Thanks for the motivation.
 

Let's talk in 2016.


I did not do an ad hominem attack.

jl777 was trying to politely coax fluffy to take it seriously and give me a little bit of appreciation.

Look I don't care any more about the 5 BTC. I don't like to be disrespected when I am giving up my valuable time to help. Sorry.

Well I on the way home from dinner I was thinking to put my 5 BTC into XMR then give them the mitigation fix I discovered. But fluffypony is not a troll, he is a core developer for XMR.

I suppose you monitor every tx on the blockchain and sure all trades go through centralized exchanges.  


And you may not get any evidence. I am contemplating forsaking the 5 BTC and sending all my help to BBR only under the agreement they not release it to XMR under after the attack begins. I need to consult with BBR first and also waiting to see if your group can reign you in or not.


I am glad you believe in centralized crypto-currency.

I guess you missed the entire point that PoW is decentralized consensus and autonomous trading.



No shit Sherlock. That is the entire point.



Well ain't that nice. While I am slaving away and barely got any sleep in order to try to save YOUR INVESTORS, you are wiggling your toes in the sandbox.

There are nice beaches here too and many beautiful people to go hang out with. I am sacrificing that. But never mind.

While at dinner, I had a significant epiphany on how to amplify the Sybil attack. I am relaying to the developers.

I have a theory to explain BCX's behavior.

BCX could possibly have a communication channel with those who did that sophisticated attack on Monero recently. No one knows who had the resources and insight to do that sophisticated attack. Someone or group has been very busy with educating themselves on the flaws in the CN code base.

Afaics BCX has specifically avoided mentioning BBR. And this appears to be very intentional. I am not discussing motives just noting observances.

I can't estimate the probability that he has an exploit or which components (Time Warp, amplification, crack keys) of the exploit he has proven to himself. Here is an alternative theory for you. He had to purchase the exploit from someone and had not yet paid. And he was trying to negotiate for a better price by creating competition for the exploit. This would explain all of his bizarre behavior in spades.

He wouldn't purchase from me because I don't have the complete attack (certainly not the time warp). But I can make the attack impotent if I can mitigate the anonymity amplification. God handed me something. Amazing. He waited for me to reveal aspects of the attack which forces the value of the exploit down, thus also forcing his supplier to demand the 72 hour window.

What he may be trying to do is prevent the supplier of the exploit from using it. He may have tried to stall the supplier and giving devs a chance to fix. The supplier may have the exploit but not the GPU farm. Thus BCX has this control over the situation, but has to balance it.

You see folks, I do play 4D chess.

The Monero guys are making it worse:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg8910864#msg8910864

We were supposed to be discussing it in private, then TacoTime starts talking tech in public, so I was compelled to reply in public. This forced BCX to push them faster to a fix. And now you've got fluffy committing another epic fail above.

Facts are not ad hominem.


Decentralized exchanges can't be suspended. Also you prevent your own investors from bailing out. By saying that now, you are telling them to stampede out of the coin now.

You had better retract that pronto.


And you then unwind all the legitimate trades done after that hurting those who sold early in the attack.

You just can't seem to grasp it is a major event and not something to be so smug about.

I mean specifically on my revelation that the two equations can be correlated. Those posts above do not.


That won't stop him from trading the XMR to BTC or otherwise dumping them before you can rewind what he did.

One thing he can do is mix them with other legitimate coins on the XMR block chain before you can fix, thus you have no idea which txs to unwind and which not to.

Geez man you boast that y'all are knowledgeable about the crypto but you fail a basic test on knowledge about your own coin. Lol.

Careful not to push me more and more to want to work with BBR. I am observing carefully how we interact on this issue. And believe me, I am one developer to reckon with. My skills far exceed zoid.

That is why fixing the anonymity amplification is an other vector we can pursue. At least we can see and measure that now.

And that is why my contribution may have been so valuable (still to be determined).

The two are related by the fact that the alleged ability to crack sent private keys isn't enabled until the anonymity of the ring signatures is broken by the correlation of the sender. And TW is needed to rewind the blockchain to re-spend those cracked. Again I reiterate and concur that we don't know if private keys can be cracked and have good reason to be very skeptical. Normally it is implausible to factor P=xG mod l where P is the public key and x is the private key. If it were, all popular public key crypto would be at risk. However the difference in this case is that the CN ring signatures create another equation, I=xH(P) mod l. Normally that equation can't be correlated to P=xG because we don't know which P from the ring inputs is the Pi where i == s. But when we break the anonymity with the amplification, then we can correlate those two equations. Now I don't know if there is any trick to combine the factoring of those two equations such that it becomes plausible. The second equation adds information, so my math intuition tells me there is a risk.

Gmaxell hasn't posted. Have you all heard from him on this?


He has stated he has a GPU farm ready and only needs < 20% of the hashrate to accomplish an attack. He is only one of two guys (the other being ArtFortz who apparently taught him how to TW attack) that ever successfully performed a TW attack on any coin in the past.


The TW attack issue can probably be fixed in any case. But there is a possibility that the anonymity issue can't be fixed. This is what BCX said in the prior closed thread and I am seeing some possibility he might be correct. I need to spend some time trying to characterize the amplification.


Are you telling XMR investors you don't care if BCX steals their money and you will just fix it after the fact?

Sorry I know BCX hasn't given us any proof so normally we should ignore him, but this is BCX a guy who has done it before.

You mean trademark. And they did trademark "e-gold" but afaics not "egold".

Trademarks are protected by use which is too similar and could cause confusion. But afaik, e-gold is shutdown and thus there is no confusion or harm that can come to users or principals of e-gold from the use "egold".

Also the registered trademark may not be global.

Also we don't know if the owners of the trademark are non-negotiable.

Apparently he is still in charge and still interested in seeing the name used for electronic money.

http://blog.e-gold.com/posts_by_douglas_jackson/

http://www.justice.gov/usao/md/news/2014/Over56.6MillionForfeitedInE-GoldAccountsInvolvedInCriminalOffenses.html

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-29/e-gold-founder-launches-new-gold-backed-currency

http://www.cnet.com/news/judge-spares-e-gold-directors-jail-time/

He apparently hasn't shut down this use of the name:

http://www.egold.net.au/

TheUniporn posted the following link then deleted his post before I could quote it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222998.msg3596721#msg3596721

In that post I mentioned all the details above except for the detail that Rpietila and I were doing a trade on 10oz bars from Academy. Apparently he realized this and deleted his post. Any way, your Google fu is admirable.

And since I will probably be one of the first to realize a fix is coming, who do you think will be buying the dip

Rpietila will be able to verify it is me, when I say, "remember the 10oz machined bars from Academy". No one else can possibly know that episode.

At one time I owned 18,000oz of silver and still I have never touched one of those machined bars. How sad. This is the cost of living in the Philippines.

Agreed. Was just trying to give investors a calm mind.

I agree if you could eliminate any chance for time warp attack then any risk from cracked private keys that have already been spent, is thus mitigated.

The anonymity is still important because even if BCX would no longer have the economic motivation to attack if such a TW attack was nullified, the NSA might still want to destroy the anonymity using Sybil amplification. And note they could do so entirely silently.

And if we mitigate the anonymity attack, we also mitigate the alleged ability to crack private keys.

Note afaics the alleged attack can only crack private keys that have been spent. And that is why the Time Warp attack is needed to rewind the block chain to re-spend those to the attacker. Again we have not confirmed nor disproved that already spent private keys can or can not be cracked. I hear some mathematicians are skeptical and they have good reason to be skeptical.

I am not sure that is true. But thanks for the appreciation.

This is not my altcoin involved herein. I am trying to get the trolls to see that they are irrational. But now I am going to stop this back and forth, as I have made it clear enough and this is wasting time.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=88197

And I can't reply from that account, because theymos closed it as an exceptional favor to me upon my request last week.

I was trying to STFU so I could go do more coding on a "Bitcoin killer" altcoin I am working on. So I requested to close my account so I wouldn't be tempted to be dragged into wasting my time talking.

Good point there is no proof yet that it isn't possible.

Note I have not assessed that the cracking the private keys is possible. I just asked that we have to look for the literature on cracks where there are two simultaneous equations. I've seen nothing from smooth's mathematicians yet on this.

I have accessed that Sybil attacking the anonymity is likely amplified. And appears smooth is leaning that way too, but no final conclusion yet.