoever.
Where Classic would be almost not incompatible is that everyone who owns Bitcoins would immediately own both Bitcoins and Classiccoins. This creates massive confusion in transfers: If you want to do a transfer to somebody else, are you supposed to transfer Bitcoins, or Classiccoins, or both? Some counterparties will only accept Bitcoins, either on principle or because they haven’t done the requisite development, some are going to only accept Classiccoins, because they’re partisans, and some will try to be conservative and require transfers of both. Inevitably Bitcoin and Classic will have two completely separate valuations. When stocks split their combined value doesn’t go up. You can’t create value with accounting tricks. The sum dollar value of a Bitcoin and a Classiccoin will be no greater than a Bitcoin was to begin with. That’s assuming that the chaos won’t result in an overall price drop. A plummet seems more likely.
People expecting both Bitcoin and Classiccoin will be viewed by some as attempting to steal, even though they’re merely asking for the full quantity they were expecting before. Bitcoin-only receivers will be underpaid as the senders keep the Classic funds for themselves. Payments sent from Bitcoin-only wallets will have overt stealing as the receivers take the transaction which paid them and add it to Classic, thus claiming funds which aren’t rightfully theirs. The security level of both will be less than Bitcoin was before, because mining resources are split between them. End users will be forced to understand all of this, as the distinction between Bitcoin and Classiccoin has to be explained everywhere: In wallets, on exchanges, and in news articles talking about it.
I don’t know why the CEO of Coinbase is advocating for this insanity. It’s possibly because Coinbase would be well positioned to engage in the sort of chicanery explained above. But it’s equally plausible that he’s just an idiot. 
|
|
|
|
You here to mock or contribute? It is catagorized as FUD (by me) because of the collaborative dedicated post (this) along with a reddit post and a dedicated blog all while multiple "dev" accounts actively attacked the main SDC bitcointalk thread (simultaneously). This wasn't merely a bug bounty being collected on. There was no proof, there was just a PR FUD push that makes Monero devs look horrible.
Damn bro, are you mad? You sound mad.  The mere fact an ongoing investigation was initiated demonstrates Shen deserves to be awarded the bug finder bounty. What's the point of offering bug bounties if when they are reported the response is to deflect, spin, and prevaricate in order to avoid admitting fault and the need to reward the bounty hunter? Furthermore, the bug bounties should be paid in Bitcoin, not BrokenCoin. Who wants ShadowTrash when it's being dumped? |
|
|
|
Hey, how are you famillar with Vanilla coin? It offers zero time transactions (isnt that what we all want from digital currencies? Check it out here: http://www.vanillacoin.net/ Also, if you have any experience with it or anything else, post your thoughts below. If XMR famous fudsters especially smooth aka icebreaker criticize a coin, this means it`s a very good coin. Make a research how xmr fudded Vanilla some months ago, so this is a good reason to be sure VNL is a very innovative coin. Generally XMR assholes are very hostile against every innovative coin. The problem with using anti-Monero ad hom to deflect criticism of VNL: Greeting, this evening john-connor showed up on the Bitcoin Core github with some rather aggressively ignorant minunderstandings of basic cryptographic consensus concepts: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/5634#issuecomment-69481908Having no clue who he was I looked at his github account and googled a bit and found that he is the, seemingly pseudonymous, author of "Vanillacoin". Vanillacoin was previously discussed on this forum, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=890388.0 but he locked the threads in order to shuffle the users (victims?) off to someplace out of the light of day-- never a good sign, (nor is his BCT newbie account, for that matter). The "vanillacoin" software has no source code available, it is binaries only (very much not a good sign, and usually severe malware concern; and an ultimate form of centralization), there are source links but they go to a basically empty github repository. There is a whitepaper, which like the comments on github show some general software development background they show no real sign of sophisticated understanding around decenteralized systems for adversarial networks or cryptocurrencies. I don't know anything more about it, but I figure sunlight tends to be a good disinfectant; and with the threads locked it probably wasn't fair of me to say nothing while I was privately thinking "hm, that all smells pretty fishy". Of course, the guy was a bit rude to me and also wasted my time-- so feel free to factor that bias in however you like. I'm just reporting my impression as a regular community member. You now know what I know. [I'm the last person to play altcoin-cops... I mostly avoid this stuff except for the rare cases that are technically interesting: The drama can sink unbounded time and usually, when it comes to the more misguided altcoin cryptography, the only sane policy seems to be "If you see something,say nothing and drink to forget": there is too much crazyness and risk of being attacked for being critical of someones latest scheme. But if it shows up in my face, I can't quite stomach saying nothing at all.] Cheers, |
|
|
|
Go right ahead then. De-anon something.
It's not about the ability to de-anon "something." The problem is that *everything* (ie all ShadowTrash transactions) are not really anon. I hope you didn't spend your fake anon coins on anything naughty!  |
|
|
|
More trouble for Dash: You forgot to say "instamine"
First you tried to deny the instamine happened, then you tried to spin it as a good thing. That didn't work; people still despise Dash for its shady, dishonest, centralized, unfair origin. Now you want to trivialize the term "instamine" by making it into a joke and wearing out the impact via repetition. That won't work either. There are serious, well-armed, highly-motivated people coming who don't play such silly games, but are keenly interested in the original instamine and the compounding interest gained thereof. Surprisingly, unlike Satoshi, the mysterious creator of the original Bitcoin software who has remained anonymous and therefore outside the reach of law enforcement, the developers of both Dash and Evolution are publicly named, many of whom reside in the United States.
Requirement for Creators to Register with FinCEN
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) is a bureau of the United States Department of Treasury that is charged with combatting domestic and international money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. FinCEN has issued numerous guidance and interpretations of the applicability of regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to persons creating virtual currencies.
Dash (meaning in this case the new resulting currency itself rather than the software) would likely be considered by FinCEN to be a new convertible virtual currency. FinCEN has made it clear that a creator of such convertible virtual currency, who issues such currency in order to sell those units for either real currency or its equivalent (including presumably an exchange with current bitcoin), is deemed to be a money transmitter. In the case of Masternodes and Evolution, a website names the specific developers who have final say over the currency. The Darkcoin Foundation Inc. development team is also publicly named. Under this approach, the creators of Dash, Masternodes, and Evolution would need to register with FinCEN as a Money Service Business (“MSB”). Failure to register can result in imprisonment of not more than 5 years, as well as civil penalties. 31 U.S.C. § 5330(e) and 31 C.F.R. § 103.41(e); 18 U.S.C § 1960(b)(1)(B). This is in addition to potential state penalties, as certain states also regulate virtual currency creators.
Requirement to Include AML Protocols in Dash, Masternodes, and Evolution
In addition to the registration requirements, an MSB is required to maintain effective anti-money laundering (AML) programs, recordkeeping, and reporting of suspicious activities. In order to do so, the MSB must know who its customers are.
These requirements will require the Dash, Masternode, and Evolution protocol to maintain the personal identifying information of its users. This can presumably be done through the software code, and is similar to the current information and processes currently maintained by exchangers of bitcoin.
The adherence to such requirements will be a large deviation from the current Dash protocol which does not maintain personally identifiable information about its users. The inclusion of such information would make Dash, Masternodes, and Evolution much more accepted by financial institutions, but runs counter to the essence of bitcoin. Bitcoin’s creator designed bitcoin to allow peer-to-peer financial exchange without the use of financial intermediaries and all the complexities involved with such intermediaries, such as identifying the users with mandatory social media accounts. |
|
|
|
Personally I believe this thread should be locked until there is a clear cut answer as to whether or not there is a fatal cryptographic flaw in Shadow Cash.
Here's your clear cut answer: https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2016-02-11/?msg=59856660&page=3MRL-Relay | [shen] I mean, for this one, the past year of transactions on sdc are de-anonymized, it's not like that's fixable no matter what they do now
MRL-Relay | [shen] that's the problem with having a public blockchain That isn't proof at all. That is the guy flinging the crap reiterating the crap he "thinks". Gotta hand it to you guys though, your PR sure is organized when malicious. Too bad your community didn't try this hard for your last update. AM asked for a "clear cut answer" not "proof." But since you brought it up, here you go: De-anonymizing Shadowcash https://gist.github.com/ShenNoether/3686113566bc23bf836fShadow-cash
https://github.com/shadowproject/shadow/blob/682891e656b5be2c2b819aa4977aa3b7e9f3f464/src/ringsig.cpp
static int hashToEC(const uint8_t *p, uint32_t len, BIGNUM *bnTmp, EC_POINT *ptRet)
{
// - bn(hash(data)) * G
uint256 pkHash = Hash(p, p + len);
if (!bnTmp || !(BN_bin2bn(pkHash.begin(), EC_SECRET_SIZE, bnTmp)))
{
LogPrintf("hashToEC(): BN_bin2bn failed.\n");
return 1;
};
if (!ptRet
|| !EC_POINT_mul(ecGrp, ptRet, bnTmp, NULL, NULL, bnCtx))
{
LogPrintf("hashToEC() EC_POINT_mul failed.\n");
return 1;
};
return 0;
};
https://github.com/shadowproject/shadow/blob/master/src/ringsig.cpp#L136
int generateKeyImage(ec_point &publicKey, ec_secret secret, ec_point &keyImage)
{
// - keyImage = secret * hash(publicKey) * G
if (publicKey.size() != EC_COMPRESSED_SIZE)
return errorN(1, "%s Invalid publicKey.", __func__);
int rv = 0;
BN_CTX_start(bnCtx);
BIGNUM *bnTmp = BN_CTX_get(bnCtx);
BIGNUM *bnSec = BN_CTX_get(bnCtx);
EC_POINT *hG = NULL;
if (!(hG = EC_POINT_new(ecGrp)))
{
LogPrintf("%s: EC_POINT_new failed.\n", __func__);
rv = 1; goto End;
};
if (hashToEC(&publicKey[0], publicKey.size(), bnTmp, hG) != 0)
{
LogPrintf("%s: hashToEC failed.\n", __func__);
rv = 1; goto End;
};
if (!bnSec || !(BN_bin2bn(&secret.e[0], EC_SECRET_SIZE, bnSec)))
{
LogPrintf("%s: BN_bin2bn failed.\n", __func__);
rv = 1; goto End;
};
|
|
|
|
So much butthurt he has to report every post he gets rekt in. Nice try, I'll post it again as it's clearly not off topic: A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted. No, Dash's rebranding and Evolution hype cycles are over, and probably never coming back. It's all downhill from here
Definitely saving this one. Should we register " dashobituaries.com" and fill it with iCEHOLE's posts in here? What about the reference node which marked the doom of Dash, Eduardo deAssrape? Oh wait, it's gone forever, just like your credibility, Hashfast scammer. Emphasis added for moderators with bad vision I've never reported a post. Not in all my time here. You have reported 0 posts |
|
|
|
New money on the weekend. It'll be fine for now. It's what happens on Monday that matters. tok.. .what crash? It's not happening! Should have happened by now, no? Only waves of uptrend. Slight "correction" today, but still... what's your take?
Don't know. If the 1-hour correction manages to complete before the 30-minute chart rolls over again then it might survive this level and propel on a bit. But the rise is pretty phenomenal. There's something totally unnatural about it. I've seen it so many times - Blackcoin, Maza, Bitbay, you name it. Somebody is sitting there with an absolute monster reservoir of Ether just waiting to pick their moment. They need to wait for enough liquidity to build at the lower levels which will be their primary dumping ground. a.t.m. I don't see it getting past that last high - people would be a bit mad to start buying in at this point. [Sorry for off-topic garbage. Current background topic of the day.] I thought things might be getting spread around a little more with all the volume ETH has been having, but I looked at the top addresses in the block explorer last night and it spooked me. There are still over 100 address with 100000+ ETH sitting in them- and the top 572 are still over 20000. These 20000 ETH people casually dropped in 10 BTC to the IPO and are now sitting on over $116000 at the current price... ETH is off-topic here. Please post somewhere else. |
|
|
|
What makes ETH special?
ETH is special because its innovative new technology is supported by a critical mass of developers, finance, and industry. Dash has no such technology, nor the required ecosystem of coders and financial resources. They are selling snake oil, not real solutions. |
|
|
|
Personally I believe this thread should be locked until there is a clear cut answer as to whether or not there is a fatal cryptographic flaw in Shadow Cash.
Here's your clear cut answer: https://botbot.me/freenode/bitcoin-wizards/2016-02-11/?msg=59856660&page=3MRL-Relay | [shen] I mean, for this one, the past year of transactions on sdc are de-anonymized, it's not like that's fixable no matter what they do now
MRL-Relay | [shen] that's the problem with having a public blockchain |
|
|
|
False things DashHoles believe about ETH (and why they want to believe them).1) ETH is out of money. This FUD get repeated more often than "zomg Russia and China totes banned Bitcoin" rumors. ETH is back by Szabo and his BTC billionaire buddies. If they need more funds, the cypherpunk cabal will simply raise the price of ETH. The real issue is how Dash expects to pay for the Evolution roadmap-to-unicorns. Talking trash about ETH's lack of funds is a nice way to deflect from Dash biting off more than it can chew, but reality will ultimately prevail over cult doctrine about bottomless MegaBlock cornucopias of endless budget largess. 2) ETH is too complicated to work. The math behind sharding, partitioning, tree chains, etc. has been done. It's extremely challenging but not impossible to engineer and implement as a 'world computer.' Meanwhile, Dash's two three tiered structure is hopelessly dependent on trusted third parties, and reducing mixing times to something competitive with other privacy coins is apparently not as great a priority as chasing yet-another-Storj unicorns. 3) ETH is being pumped and it will dump. That FUD was demolished on the initial post-ICO-dump ETH rally. Now it's doing ~50k BTC in volume/day, with ~6k BTC in bids. Can your shitcoin do that? No, Dash's rebranding and Evolution hype cycles are over, and probably never coming back. It's all downhill from here, and the comet will soon take the Evan's Gate cultists to a better place, to reward them for their faith in snake oil and bad crypto. 4) ETH is too hard to use; it's basically a Javascript programming task even to get your coins out of your IPO wallet. Kraken has a great page where you just upload your wallet, put in your passphrase, and enter the number of coins to be swept. Super easy to use. Meanwhile, good luck teaching Grandma and Aunt Felicia the difference between mixed and unmixed Darksendable-or-not coins, much less the lengthy/unpredictable process for mixing them. 5) Dash isn't competing with ETH. Anything Dash can do, ETH can do better. Especially privacy. And vending machines (stripper not included). http://elaineou.com/2016/02/11/trust-minimized-property-control-with-jellybeans-and-ethereum/[/quote]
|
|
|
|
Deserves a crosspost:  Shoutout from Peter Todd on the only altcoin he uses, for privacy reasons of course. Posted yesterday in bitcoincore slack channel. Heh, that's nice. Good to see The Todd refuting the Gavinista's "u just want Bitcoin to die because u hav so many Evil VIA" canard. How did hostfat react to the mention of Monero? I hope he took it badly.  |
|
|
|
Looks like the ideal setup to break out of this resistance zone (155-168k satoshi).
Daily MACD flipping to green (confirmation will come if the current daily closes):
Lending rates shooting up, so a lot of (possible) fuel:
I've got ~3k XMR loaned out at .02%. That's a teaser rate, to get the suckers shorts hooked (first time is free). Now I've moved the rest to much higher rates. Time to squeeze them until they pop.  |
|
|
|
Well this just about wraps it up for Classic, and this chapter of the Great Schism saga in general. Seldom in the history of Bitcoin have so many Gavinistas been so utterly rekt and so completely pwnd. http://www.riddellwilliams.com/blog/articles/post/hard-fork-conspiracy-treacherous"If either the Bitcoin Classic or the BitcoinXT plan (or both) goes forward, the creators of the replacement software could face serious legal consequences and potentially criminal liability for their actions. Surprisingly, unlike Satoshi, the mysterious creator of the original Bitcoin software who has remained anonymous and therefore outside the reach of law enforcement, the developers of both Bitcoin Classic and BitcoinXT are publicly named, many of whom reside in the United States. Requirement for Creators to Register with FinCENThe Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) is a bureau of the United States Department of Treasury that is charged with combatting domestic and international money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes. FinCEN has issued numerous guidance and interpretations of the applicability of regulations implementing the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”) to persons creating virtual currencies. Bitcoin Classic and BitcoinXT (meaning in this case the new resulting currency itself rather than the software) would likely be considered by FinCEN to be a new convertible virtual currency. FinCEN has made it clear that a creator of such convertible virtual currency, who issues such currency in order to sell those units for either real currency or its equivalent (including presumably an exchange with current bitcoin), is deemed to be a money transmitter. In the case of BitcoinXT, a website names the specific developers who have final say over the currency. The Bitcoin Classic development team is also publicly named. Under this approach, the creators of Bitcoin Classic or BitcoinXT would need to register with FinCEN as a Money Service Business (“MSB”). Failure to register can result in imprisonment of not more than 5 years, as well as civil penalties. 31 U.S.C. § 5330(e) and 31 C.F.R. § 103.41(e); 18 U.S.C § 1960(b)(1)(B). This is in addition to potential state penalties, as certain states also regulate virtual currency creators. Requirement to Include AML Protocols in Bitcoin Classic or BitcoinXTIn addition to the registration requirements, an MSB is required to maintain effective anti-money laundering (AML) programs, recordkeeping, and reporting of suspicious activities. In order to do so, the MSB must know who its customers are. These requirements will require the replacement Bitcoin protocol to maintain the personal identifying information of its users. This can presumably be done through the software code, and is similar to the current information and processes currently maintained by exchangers of bitcoin. The adherence to such requirements will be a large deviation from the current Bitcoin protocol which does not maintain personally identifiable information about its users. The inclusion of such information would make Bitcoin Classic and BitcoinXT much more accepted by financial institutions, but runs counter to the essence of bitcoin. Bitcoin’s creator designed bitcoin to allow peer-to-peer financial exchange without the use of financial intermediaries and all the complexities involved with such intermediaries, such as identifying the users." |
|
|
|
Vanilla uses code stolen from Bitcoin, and the scam dev refused to do the right thing when gmaxwell, etc asked him to fix the lack of proper attribution, as required per the software license. As for "instant" transactions, that lasted about a day on Poloniex. Then they discovered it was probably a way for the Vanilla dev to force-feed them fake VNL in order to clean the exchange out of legitimate coins. Is it true that Vanillacoin uses the BTC code? https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151160.0GMAXWELL: [VNL] Vanillacoin, a quiet word of warning. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920344.0Smooth VS VNL https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1184904.0Thanks for that. Adding “#L34” to the vnl URI nails it for me: int EC_KEY_regenerate_key(EC_KEY * eckey, BIGNUM * priv_key)
{
int ok = 0;
BN_CTX * ctx = 0;
EC_POINT * pub_key = 0;
if (eckey == 0)
{
return 0;
}
const EC_GROUP * group = EC_KEY_get0_group(eckey);
if ((ctx = BN_CTX_new()) == 0)
{
goto err;
}
pub_key = EC_POINT_new(group);
if (pub_key == 0)
{
goto err;
}
int EC_KEY_regenerate_key(EC_KEY *eckey, BIGNUM *priv_key)
{
int ok = 0;
BN_CTX *ctx = NULL;
EC_POINT *pub_key = NULL;
if (!eckey) return 0;
const EC_GROUP *group = EC_KEY_get0_group(eckey);
if ((ctx = BN_CTX_new()) == NULL)
goto err;
pub_key = EC_POINT_new(group);
if (pub_key == NULL)
goto err;
That's a lot more than just a structural similarity. It’s hard for me to see this as anything other than incontrovertible evidence of the author having a naively self-centred perspective on intellectual property rights, broadly translatable as “what’s yours is mine and what’s mine’s my own”. More tellingly, it's also hard to reconcile this evident difficulty in critical thinking with any kind of work in the area of cryptography, notorious for its relentlessly stern demands of cognitive sophistication in its proponents. Stand back a few yards and the picture becomes somewhat clearer. I've not even bothered looking at vnl, being confident that it’s just another variant of the “misunderstood but brilliant maverick outsider, wronged by a complacent community” media narrative and all the posturing is entirely consistent, even the expedient arrogation of others’ work. Given the evidence in the codebase, I'm reassured that my confidence is not misplaced, although I do have to admit that his choice of pseudonym is a bit of a give-away in and of itself. Cheers Graham |
|
|
|
I dont think sdc guys are fit for Monero, they wouldnt have chosen a shit project in the first place.
Let's be nice and assume at least some of the SDC guys are just ignorant, greedy children/teens/undergrads. They can learn from this teachable moment, where SDC's bad crypto was broken by Monero's mysterious master of cryptography. In the best cases, former ShadowCashers will be inspired to take a lifelong interest in better ascertaining what distinguishes legitimate coins from shit projects. We have plenty of room for everyone on Monero Mountain. As long they're not DashHoles. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
