And here's this:
Every transaction involves two keys: a public spend key, and a public view key. The destination for an output in a transaction is actually a one-time public key computed from these two keys. The formula used for calculating this is: P = Hs(rA)G + B (where Hs is a hash function, r is a random, G is a basepoint, A is the public view key, B is the public spend key).
When scanning incoming transactions every transaction is scanned to see if is for "you". To do this, your wallet computes P' = Hs(aR)G + B (following the same definitions as before, except that a is your private view key, and R = rG, which is packed elsewhere into the transaction). Notice that this only requires your private view key and your public spend key, and this check is immutable and cannot be faked. You cannot receive transactions and identify them without the corresponding private view key.
In order to spend the funds you have to compute a one-time private spend key for that output using Hs(aR) + b (where b is your private spend key), so it's impossible to spend the funds without it. Literally that's all the cryptography you need to understand, but I guess when your aim is to deflect attention from an instamined scam it helps to call it a "mountain of cryptography".
From this we can also determine that it is possible to enumerate all the view keys, but as the key space is 2256 it's not possible unless you have more processing power than all the energy in the universe, and more time than the universe has existed.
The upshot of this is that an auditor only needs your private view key to identify all of your transactions. On the other hand, with Bitcoin and its clones you would typically need to sign every address you own (or for something like Electrum you'd be able to provide your master public key). In some ways the private view key is like the Electrum master public key, in that with both you can view every transaction for that account, and there's no way to fake that data. As with any audit, though, you could always have a second wallet for your secret transactions, but typically auditors would uncover that through other mechanisms.
The claim that the auditor has to "see the balances in the sending addresses" is ludicrous - if I, as a company, receive a payment from Microsoft Inc. do my auditors go and ask Microsoft for their bank balance?
|
|
|
|
Apparently the new smear campaign drk troll is running is that a private ledger has no value because it can't be audited. I explained (linked) the viewkey, but he insists that it still can't be audited and get this response (accounting yuck):
Every transaction involves two keys: a public spend key, and a public view key. The destination for an output in a transaction is actually a one-time public key computed from these two keys. The formula used for calculating this is: P = Hs(rA)G + B (where H s is a hash function, r is a random, G is a basepoint, A is the public view key, B is the public spend key). When scanning incoming transactions every transaction is scanned to see if is for "you". To do this, your wallet computes P' = Hs(aR)G + B (following the same definitions as before, except that a is your private view key, and R = rG, which is packed elsewhere into the transaction). Notice that this only requires your private view key and your public spend key, and this check is immutable and cannot be faked. You cannot receive transactions and identify them without the corresponding private view key.In order to spend the funds you have to compute a one-time private spend key for that output using Hs(aR) + b (where b is your private spend key), so it's impossible to spend the funds without it. Literally that's all the cryptography you need to understand, but I guess when your aim is to deflect attention from an instamined scam it helps to call it a "mountain of cryptography". From this we can also determine that it is possible to enumerate all the view keys, but as the key space is 2 256 it's not possible unless you have more processing power than all the energy in the universe, and more time than the universe has existed. The upshot of this is that an auditor only needs your private view key to identify all of your transactions. On the other hand, with Bitcoin and its clones you would typically need to sign every address you own (or for something like Electrum you'd be able to provide your master public key). In some ways the private view key is like the Electrum master public key, in that with both you can view every transaction for that account, and there's no way to fake that data. As with any audit, though, you could always have a second wallet for your secret transactions, but typically auditors would uncover that through other mechanisms. The claim that the auditor has to "see the balances in the sending addresses" is ludicrous - if I, as a company, receive a payment from Microsoft Inc. do my auditors go and ask Microsoft for their bank balance? Beautiful. |
|
|
|
The criticism, if factual, should denounce every coin I just claimed was faulty, therefore I should join the debate and end this ring-signature conspiracy. |
|
|
|
|
Since Dash supporters have recently started a FUD campaign that Ring Signature coins can't be audited due to their private nature (even using a viewkey),and therefore they are useless as currency; I've decided to start a thread to hash it out publicly.
*added 4/20: "FUD", "(even using a viewkey)", "and therefore they are useless as currency;"
|
|
|
|
|
What, no XCoin rebranded as Darkcoin rebranded as Dashcoin? It's like three degrees of Bacon.
|
|
|
|
 I like making logical fallacies and assert that all the blockchain must be public without making the obvious point that only your received and spent outputs are necessary to audit just as the case in international business when the auditor will in no way have jurisdiction to audit foreign accounts. I also fail to see how my faulty argument applies to darksend if it is truly anonymous. So never mind the obvious comparison that the viewkey acts as a receipt verified mathematically by the network. |
|
|
|
Apparently the new smear campaign drk troll is running is that a private ledger has no value because it can't be audited. I explained (linked) the viewkey, but he insists that it still can't be audited and get this response (accounting yuck): No. It doesn't mean that because an auditor wants to verify the origin of the funds and therefore has to see the balances in the sending addresses as well. Ever heard of "double entry bookkeeping" ? That alludes to the fact that there are two or more balances involved in a transaction, not one. A great tribute to bitcoin's success as 'money' is the fact that their is public consensus that all the recent bitcoin "heists" of late (Bitstamp, etc) were in fact thefts and not somebody 'fooling the system'. That consensus is only achaived by virtue of the public blockchain and the fact that EVERY SINGLE ADDRESS is auditable. Not public by choice but public by force. That is the very same consensus that gives the balance in an address its value - and thereby turns it into money. Privacy is supported by the private blockchain. The phrase "public-private key encryption" alludes to the fact that one key is supposed to be public and the other private. In cryptocurrency therefore, we maximise the anonymity of the private key by maximising the fungibility of the public addresses - not my making them invisible but my making them more fungible, a very different thing. You can't go burying the public blockchain in a mountain of cryptography. What you've got is an encrypted bookkeeping system for banks. Go the Ripple route and try selling it to them  The only info on the viewkey I can find is on the MEW site--is there more info available yet? Or did I miss something on the main site? A good ELI2.5 would be good to counter attack xdrkdashians. I'd really like to have just a detailed link that I can attach; Toknormal's (and some of his colleagues) tactic is to start a blitz of criticism (some ridiculously inane) to exhaust their opponent--too many moving targets at once. I've learned to just restate their argument using humor and pointing to obvious fallacies without engaging any specific scenario (I don't ever indulge their hypotheticals; it gets real ridiculous real fast), but try limit them to their most inane assertion (there are many) and let people judge for themselves how ridiculous they sound. And if they cry about a point (instamine) I keep hitting it the way a general or a boxer hits on an opponent's weakness until the opponent quits or is defeated. |
|
|
|
Thanks, never heard that one.  I think it's a carry over from Christianity--the faithful quashing instincts by (faith) will and self-flagellation. Then the psychoanalysts come along and start labeling everything abnormal and telling you your mom's too hot, and then you get to the medicated culture and the doctrine of political correctness. Wait until we fully integrate into cyborg age--as Nick Land said, "Nothing human makes it out of the near-future."
--Muuuhhhhahhhaahaa  Don't want to go offtopic here, but isn't David a transhumanist? Maybe destiny has greater plans for Monero than we currently envision  edit: It was nice to see a small price increase on Monero b-day, I confess I bought a little Confirming, David is a transhumanist. If you get into the Internet of things, many describe that it will be one network that the things and finance and data will share, so a way to keep much of that private seems necessary (and this is speculation, so back on topic); you will want billions of things to communicate seamlessly and be able to transact values seamlessly without third parties being able to snoop on things like deliveries, contract details, ect, and while they wouldn't be able to gain specifics off of a public blockchain (other than assets transacted and address--ATM), they would be able to gather intel and most likely be able to make trivial calculations that would be useful in contract negotiations, pricing, and wage comparisons. I'm leaving this as vague as I can because the future has a way of not acting like we suspect, but it's not hard to imagine why a private network would be beneficial for individuals, companies and even governments--I'm pretty sure no government wants to fund covert military actions on a public ledger. And no individual wants his escort service billing history in the hands of his soon to be ex-wife. |
|
|
|
^^ its all an experiment constantly tested through the iterations of time. Cryptocurencies is one such. The fact that the state, and the US as the (I guess?) most statiest of the states, hasn't come down and totally quashed the thing, imo, gives credence to the fact that the modern era is open to adaptable forms of making shit happen. Pragmatism, not idealism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laoq1eeIUxQ(thats a link to fitter happier by radiohead btw) Thanks, never heard that one. I think it's a carry over from Christianity--the faithful quashing instincts by (faith) will and self-flagellation. Then the psychoanalysts come along and start labeling everything abnormal and telling you your mom's too hot, and then you get to the medicated culture and the doctrine of political correctness. Wait until we fully integrate into cyborg age--as Nick Land said, "Nothing human makes it out of the near-future." --Muuuhhhhahhhaahaa |
|
|
|
The United States is found on the principle that the people have a duty to not allow tyranny. Clearly the current living conditions (in the United States) are far more tyrannical than the ones that forced the independence in 1776, and are listed in the Declaration. If I was American, I would be among the true patriots, following not only the spirit, but also the letter of the Declaration of Independence in not allowing tyranny in my life, and a good place to start is where it is most apparent, in the realm of money.
This is hyperbolic rhetoric, in my opinion, especially with the parenthetical qualification "(in the United States)". In 1776 the people living in the soon-to-be states were paying fealty to a king thousands of miles away, having to let his soldiers stay in their homes, living with no representation, slavery, indentured servitude, and oppression of women, natives, and imported slave labor, etc. Maybe if you left off the qualification you could argue that the USA is now oppressing/tyrannizing people in other countries, but I'd still call that quite a stretch. So you are saying the USA is not tyrannical? Pretty much, yes, especially within the context of people living within the United States. I know that's not a popular opinion among the uber-libertarians and crypto-anarchists that tend to be attracted to cryptocurrency, but it's just my opinion. Considering the list of world-powers/super-powers over the last few hundred years, the USA is probably the least tyrannical (maybe if you call the amalgam of countries that make-up the EU a super-power they would be a bit less "tyrannical"). This is so off-topic--yeah, breaking the rules  America's more like a "lead by the carrot, not by the whip" kinda tyranny. Want a great job, well spend ten years of your life in school and then you can brag to your friends that you made it--and by made it I mean you're working 80 hours a week to pay off the debt that gave you the job you work 80 hours a week at--where can I sign-up? It's like people who want to give up freedoms to save themselves from the terrorist--you're more likely to die from faulty wiring than a terrorist attack (I just made that up), but people will throw away their liberties because they're afraid and no one in power will tell them otherwise. People can be manipulated by the symbol of success, safety, or a bunch of other crap--hard to call it tyranny (except the unconstitutional data collecting--that's some tyrannical shit), but most of it is more motivation than it is gun in your face get in line and do as I say tyranny. Though Zizek (I hate Fraudian thought, but Zizek's cool) made the great observation that western democracy is like a dad who asks you to get ready for church; he never forces you but you do it because the threat's implied. |
|
|
|
You have no interest in cryptocurrencies.
I have no clue What do you expect from people who entertain the idea that privacy has any value. Or that making the private half of the blockchain "disappear" is a solution to privacy. Or that providing a viewkey that another user(s) can use to verify the transaction data trustlesly via the blockchain (that's been verified by math!) for one or all of their transactions equates to an "audit". Or who think that now we have a financial model with total accountability (NSA Rules!) and transparency (which still exists via the viewkey), people are going to want to go back to opacity where no-one can see sh*t that's none of their business and that's a breeding ground for scams, heists and corrupt technology--like Evan's instamine and the masternode reward system. (Do I sound enough like a concern troll? I'm really working on my technique). That's the real scam here - not some "instamine" that Evan claims was an accident though that doesn't actually change what happened which was an instamine. 500,000 coins in a few hours is an instamine in most people's book, but maybe if I put quotaion marks around it like Farley's motivational speaker people will think I'm being authentic and mocking the "elitist Monerians". You need a better editor and to learn how the viewkey works--bitcoin has the same protocol available as Peter Todd pointed out when one of the xdarkdashians went full retard on r/bitcoin. I get the fact that you're shill, but anyone who gives a shit is gonna research and realize that you're spouting off an infographic with no clear understanding of how the viewkey or protocols work--those that can't or won't research, you can keep. Stupid just gets in the way. |
|
|
|
The State of Monero in its first anniversary, April 18, 2015
Risto Pietilä, Operational Executive in MEW - Monero Economy Workgroup
Beautiful Birthday Present.
Thank you, Risto, I stumbled onto your thread one day and haven't looked back. Thank you Devs for working through thick and thin. And thank you community for being the best out there. Is it true there will be cake later? |
|
|
|
In the oven and done.... You're the one having difficulty "rationalizing' how any moron could call an instamine a fair launch and a good for the invested community;) |
|
|
|
I'm glad scams and privacy are a joke to you. They're not to me.
You might have a point if you had created the value and he had "instamined" it. As it his, he created the value and everybody else benefited. So give the faux outrage a break. Markets will sort out how much it matters. BULLSHIT! He instamined it and then claimed it was an accident. But failed to relaunch it to avoid the the scam label. It IS an instamine--don't try rationalize it differently. |
|
|
|
There's nothing I despise more than a moanero troll in the crypto world. I don't think they realise there damaging the crypto world as a whole with their non stop fud. I mean if I was fresh money there's no way I'd invest in any coin...
Compassion troll, we can see your post history and deduce that you take any criticism of X/DRK/DSH as a threat to all of crypto. Either refute it or own it, but don't try to gloss over it with some BS of how it hurts the community. It hurts Dash, an instamined failure of privacy, that could do more harm by inviting people to use their Jerry-rigged Amway-nodes which have as much business of being in crypto as a lift kit on a Ferrari. |
|
|
|
I want to publicly confront him
LoL ! You should get yourself a uniform Or maybe a cheap suit to sell snake oil like Evan has. (And be proud of yourself for supporting a coin with a fair mine and a ledger that is as public as YOU want it to be) How can Monero be both anonymous and transparent at the same time? Monero is "private, optionally transparent". By default, you can get very little information from Monero (you can know that a transaction occurred, but not whence, how much and whither). But you can decide to give one particular person access to your balance by providing this person a viewkey, a specific string. For the moment, support is limited to MyMonero.com-created addresses, since this wallet is the only one able to take advantage of viewkeys and MyMonero doesn't yet allow reading a non-MyMonero.com-created address (such as an address created with simplewallet). But later, support will be extended to any wallet and addresses. Another optional transparency feature, hinted at in the original whitepaper but not implemented yet, is auditable addresses. Finally, we have also considered other methods of allowing for transparency on specific transactions. People want to be able to selectively prove payments on demand and generally open up to transparency in a controlled manner, without everything being linkable and traceable to the rest of their transactions. See also this comment by Riccardo Spagni/fluffypony on reddit: I'd argue that there is another option. If I may demonstrate: Monero currently implements cryptographically sound transactional unlinkability and untraceability. However, it allows individuals to (completely optionally) give their "view key" to a select few, or to the government, or even publish it somewhere. A view key can be used to reveal all transactions for an account. This means that companies could still be audited, charities could make their accounts publicly visible, and parents could see what their kids are spending the money on. Additionally, details of a transaction can be revealed via a similar mechanism on a per-transaction basis. So the option I alluded to earlier is this: there already exists a cryptocurrency that has privacy by default, transparency optional. Governments wouldn't need to outlaw it, as law enforcement could still be given the tools to investigate illicit transactions (although they'd need to ask for the person's viewkey first, but that's no different than asking for someone's password to reveal incriminating evidence on their computer). I'm glad scams and privacy are a joke to you. They're not to me. If it wasn't an instamine (accident or otherwise), he would have relaunched it to avoid the scam-tag. He didn't--he chose to keep his mining reward and then rename the coin twice. He earned it, so he can keep it. Dash was instamined. And no one can justify calling it any other way without lying through their teeth. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
