Can someone explain how to decrypt the .keys file?

Specifically, the load_keys function within the wallet2.cpp in the source. Can explain the logic behind it and the procedure. (Not that fluent in C)

void wallet2::load_keys(const std::string& keys_file_name, const std::string& password)
{
  wallet2::keys_file_data keys_file_data;
  std::string buf;
  bool r = epee::file_io_utils::load_file_to_string(keys_file_name, buf);
  THROW_WALLET_EXCEPTION_IF(!r, error::file_read_error, keys_file_name);

  // Decrypt the contents
  r = ::serialization::parse_binary(buf, keys_file_data);
  THROW_WALLET_EXCEPTION_IF(!r, error::wallet_internal_error, "internal error: failed to deserialize \"" + keys_file_name + '\"');
  crypto::chacha8_key key;
  crypto::generate_chacha8_key(password, key);
  std::string account_data;
  account_data.resize(keys_file_data.account_data.size());
  crypto::chacha8(keys_file_data.account_data.data(), keys_file_data.account_data.size(), key, keys_file_data.iv, &account_data[0]);

.....

I think it's different for different situations. But I found it by searching the entire computer for the name of the .keys file.

Ok, revised the build to now include create new wallet option.
Was having some issues with newly created wallet.keys files not showing up in the same folder as simplewallet. Hopefully it doesn't happen here.





New build: https://github.com/canonsburg/MxNero/tree/master/WpfApplication2/bin/Release/Framework4.5\WpfApplication2.exe

Ah, yes, you are right. It's being saved to my debug folder for some reason.

Ok, wondering if someone can help.

I'm opening simplewallet and creating a new wallet and doing so by using a sendkey(i.e. sendkeyboard) to the process via another program, but when the wallet is created, the .keys file does not show up in the folder.
If I try to run it again, using the same process, I don't generate another wallet but open an existing one, but I still can't see it.

Now, if I manually open simplewallet and enter a wallet with the same name as before, I can create a new wallet and I CAN see the files.

But if I delete this wallet file (which includes .keys, etc) but I again run the program and use sendkey method on simplewallet, I cannot generate a new wallet. I still get the same invisible wallet as before.

I cannot figure out why I can open an invisible .key file. I can generate a new file of same name manually opening simplewallet and using command line but when I run my program, it's somehow "seeing" that invisible file.

No, you can't create a new wallet as of now. Creating a new wallet with simplewallet command line allows you to write down the mnemonic seed but if I add the option to create a new one using this, I'm not sure if I can somehow retrieve that info.

But yes, simplewallet.exe needs to be located in same folder as the .keys files.

Yes, for now, it is set as the automatic default remote daemon.
Maybe I'll add setting later to select other ones, including local host.

Here is a noob's attempt at a GUI wrapper for Monero Simplewallet.

https://github.com/canonsburg/MxNero

You need to install Windows .Net Framework 4.5 (https://www.microsoft.com/en-ca/download/details.aspx?id=30653)

1. Startup screen


2. Select wallet.keys file


3. Enter Password


4. Let wallet sync


5. Account Balance


6. Enter Sending Address, amount, mixin



7. Send!





The executable is located at https://github.com/canonsburg/MxNero/tree/master/WpfApplication2/bin/Release/Framework4.5\WpfApplication2.exe


I've only tested this on my own computer so it may not work for all computers.
This is purely experimental. Use at your own discretion. I take no responsibility for lost funds.

6250% = 62.5

100% = 100/100 = 1

6250% = 6250/100 = 62.5

"%" is dimensionless

Masternode for anonymity is a bad idea, that's why Drk re-branded itself as Dash and continued to add "additional services" because it makes not sense from a purely anonymous standpoint.

Masternode is the equivalent of the "miner" but instead to provide "anonymity". It gets compensated for doing this "work" just like a miner get rewarded to do its work.

But that was before the invention of better anonymous technology such as those used in Monero. In Monero, you get anonymity for free*, basically baked into the protocol. But with Drk, you have to pay Masternodes for such "services" and you get an inferior version.

That's like still riding a horse when we have invented the car. Why would you do it?

That's why Drk needs to re-brand beyond the "anonymous" label because it's charging people to do inferior work.


Second point is the comparison between the Miner and the Masternode.

The miner does work to secure the blockchain but the work that has already been done cannot be used to corrupt the blockchain, meaning that in order to change history, new work has to be done.

But with the Masternode, the work that has been done is providing anonymity can in fact be used to unwind that very same anonymity. It's almost like a "Proof Of Stake equivalent" but in the anonymous dimension, where some staking in the past can somehow be used in the future but in this case providing anonymity in the past can be used to unwind in the future. This itself may not be a bad thing but what make it really bad is that it's a third party, so where you rely on other miners to secure the blockchain but this work cannot be undone, with Masternode, you rely on other nodes to provide anonymity but the work can be undone.

Can't Zoidberg come work for Monero?

Heard that Monero can pay for coders, but have hard time finding competent coders that understand the CN codebase.

When is BTC Integration? Would of thought it come before NodePay.

Still bullish on Monero.

Not a lot of teams can build their own forum software from scratch and the MyMonero webwallet is a well-built implementation that already foreshadows more projects to come, namely a mobile wallet and as well as the SPV wallet. (If you read the Privacy Policy and other pieces of information on the MyMonero site, it makes references to information collected from using services on mobile devices, etc)

Only way to make a coin successful is to build an ecosystem around it. No matter how advanced the technology behind the coin is, if you can't use it, it might as well be useless.

What can you use coins for? To buy things or services.

Think of the market you are after. Ultimate goal is for regular people to use it, but crypto is so advanced that most people are not going to use it at all first. But you can start with people that are familiar with crypto already. The biggest problem is that these people have thousands of other coins to play with and gamble with, so why would they choose this coin? If you can buy things with this coin that you cannot as easily buy with others, then you have big advantage.

But why kind of things do crypto people want to buy? That's the first step in figuring out the market. Find out what people really want to buy and make it really easy to purchase it with this coin.

Take Bitcoin, for the biggest time, the ecosystem of BTC was centered around mining. People could buy mining equipment in the form of BTC and use that to mine more BTC. It was a self-sustaining cycle.

Now take Monero, and there is currently a game called Crypto Kingdom, which uses XMR as its currency and the only way to play the game is to buy things in the video game using XMR. This is creating an ecosystem in which to use the currency. Whether it succeeds or not, who knows, but it attempted to create a market where a "useless" currency could actually be used, because without any real use for a coin, it really is useless. (same is true for BTC)

Now why would people use NODE? Without something special, it is just another among thousands of coins. But if NodePay is really as it says, and you could actually get it to work and if you start building out the infrastructure of a real market, where you set up environments where real goods and services (e.g. ASIC = physical, Video Game = services) can be bought easily using Fiat. Part of the reason why people don't like getting paid in crypto is not that they hate crypto, but because it is extremely volatile. It can be +20% one day but -45% the next. With a reliable way of getting paid via NodePay, stores would be more likely to use NODE infrastructure.

Of course this means that at first NodeCoin would not be as popular since people using NODE would be using the Fiat option, but as adoption grows from the use of NodePay, Nodecoin would gain traction since it uses the same platform.


In short, getting the technical parts done (i.e. coding, legal issues via NodeBank, etc) is important, and marketing is also important, but creating a viable ecosystem by creating a market inside NODE is really important. So the question is why type of market will be most effective? Selling physical items, or some kind of service such as web services, video game, etc.

1. Creation of the MEW Online Monero Gambling site, with net profits going towards the development of Monero.

2. The MEW Monero Lottery, where weekly draws are held and net profits go towards Monero development.

3. The MEW Monero Options Exchange, a exchange where options contracts based on Monero can be bought and sold. Net profits towards development of Monero.

Can't some type of token be created to help fund the development of Monero?

Since pre-mine, insta-mine, fast-mine, whatever-mine are off the table, how about creating a separate "token", from which a substantial amount is awarded to the development of Monero.

Since the MEW is "independent" from the core Monero, they can issue a "MEW Token", maybe some type of PoS fork (NXT, NODE, etc --- why another type of crypto, because you don't want to be a competing type) from which an acceptable percentage is awarded to the development of Monero. The MEW can also distribute the remaining Tokens as some type of promotion (free for all?), and establish some type of market which allows it to trade for XMR. The funds will then allow for the development of XMR but without the nastiness that goes with it and this way, the XMR emission and "social contract" remains untouched.

Why is the focus on the anonymity in Monero? Shouldn't the focus be on other things BCX alluded to earlier.






I believe there is a difference is opinion on how successful an attack is between the XMR devs and BCX in regards to hashrate and diff as seen below. BCX called out but was rebuffed.

Someone needs to check the source code too but I believe the whitepaper's notation is screwed up.

The paper defines private key a and public Key A through the transformation A = a*G, where G is the Hash function.
So in this case, the multiplication step is to denote the hash mapping.

In the paper, it also defined the key image as I = x * Hp(P)

Now this seems like it is the multiplication of private key x with the hash to the public key P.

But I think this is actually I = x * Hp(P) = x*G2, where G2 like above is another hash function so this is just a hash of private key x using some deterministic hash function that is dependent on public key P (Hp(P)).

Yes, you failed the checkpoint test so the old blockchain.bin needs to be deleted and replaced with the correct one.

But don't resync from zero, download the bootstrapped version of the blockchain.bin from the OP.

The evidence seems to point to CryptoNote and Bytecoin as part of the same scheme but were made to appear independent. (Note: the CryptoNote technology itself is impressive, but their ethics are apparent not)

The line of thinking is, in order to carry out the scam, Bytecoin was created and chosen to take the fall so that in the event that the whole thing crashed and burned (and it did), there would be separation between CryptoNote and Bytecoin. Thus Bytecoin can be seen as a malicious off-branch that independently developed the coin and the massive scam, but CryptoNote is the innocent provider of technology and watched on the sidelines as its brilliant technology was misused. But people were not convinced by either the Bytecoin scam or the CryptoNote independence.

Now not accusing BBR as a off-branch of the CN/BCN scam and coming for the same family but let's say that Zoidberg was involved in CryptoNote, why would his involvement, even if BBR does not look "scammy" be of concern?

Because that's how the scam was originally suppose to work. Create a scam hoping that it would work (Bytecoin), but when it failed, create a new "clean" coin to replace it (Bitmonero), while maintaining clean hands (CryptoNote independence).

But the community didn't buy that, and Monero was the result. BBR would be like Bitmonero, a "clean" coin designed to be "fair" after the scam but was controlled by the original "scammers".