I respect your right to believe what ever you want to believe, no matter how far removed from reality it may be.

I don't need to brag about who I am, my knowledge, etc.. Have fun.

I had already 3 names and registered the domain names, two were 4 letters and one was 5 letters. But unfortunately I forgot to login to the free email account (which expires after 60 or 90 days) and may have lost access to the passwords for the names! This is an example of myself being overloaded. But I am not sure yet if I lost the names (and BTC1). Will check that later today.

This means I need to turn over some control to others. I can't handle all the details of managing names, passwords, etc, and also have my head deep in research and coding, as well community communication. It is too much for one person to handle. Nothing would ever get done at a fast pace with everything being done by one person.

I am not going to spill the beans now and write down a description of all my innovations. Any way I believe there was already sufficient angel investment $ available. I was trying to spread around the angel opportunity to more individuals, so it doesn't get too concentrated. Also I was trying to find a way to get my friend rpietila to invest and he could not comply with the computer security, so I had to change strategy about the communication with the community. So I don't need to say more and more about the vaporware. But at least yesterday I tried to display my expertise over in the altcoin forum to give some inkling that I am legit.

Some more of my recent posts which that hint at my knowledge and that my innovations may be ahead of others in the altcoin world:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151565.msg12135844#msg12135844

(there is a discussion that starts at the above post between smooth and I wherein I make my case that launch by mining is not a panacea)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1152106.msg12134345#msg12134345

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151565.msg12134246#msg12134246

It is a free market. He can do that if he wants.

The only valid (but subjective) complaint is whether people feel he is harping too much on others' rights to do various forms of not entirely transparent leverage or even (in his opinion are) half-arsed technologies.

I do agree with smooth's implied point that there are gradations of transparency. And his dealings seem to be on the more transparent side than for example those who actually lie about the emission curve. But I also think others have a point about launch is never 100% transparent and harping on other communities is for example myopic of the fact that DarkCoin helped to build the demand for anonymity which is why Monero has the market cap it does.

All of us stand on the shoulders of other events, even those which were "scammy".

I just my entire life hated wasting time on non-productive shit like fighting over who threw sand first. Better to move on. Even with my ex and losing my eye to some thugs, I just moved on. Even the husband who murdered my sister and got away without jail time and even called my mother on her birthday to tell her he remarried, both my mom and I moved on (although my mother and motherly instinct has suffered severe depression and compulsive disorder due to this loss).

Life is a box of chocolates. Keep sampling the next one.

Now let's go have some fun creating new stuff. I at age 50 am still like a kid with an erector set.    

See ya...

P.S. my mother said I am the only kid she knew who dissassembled all his toys instead of playing with them. I said, "mom that is playing with them". Maybe here I find some of my peers who were not my neighbors.

I'll just say that for example mining is not that transparent, because you don't know who has figured out how to rent AWS, etc. Renting nearly always makes more sense than buying hardware. You don't know who has optimized code, even GPU optimized, etc.

As for Darkcoin, it did do one very important thing. It showed there is demand for anonymous coins. That is why I did not try to kill it when I had the chance to when the community was small. Because I am AnonyMint and I have been pushing for greater anonymity since 2013.

But even I didn't have time to mess with that. I was aware of Bitmonero and then Monero. I was following CN since a long time before that. And that is why I know that the accusation that it wasn't published earlier is wrong. I had seen the white paper a long time before that and unfortunately ignored it because I wasn't knowledgeable enough yet. Unfortunately I can't remember exactly when someone had sent that to me (was is 2013 ), so I never mentioned this until now.

My point remains that launch by mining is not a panacea. There are different ways to do different things.

I like diversity and free markets (even the right for people to harm themselves if they do insist).

smooth I agree that with mining for everyone who knows Linux command lines and that crap, then it is a transparent market. But I think that is not all that transparent, because many people don't know how to configure that stuff.

So in some respect, it is form of instamining (or what ever term you want to invent to describe a non-transparent launch).

My point is that there isn't a perfect launch ever. At least I am announcing mine wide so it is more transparent. I wasn't even aware of AEON until yesterday. I have no time to fiddle with mining it.

sidhujag, it is true that I have frequently insinuated about technology I am working on.

P.S. okay I will butt out and let you enjoy receiving all the backlash from those you assign the label "trolls". I am more on your side of this, but I think I would back off if I were you, but I am not you.

First of all the creator of the thread asked me to post a link to mine (when I was debating with him about masternodes on page 6).

I ignored his request.

But then I got interested in what you are doing with AEON. Then I noticed your receipt of a 400K coins donation to be the sole and lead dev for AEON might be a counter-example to my claim that asking for donations [hasn't proven economical afaics, e.g. Monero which lacks funding for development as you noted] instead of honestly selling an ICO that can be mathematically proven to not be a scam in favor of the devs because of the large donations you received to be a lead dev for CN coin given you are already prominently connected with another CN coin.

So I asked and received a response from the person who made half of that donation to you.

What I am saying is that the cost of expertise is not free. Just as you posted the following cartoon upthread:


And that mining a CN clone with nearly no hashrate because nobody is interested and then donating to acquire a new lead dev (yourself) who is coming from the leading coin of that CN technology (Monero), who can then of course use his clout to bring interest to coin that nobody was interested in before (among a sea of CN clones) is just another form of instamining and a political way of obfuscating nepotism. That may not have been your motivation. I dunno. But yet people could see it that way.

If you want real innovation, then you need to compete and invest. I don't work in Communism. And I am also not hiding behind yet another obfuscation of instamining. As far as I can see, what I am proposing to do is transparent, and thus no one is being lied to. They can invest or not invest. Their free will choice.

I think that perspective is relevant in this thread.

That you are doing experimentation in AEON is fine. And even awarding yourself 400k coins from the instamine (low hashrate) is fine. Just please don't be dogmatic against others who are trying to find a way to get some innovation funded and to market.

I say that with respect for all the help you've given me and all the discussions we've had. And seems you've always been logical and fair at least all my dealings with you. You've even gone out of your way to be more fair with me (e.g. the BTC2.5 during the BCX incident).

The case for DarkCoin/Dash being excessively instamined seems to be quite strong as far as I know. The case that Monero was excessively instamined seems to be weaker but still plausible.

I think you have a right to point out those things but you can see that if you harp on it too much, there will be justifiable backlash. Nobody wants to be a slave to another person's dogma.

I guess what bothers me is the righteousness holier than thou. We can look at the 400K of AEON (even if tied up with community obligations) as a form of an instamine. We don't know of any potential back door conversations with the donator. We don't even know who you are.

That doesn't mean I am accusing you. I am just saying we don't know. And so I think while you do a service to point of egregious instamines and sloppy technology, you also need to allow that nothing is perfect. And some people might be sincere in the way they are trying to do it.

I tend to agree now in hindsight that Evan is probably an opportunistic and appears he was lying. I haven't studied deeply but I've seen enough to assume that was probably the case.

And I agree that CoinJoin and masternodes have probably added zilch in terms of advancing cryptocurrency. Instead they probably retarded the necessary developments in anonymity. Luckily some others of us were not standing still while most people were wasting their money and time on that crap. But you won't see me over in the Dash thread slamming that large community. I will try to entice them over with sweet words and the opportunity to become wealthy.

And soon you will see the fruits...

Okay I appreciate this. I hear it straight from the horse's mouth.

So now I am going to say to you that if you want to stop messing around with Cryptonote which I will soon obliterate, and if you would like to get wealthy while also helping to change the world, then you do have an opportunity to invest in what I am doing much earlier than the ICO at a significant advantage.

It is fine and dandy to say that what you did was an act of unselfishness, but I would like to you explain to me how my 2.5 years of studying and working in these forums to acquire the vast knowledge which is on display in my posts yesterday all over the altcoin subforum (for which I've been paid roughly BTC20 by smooth, rpietila, and jl777) and the fact that I need some funds in order to complete development of my shocking innovations (which I am growing increasingly confident will turn the entire cryptocurrency world upside down ... mark my word) should come only from donations for a coin that doesn't yet exist?

Some people act like the term "private placement" was never invented or has no place in the world of investing.

I replied to the new zerotime white paper:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1152106.msg12134345#msg12134345

Okay I've digested the white paper. I appreciate john-conner providing more details. That was the honorable and helpful action.

Unfortunately afaics, there are elementary attack vectors that he has not addressed in this white paper:

• No cost to being a peer, thus a Sybil attack on nodes in general. The adversary could insert a unlimited nodes if he wants to in order to dominate voting.
• How to squelch DoS attacks on the vote? A node which always votes against consensus can't be distinguished from one voting honestly since lock conflicts result in an indeterminate vote.
• He employs a Bellagio Algorithm to avoid gaming the selection of which nodes to poll for votes, so this removes the reputation weights of Skycoin's consensus, but it doesn't address the spamming of total node count nor the spamming of the lock conflict.
• Nodes are not paid for voting. If they receive bribes from the double-spender, the algorithm has no defense other than it hopes that 50% of the nodes in the network are not on-the-dole.
• Lock request spamming or DoS attacks. Are transaction fees hardcoded for the entire network?? Preset constants are anti-decentralization.

Also this algorithm requires the entire network to see all the transactions which of course won't scale without centralization, so if he is trying to enable real-time microtransactions (1 second confirmations) which could explode transaction volumes up to the 100,000s or more per second then he has a problem. Refer to the GavinCoin fork debate.

Do you think the success of the donation fund is a reasonable retort to my assertions that I needed to ICO to get a coin well funded to do massive development post launch?

I would argue AEON coin holders are desperate given Monero in the distant lead and so many CN clones. So I will argue it is not an applicable comparison. Sorry that is off topic here...

Re: the masternode discussion on page 6 of this thread, the fundamental problem with masternodes is they are not dumb intermediaries (i.e. as in the end-to-end principle that guides the design of internet protocols) and thus they can violate expected behavior. And example is their use in 0-conf transactions:

https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/241012134

http://vanillacoin.net/papers/zerotime.pdf


I have been designing a 0-conf, fully scalable consensus network that doesn't have the flaws of VNL's zerotime nor the masternode problem. One of the key epiphanies was making nodes dumb intermediaries where it is impossible for them to cheat.

He told you upthread that he has contributed mental effort on design, white papers, etc.. I know personally he was the developer who interfaced with me during the BCX incident and he and I discussed potential means to unmask anonymity.

I think the only potential valid complaint you had is letting him know you don't appreciate the frequency of his posting in other coins' threads, and asking him to explain his intentions with AEON. That doesn't mean you are correct, but you have a reasonable SUBJECTIVE point to make there that apparently some voters agree with. He has also has the right to express his opinion as much as he wants and absorb the political repercussions.

But if you ignore what he already said, it starts to look like you want to do a hatchet job on him and taking irrational revenge.

You won't be able to turn the entire altcoin community against smooth if that is your objective. You can express your opinion. Personally I am not willing to take the political heat that smooth is. I am a developer more than I am a martyr.

Smooth wouldn't be on point if you decided to share with us your personal motivation for taking on AEON (given you've been accused of doing it just to capture microcap vs. small cap growth rate advantage)? If you feel that is your private affairs, then my apologies in advance. No obligation to share that. Personally I am curious to know. Are you experimenting with new tech? Scratching your coding itch? Or what? Perhaps you've already stated it else where but I don't have time to search for it.

Without spam resistance, an adversary can flood a channel and lower the anonymity set. Adversary could also drive users away from using the chat due to the spam overhead, thus further reducing the anonymity set.

Appears to me ShadowCash are trying to do too much at one time thus preoccupied away from being thorough in their white papers. See upthread for supporting facts.

Disagree. I think instant transactions and scaling to microtransaction volume (million transactions per second) will unseat Bitcoin.

Anonymity will become more important, but most people in the world don't care about anonymity. They care about social media and stuff like that. Monetizing that with microtransactions is the huge market.

Anonymity could end up being very important as the bankrupt States of the world start to tax everything that moves. Chicago is going to tax video streaming on the internet.

But these anonymity markets may be much slower to develop than microtransaction markets. I'd pursue both if I did a coin.


I would suggest making it super easy for people to mix BTC. Then try to hook them into using XMR from there.

I would suggest creating new uses for anonymous coins and especially combined with microtransactions.

I've been making several posts comparing ShadowCoin and Monero. I think it gives some insight into my work as well:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1140006.msg12130745#msg12130745

Block chain scaling is a problem even for Bitcoin with no private transactions.

All cryptocoins have scalability problems.

I intend to attempt to solve this.

Public and private coin spaces are a problem, because they can weaken the anonymity for the private coin space. Think about it. If you allow people to spend off to non-anonymous space, then spend back into the anonymous space then anonymity sets break down.

The CN viewkey is superior in that you can give to a trusted party without giving it to the public. Public coin spaces of SDC give the anonymity breakage to everyone.

Logic on this stuff isn't always as obvious as n00bs think it is.

I would caution I make mistakes sometimes. I do try to correct and admit when I find an error in my work.

I read the summary. Will probably read the white paper in detail in the future.

They claim to prove sufficient security for some cases where the entropy of PoS has been attacked, but afaics they haven't proved every genre of attack, because afaics the entropy of PoS can't be characterized so we can't know what all the attacks might be. For example, let's say we took entropy for the modifier from a hash of the transactions for each block. But this hash can be gamed by the participants in the mining.

Their points against PoW I think can be eliminated, but again I will have to say await a white paper.

The basic problem with PoW now is we burden it with too much responsibility. Satoshi forgot to follow the Principle of Least Power and separation-of-concerns. I believe it possible to unburden PoW so that it is not longer an expensive appendage, but rather just a voting mechanism as it was originally intended to be, essentially one vote one computer because PoW won't have the power that it does not. Specifically I think it is possible to entirely filter the 51% attack. But I need to work through all the details formally before I can be sure of this.