I am not sure why people are still reluctant to move over to getmonero forum. It is so much better than bitcointalk.
Some new users are attracted here, but they can also be reached from Reddit, Twitter etc. I think the more contact with potential new users the better, but we should not rely on bitcointalk as the primary focus point long term.
I don't need yet another site to check. Plus the format is, umm (*puts on diplomatic hat*), not to my taste. And reddit is full of retards. This forum, the home of Satoshi, is the e-cash mothership. For better or worse; like it or not. ^^ This. I like the Monero Forum for resource gathering, but for interaction, I like HERE--it has more of a conversational feel, while the Monero....Why bother explaining; it's in the etymology. -forum (n.) mid-15c., " place of assembly in ancient Rome," from Latin forum "marketplace, open space, public place," apparently akin to foris, foras "out of doors, outside," from PIE root *dhwer- "door, doorway" (see door). Sense of "assembly, place for public discussion" first recorded 1680s. -talk (n.) late 15c., "speech, discourse, conversation," from talk (v.). Meaning " informal lecture or address" is from 1859. Meaning " a subject of gossip" is from 1620s (in talk of the town). Talk show first recorded 1965; talk radio is from 1985. -talk (v.) c. 1200, talken, probably a diminutive or frequentative form related to Middle English tale "story," and ultimately from the same source as tale, with rare English formative -k (compare hark from hear, stalk from steal, smirk from smile) and replacing that word as a verb. East Frisian has talken " to talk, chatter, whisper." Related: Talked; talking. To talk (something) up " discuss in order to promote" is from 1722. |
|
|
|
Thank you for your thoughtful and detail response! 1. Regarding the mix-in level, I think I read somewhere that at least one of the other cryptonote coins (I cant remember which one) already requires a minimum mix-in at the protocol level to avoid the mix-in = 0 privacy issues currently possible with Monero. Is there a good reason why Monero devs do not require a mimimum mix-in in the Monero protocol as well? 2, 3, 4. Great! 5. In regards to the official GUI is there an estimate about when it will be released? I ask for the benefit of my clients, not my own. I can use the command line just fine. It is good to know there is a web wallet and unofficial wallet available now. I am aware that Monero is a cryptonote clone. I am interested in Cryptonote but am also considering Boolberry because of its functioning GUI (and long emission schedule). 6. I like the liquidity on Poloniex. I don't understand why more exchanges have not added the coin based on its trading volume. I dont like centralized trading based on the history of so many exchanges being hacked. Any comment on the chances of getting listed on more exchanges in the future? 7. I like the size of your dev team! Some of the 1 dev coins make me nervous that they will leave for another project and all development will cease. * Regarding spyware and screen captures, I am not aware of a currency that can resist this directly, but I am aware of hardware wallets that can since the transaction can be signed offline without exposing the private key. Your point reminded me of something I am happy Monero is working on and of something Dash has completed. If there are other anonymous coins working on this I am not yet aware of them. https://forum.getmonero.org/9/work-in-progress/265/adding-monero-support-for-trezorhttps://dashtalk.org/threads/trezor-offers-password-less-login-to-other-websites-adds-dash.5076/You're welcome  I'm a self-motivated fanboy, so I'll do my best answer your questions--though a Dev (living and breathing the project) would give you more breadth and technically knowledgeable answers. 1. AFAIK Monero was the first to point this issue out and the resulting solution, but has yet to implement a mandatory mix-in as there are still issues with miners and exchanges. 5. The db has to finish testing, but once that is done, an official GUI should be on the way. No estimates; the Devs are very careful to deliver more than they promise. 6. This is a problem. There is also Shapeshift, but it seems that not being a Bitcoin clone hinders exchanges from adopting Monero--Cryptsy has had it on the To Do list for many months, but still no word on when or if they'll get around to it. I think once more merchant software is released that more exchanges will add Monero and other cryptonote coins. This isn't a satisfactory answer, but you can't really force exchanges to adopt a coin. |
|
|
|
Monero. You cannot spell Monero without Nero. Nero - Rome is burning. Monero is crashing in value.  Keep your nervs, wait for the long run  Is there a legit reason for Monero losing price? I haven't seen one. It's just normal patterns. In some weeks or months it'll be going up again. Dude, really? You make the above comment, but post this https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1103206.0. To FUD or not to FUD is a lame question. |
|
|
|
1. Monero. All you'd have to teach them mix-in levels and payment IDs.* 2. Monero. Has existed since last April. 3. So open source that investors and critics complain that the Devs shouldn't be doing anything but coding even though they have jobs, families and lives outside of Monero. 4. Monero. All privacy is on the protocol level. 5. Sorry, Monero doesn't have an official GUI yet, but there are available GUI's and a web wallet. 6. Top 15 in market cap with average 24 hour volume in the 25-50k region. Also, there is a market available for big transactions that can be negotiated between parties. www.moneroclub.com7. Monero has a great Dev team. https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people*If someone's computer is infected with a spyware that captures screen data, there isn't a cryptocurrency available, or that will ever be available, to protect your clients account information. |
|
|
|
What's the current thinking on sidechains' impact on Monero (assuming Blockstream gets their opcode through)? Will there be any significant advantages for Monero vs a well-implemented cryptonote sidechain?
(Sorry if this has been discussed a lot recently - signal/noise in this thread seems highish right now)
(1) people who send BTC in the "ring signature sidechain" (RSSC), taint their BTC who are not entering the RSSC. If their identity is matched with the same identity as who put BTC in the RSSC, this person can become "flagged".
No, it's possible to trustlessly coinswap in and out of such a system, with no detectable connectivity. And there are many reasons to use such a sidechain, such as improved smart contracting. I consider improved fungiblity to be an essential basic feature. Unfortunately, it's appears that it isn't possible to trustlessly swap in and out of monero because the developers of bytecoin didn't carry across smart contract functionality which they didn't understand. Perhaps the capability could be added later. Ok, using coinswap is possible, but in that case, you are tainting your coins with coins from the other party. You don't know if the other party is a drug lord for example. Coinswapping coins will still be a risk. and please adress (3) also: (3) people who want to get their BTC out of the RSSC, immediately taint those BTC. It's even easier to taint these BTC than BTC put through a mixer or using coinjoin because you don't need to do extensive chainalysis. If/when regulation starts to come down on payment processors and/or miners (see my reddit post about fungibility for more info on the risks of tainting your BTC), these BTC's will be hard to spend in the 'regular economy' or even transact with. if your answer is again, coinswap. Fine. But why would someone voluntarily taint their coins with RSSC-mixed coins? and also address why miners, who are generally only interested in the mining profit and not the politics, run an RSSC node? Even if it doesn't take more resources to do it... if it ever becomes illegal to run a node that supports RSSC (money laundering law for example), I don't think many (big) miners/pools will take the risk. |
|
|
|
If Greeks are really trying to save their spending power, a dollar linked currency makes the most sense.
Actually that is their problem the link to the euro (which is similar to the dollar in therm of printing policy...) They cant devalue their money because they have no admin rights on the euro central bank. Devaluating is a key in modern economics if you like it or not its a practise. The US and EU do it, and others. It is used to balance the econmy demand and supply for the money (economy exports, growth and others). The problem of Greece is their economy deviates a lot from the EU-leader Germany, which generates a gap that could be fixed by devaluating the money. But like i said, they cant because they have no own currency. greetings This is assuming it is even a Greek buy-in. I haven't looked into it and I haven't read anything to confirm deny the speculation, but it makes sense on the surface. If I'm worried that my money will be seized or devalued tomorrow, I'm not worrying about the broader political or economic implications; I am only looking to secure my spending power for the near term in hopes that it maintains its current value for the foreseeable future or until a better option shows itself or is created. Bitcoin doesn't do this (volatile, at least historically so), but a cryptocurrency tethered to the US dollar does--I'd assume Greeks wouldn't be interested in a Euro tethered coin at the moment.  Even better would be a cryptocurrency tied to commodities (food, energy) and the housing market where you are guaranteed to keep your purchasing power without losing sleep over the potential of political mismanagement. |
|
|
|
|
If Greeks are really trying to save their spending power, a dollar linked currency makes the most sense.
|
|
|
|
(1) people who send BTC in the "ring signature sidechain" (RSSC), taint their BTC who are not entering the RSSC. If their identity is matched with the same identity as who put BTC in the RSSC, this person can become "flagged".
No, it's possible to trustlessly coinswap in and out of such a system, with no detectable connectivity. And there are many reasons to use such a sidechain, such as improved smart contracting. I consider improved fungiblity to be an essential basic feature. Unfortunately, it's appears that it isn't possible to trustlessly swap in and out of monero because the developers of bytecoin didn't carry across smart contract functionality which they didn't understand. Perhaps the capability could be added later. In a cash system, why would I want to go through an extra smart contract feature to send or receive payment? I would assume the liquidity of Bitcoin, but the liquidity of Monero could change very rapidly. All things being equal, I would want the simpler system, yes? |
|
|
|
Wonderlic, so glad you on ignore.  *Now, I'm the center of an ignore sandwich. I'd be curious of what you were writing, but I know from previous experience it cannot be interesting, well-wrought, or on-topic. |
|
|
|
Oops, the sixties and seventies are all a blur to me. A very happy blur. |
|
|
|
Just by reading the headline I can guess that the loss is from them accepting Bitcoin (not buying Altcoins)
@OP
Did you know the online retailer Overstock accepts Bitcoin on their web site as a form of payment for merchandise ?
Where did you get the idea that the web site owners are investing in Altcoins ?
No, they specifically mention losses from investing in altcoins.
That article is from 2014
Yes, because the loss the reported from investing in altcoins would have been from the last fiscal year I assume. The people who keep popping in on here and commenting that Overstock doesn't invest in alts are like the people who went to the Monkees show in 1967, saw Jimi Hendrix on stage playing Purple Haze and started screaming, "We want Daaavy!" Get over it. Bitcoin isn't for everyone and certainly doesn't do everything (at least not well). |
|
|
|
|
I should have hit the ignore button as soon as he said that they could have kept the coins to prevent the bad guys from gaining control of them. Someone get Madoff's attorney on the phone, I think we found a loophole in logic that could get him an appeal. I call it, "The yacht is keeping your investment secure" defense. If it don't sink, Bernie gets out the clink.
|
|
|
|
I've read it multiple times. And it seems that I know what I'm talking about. Below is the quote from its abstract: The signatures are still one-time, however, and any such attack will still not necessarily violate the anonymity of users. However, such an attack could plausibly weaken the resistance CryptoNote demonstrates against blockchain analysis. Furthermore: This research bulletin has not undergone peer review, and reflects only the results of internal investigation. But for whatever reason I trust their opinion of what makes a good ecash more than yours. I'll not err on possible weakness equaling non-weaknesses. |
|
|
|
2. No it's not, it is a huge security risk. Even if the BCN Devs planned on doing it to thwart attackers, it paints a huge and centralized target for law enforcement--once they had them, they would have the whole network. Intentional or by accident this would be one of the worst ways to secure a coin's anonymity.
Did you have chance to read my post on this page above? Removing untraceability does not destroy anonymity since the unlinkability property holds. What it does is allow to link exact inputs to exact outputs. However good luck identifying the people behind the transactions with stealth addresses for each output. An observer would not be able to even link any two transactions that were made to the same wallet (even if it the recipient and the sender are the same), not saying about the balance. How is that a security risk exactly? Maybe you missed why this thread is here--besides the obvious unsavoriness of a scam-mine.... https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0001.pdf |
|
|
|
No.
I am arguing that ALL cryptonote coins have a fatal flaw which allows large stakeholders to conspire to de-anon tx's. I am not making any distinctions.
There are 2 solutions to this flaw:
1) ensure fair distro of coins
2) prevent a malicious attacker from getting too many coins by mining them yourself (and holding)
I am NOT saying BCN devs were motivated to premine as 2) suggests, only pointing out it is one of two ways that this attack can be prevented. If there is a 3rd i'd like to hear it.
However both solutions are themselves flawed.
In 2) we have to trust the early stakeholders which is a big ask. In 1) we have to trust the distro will go fairly, which it seldom does, and trust that those accumulating coins have no ill intentions.
That's my point. I think the logic is sound. It's a Catch 22 for CN.
And you're wrong. You are right #2 is problematic at it's core. It breaks the trustless nature of the coins completely. And #1 is meaningless without defining "fair". Fact: It is extremely likely that Monero has had a braod enough distribution that your claims are false. -"extremely likely" is not equal to FACT -XMR speaks of "fair" and "egalitarian". Im not sure if I know what fair is but I know what isn't i.e. any currency where 50% of the coin is owned by less than 100 persons IS NOT fairly distributed. Both 1 and 2 ARE (albeit problematic and imperfect) solutions. Technically you are not right either. 1. Smooth went through the numbers and your assertion isn't in line with facts. IE BCN's anonymity would be more easily broken by a substantial measure and there is no data to suggest that Monero is unfairly distributed, nor could it be as unfairly distributed as it is still being heavily distributed--so talking about them as equal probabilities of anonymity failure is dead wrong. 2. Is idiotic as a proposition as no one who developed BCN claimed that that was the intention, seems pretty ludicrous to suggest it when even Devs didn't use that as an excuse/reason for the premine. "Technically you are not right either." LOL 1) …is still afflicted by suppositions. 2) correct this has never been offered as a reason… they've always stuck to their origin story (kudos btw)… all I'm saying is it's a possible means of thwarting a malicious entity from attacking the network. 1. If you think Smooth's calculations are incorrect, prove it. 2. No it's not, it is a huge security risk. Even if the BCN Devs planned on doing it to thwart attackers, it paints a huge and centralized target for law enforcement--once they had them, they would have the whole network. Intentional or by accident this would be one of the worst ways to secure a coin's anonymity. |
|
|
|
No.
I am arguing that ALL cryptonote coins have a fatal flaw which allows large stakeholders to conspire to de-anon tx's. I am not making any distinctions.
There are 2 solutions to this flaw:
1) ensure fair distro of coins
2) prevent a malicious attacker from getting too many coins by mining them yourself (and holding)
I am NOT saying BCN devs were motivated to premine as 2) suggests, only pointing out it is one of two ways that this attack can be prevented. If there is a 3rd i'd like to hear it.
However both solutions are themselves flawed.
In 2) we have to trust the early stakeholders which is a big ask. In 1) we have to trust the distro will go fairly, which it seldom does, and trust that those accumulating coins have no ill intentions.
That's my point. I think the logic is sound. It's a Catch 22 for CN.
And you're wrong. You are right #2 is problematic at it's core. It breaks the trustless nature of the coins completely. And #1 is meaningless without defining "fair". Fact: It is extremely likely that Monero has had a braod enough distribution that your claims are false. -"extremely likely" is not equal to FACT -XMR speaks of "fair" and "egalitarian". Im not sure if I know what fair is but I know what isn't i.e. any currency where 50% of the coin is owned by less than 100 persons IS NOT fairly distributed. Both 1 and 2 ARE (albeit problematic and imperfect) solutions. Technically you are not right either. 1. Smooth went through the numbers and your assertion isn't in line with facts. IE BCN's anonymity would be more easily broken by a substantial measure and there is no data to suggest that Monero is unfairly distributed, nor could it be as unfairly distributed as it is still being heavily distributed--so talking about them as equal probabilities of anonymity failure is dead wrong. 2. Is idiotic as a proposition as no one who developed BCN claimed that that was the intention, seems pretty ludicrous to suggest it when even Devs didn't use that as an excuse/reason for the premine. |
|
|
|
WITH ALL CRYPTONOTE COINS we have to trust that large holders do not conspire to de-anon our tx's.
80% is not the min required. It's a question of probabilities. A successful de-anon could be achieved with much less.
A successful tracing of a ring signature (1+5) could occur with a grand total of 5 outputs. It just would have an infinitesimal probability of happening, thus can't be used for a successful attack. Yes it is a question of probabilities, so let's answer it. I already posted numbers on the Monero thread where you were pushing this same flawed logic. In the case of 80%, tracing is possible about 32.7% of the time. In the case of 30% control, tracing is possible 0.02% of the time. For 5% control, tracing is possible 0.00003125% of the time. In all of these cases, the attacker has no control over which 32.7%, 0.02%, or 0.00003125% of transactions (all of which use opaque one-time addresses) are traced. 32.7% of transactions being traced provides a potential vector for large scale analysis of the blockchain, that could at least begin to attempt to attach some meaningful identities to these addresses. 0.00003125% does not. As I also explained, an 80% premine is a permanent, passive attack. Once you obtain that large a portion of the coins, you own it forever. By contrast, in a coin with a reasonable years-long-distribution process, even owning 80% of the current supply (40% of the base total in the case of Monero today) would simply dilute down unless you continued to spend money to maintain your share of the newly mined coins. Thus it should be obvious that plausible control concentrations in an actively used currency that was honestly and openly distributed and has a vibrant community present no real concern, while an 80% premine/ninjamine/scam is catastrophic. Math, why you so mean? You're ruining his false comparison. How is he going to unload his "1 BTC" of BCN on the greater fool if you don't play along? |
|
|
|
Networks can grow. And you don't think when the GUI drops this thing isn't going to grow?
It's .50 cents a coin and can be mined on gpu, it has a much, much, much better chance of being more widely distributed than Bitcoin does.
It may have upside within the crypto community still. But beyond that, IMO I don't see it yet (unless something changes that I am not aware of), but everyone is entitled to their own appraisal. There is also a real risk that Monero will be replaced by Blockstream's Confidential Transactions. Confidential transactions are fine (despite the added steps) as long as they are left in the sc, it is the gateways that cause the problem. Monero must grow in liquidity and network, but the core is there. Ct's are not a core application. To put it simply, "Why would I want to use a gold into cash system when there is a perfectly good cash for cash system in place? The "one-coin-to-rule-them-all" argument would stand if Bitcoin wasn't so damn inept at being cash. I guess you gave up on making your own coin and are one of Bitcoin's lackeys now. Maybe they'll give you a nice sidechain for your efforts. The Monero whales own more BTC than XMR. They've said that if their effort causes anonymity to be built into BTC, then their goal was accomplished.
That's not true if 1 xmr = 1 xmr and 1 untainted btc = 1 untainted btc. We're trying to replace the dollar, remember? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
