and at least one other one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDO09EVFSmg

It's a fork clone of ETH. Obviously without much of its own development it has to be worth a lot less than ETH but there still can be some ratio and with ETH seemingly doing 30% per day, it was only a matter of time for Expanse to attract some interest.

No, he discovered the issue and wanted to write it up somewhere. That's what you do when you are a cryptographer, you write up math stuff. It wasn't really enough substance for a real paper so he put it on a blog.


The reddit post didn't come from him, and as for the rest of the "PR blast", I'll just say you are naive if you think this sort of thing isn't going to be talked about. That's just the nature of crypto. There are plenty of people commenting about bugs in Monero when we've had them.

Sorry to disappoint but there was no serious attention. Shen identified the potential pitfall while working on something else decided to look at existing ring signature implementations he could find to see if any of them had the bug. Both OZcoin and Shadow seemed to have it. It's possible he missed something too, and Shadow is protected in some manner, although it doesn't really look that way (the code posted here doesn't seem to fix it). I guess we'll see after further attention is given to it.

Thank you for the follow up. We're going to take a look at whether there is a better default for the parameter, although higher numbers increase memory usage, so it may not be best for everyone to increase it.

Lots of BTC sloshing around on Polo now. Thank you ETH.

$ simplewallet --generate-from-view-key 49bPEMu2NiJCDPAvzDDTJCfcRKcdSmB5P3XFbMbw7m1rJt7cotJeFJEZVhTFguYeQ4TNEvPwAbtF5Ps JQ9iEKz8mH2WmQo3:794d99ba442931954d00de76218f62a85692fbffd544590a0f5d913149fed0a:lookwallet

The server is almost certainly not there. The address matches a service providing a legal address for the corporation.

https://www.49dollarmontanaregisteredagent.com

Also, if you scroll out on the map a bit, it is clear that is a commercial neighborhood.

 

It can be fixed but not retroactively. All of the ring signatures on their chain are worthless, if the bug report is correct.

Note that the bug is disputed, so we'll see how it turns out.

If you visit any of the pools (for example those listed in the Monero ANN OP), most of them have a "Getting Started" link at the top of their home page where you can find instructions.

You apparently don't understand the nature of the error.

The code can be fixed going forward, but you can't remove the broken ring signatures from the blockchain. Responsible disclosure has no benefit to users in this instance.

Given the lack of competence indicated by the nature of the mathematical error, users should also ask whether fixing the code is sufficient remedy.

I understand you would prefer to sugar-coat it, but there is really no way to prevent these sorts of flaws other than by having people who know what they are doing (and not just copying stuff without apparently understanding it, as I have pointed out here several times before is a frequent pattern, not a one-time occurrence).


I thought it was funny, especially since I did mention ShadowMarket along with the shopping reference. You seem a bit thin-skinned for crypto.

FWIW, I also thought X1235's omg post mocking the idea of paying a bounty to be somewhat funny if dismissive, and for whatever it wasn't deleted by the thread moderator as mine was.

My view on it is that it does solve a major issue in Bitcoin (as PT agrees) but it doesn't necessarily solve every potential issue with blockchains (as TPTB agrees).

However, my view is also that in the real world when you engineer working systems you can rarely if ever reach absolute perfection. You have to reduce major failings to a minimum and hope that the market then finds it a useful solution to some problem. For example, driverless cars will probably be safer than human-driven cars, but people will still be killed in them.

Monero's design is evolved from Bitcoin and addresses serious problems with it (this is explicitly stated in the whitepaper), while still sharing similar goals, unlike Ethereum and others. At least with respect to the original Bitcoin goals; transparency may be somewhat more of a goal of Bitcoin now that it has become joined more closely with finance and regulation than end users.

The name is definitely "aeon" and not "aeoncoin" so we don't need to get away from being a 'coin' but at the same time '/r/aeoncoin' may not be the best name for a subreddit even if /r/aeon can't be obtained.

Thank you for clarifying. We are looking into it.

I'm not sure I'm understanding. Are you using the same version as before?

What CPU do you have?

I agree about what it is designed to do, but that doesn't necessarily correspond with what it will do. I see ETH replacing BTC in a broad sense as possible. It would represent a massive shift in the direction of the technology and economics but such shifts are not impossible.

Alternately you could view the events as independent, since you see ETH and BTC as being distinct technologies by design (and I don't disagree):

1. ETH and BTC both do well
2. ETH does well, BTC fails
3. BTC does well, ETH does not
4. ETH and BTC both fail

I also don't disagree about the fundamentals being poor, but a sufficient vote of confidence in the platform from investors could motivate improvements to the fundamentals. With a strong emphasis on could.

Introducing the CON ETF

The CON ETF is a new product of SIMC, which is also the manager of the Smooth Investment Fund (S-SIF) and CKG ETF (S-CKG)

The purpose of the CON ETF is provides sub-1 CON liquidity (each S-CON share corresponds to 0.01 CON) for micro trades and as a "safe" income investment for smaller players. It will also serve as a building block for the upcoming CK HODL fund.

The way it works is:

• You may GIVE CON to character CONE, in exchange you will receive 100 S-CON for every CON
• You may GIVE S-CON to character CONE, in exchange you will receive 1 CON for each 100 S-CON
• There is an admin fee of 1% for every redeem transaction, minimum 10 S-CON (0.1 CON), maximum 100 S-CON (1 CON). This amount is ADDED to the S-CON you must send when redeeming CON, rounded down to the nearest S-CON
• All CON dividends will be passed through as S-CON dividends, less a management fee of 0.1% (example: dividend 1000 received; 999 passed through)
• CON placed into the ETF will be be kept there until and unless redeemed. Upon dissolution of the ETF for any reason the CON will be distributed to the S-CON holders in some equitable manner, which may include dividending the CON, raffling CON, and/or selling the CON and distributing the proceeds.
  

Examples:

• If you GIVE a 10 CON to CONE, you will receive 1000 S-CON.
• If you wish to redeem 10 CON from CONE's inventory, GIVE 1010 S-CON to CONE

There will be a special incentive given to players who help develop early liquidity for S-CON and/or S-CKG by either depositing with the funds or trading the shares

Questions? Ask.

Happy trading.

How did that disrupt the network?

I don't know if coingecko is tracking it effectively but the community on reddit is also doing great, with the two successful MAAM events and new users becoming involved regularly.

 

It can work as long amounts are visible (no ring ct) and coin-age is not used. A staking hit is recorded as a spend transaction which records the key image as spent. The stake reward is added to the transaction outputs.