The Good News
I dont have to work on the hardware because there are forty groups doing that now. There have been a number of modules for the raspberry pi and Arduino in in the past few months.
The Skycoin project only has to worry about implementing a corporate type software defined networking solution™. So the two parts left are very small and focused.
Duh! I could have told you months ago to let hardware people handle the hardware. I see you released your white paper on the consensus algorithm. Why are you not focused on your core competency? Also both the West and the East are entering a Global Technocracy. Neither is superior in that regard. It is true that Asia has less debt and lower incomes so it will grow GDP (after the interim collapse to 2020) and the West will shrink GDP. But in terms of national biometric ids, Smart Meters on every home, etc.. China is also leading the way. Don't be so smug. |
|
|
|
In general, I think there are only three legit/non-scam projects going right now. I also think when the EU communist nazi fascist dictatorship central committee finishes banning cash, that about thirty percent of the EU GDP that is underground will begin to shift into Bitcoin and the alts. So we may see 2000x increases and about six trillion a year of capital flowing into Bitcoin/alts.
Another developer who thinks anonymity is more than a fascination, but what anonymity features does his Skycoin have? I don't know what to make of this Skycoin. There is some technical talent. Appears maybe they are sincere. Yet they post a lot of scary words without sufficient citations to prove these scare monger claims, e.g. the claims of doctor in Texas doing bioweapon testing on prisoners. Is that something you read on some Alex Jones site? Yet the technical results achieved thus far are not so spectacular but not worthless either (see my analysis of the consensus algorithm white paper in the prior post). I can't decide if this is scam, or what. Seems like maybe a somewhat technically knowledgeable westerner who is shoestring traveling across Asia who writes the long scare monger posts (which may have some validity but seem exaggerated), and he collects the money and pays the Chinese researcher who did the consensus algorithm white paper? I really don't know. I don't know how any one can buy an IPO for something that isn't finished and available for trade  Is there any mechanism by which Skycoins can be sold, so that people who invested in the IPO can divest if they want to? And others can purchase their coins? The absence of a trading market is indicative of scam. Skycoin please try to correct this asap. Perhaps you are legit. So please don't leave IPO investors trapped in a non-transparent market. Or were they told they were angel investors with indefinite time frame for liquidity? I am really not trying to rain on your parade. I left your thread for the past months. Recently one of your IPO investors asked if I could take a look at the recently released white paper. So I did as a courtesy to him. Also I want to say thank you, because I got one of my inspirations for a design from this thread some months ago. So again I recognize there is some technical knowledge here. Just not sure about the execution and organization. Good luck. |
|
|
|
In general, I think there are only three legit/non-scam projects going right now. I also think when the EU communist nazi fascist dictatorship central committee finishes banning cash, that about thirty percent of the EU GDP that is underground will begin to shift into Bitcoin and the alts. So we may see 2000x increases and about six trillion a year of capital flowing into Bitcoin/alts.
Another developer who thinks anonymity is more than a fascination, but what anonymity features does his Skycoin have? |
|
|
|
In general, I think there are only three legit/non-scam projects going right now. I also think when the EU communist nazi fascist dictatorship central committee finishes banning cash, that about thirty percent of the EU GDP that is underground will begin to shift into Bitcoin and the alts. So we may see 2000x increases and about six trillion a year of capital flowing into Bitcoin/alts.
Another developer who thinks anonymity is more than a fascination, but what anonymity features does his Skycoin have? |
|
|
|
The good news is software developers are about $2000/month here.
Wait a minute. David Zimbeck traveled to over seas in order to find developers that he could afford (roughly $2000 a month). David Zimbeck works heavily with Golang. And David Zimbeck suggested that BitBay (that wonderfully fabulous disaster of a scam) would work on Meshnet projects in the future. Yes, three points of contact is pretty slim but I'm going out on a limb and calling Skycoin dev is actually Zimbeck (with the possibility of multiple users of infamy trading account use). There might be other similarities if one was motivated to do some tedious compare and contrast; or none. I suspect the latter since I don't believe that a lot of altcoin devs decided to go overseas in order to find cheap developers (correct me if I am wrong). Be careful with your funds, people. I am happy to crowdfund this project even if David Zimbeck is the Skycoin dev. David is a very smart young man and while he had a very shady role in the Bitbay shamble he can make that up to the digital currency community by delivering a good software which I hope Skycoin will be. I actually would tend to agree. I have some pretty mass respect for his talent and think that he is capable of it. I was/am excited for this project but if he is working on multiple projects in tandem with the ill advised collaboration with -omitted- then I think caution is not bad advice. I'm not here to fud and will leave it at that. I prefer lurking and supporting on my own whims but thought this was relevant enough to post. I just expended 30 minutes studying this boy genius who I assume could kick my butt in chess. http://bitcoinwarrior.net/2014/09/talk-david-zimbeck-bitcoin-2-0-bithalo-blackhalo-nighttrader/His BlackHalo main innovation is double deposit. Well I have to raise my hand and blow a hole in his balloon, for the same analogous reason that I (as AnonyMint) did to Gregory Maxwell in his CoinJoin thread. The problem is DoS attack. If you have to place your double deposit with an unknown party, then you can be DoS'ed to hell and have gridlock. gmaxwell retorted that the adversary could be blacklisted by coin address but the entire point of anonymity on spending is to enable one to obscuring the payer, thus whoops he can't achieve that without some global blacklist which is about as evil as it gets. Fail. |
|
|
|
The good news is software developers are about $2000/month here.
Wait a minute. David Zimbeck traveled to over seas in order to find developers that he could afford (roughly $2000 a month). David Zimbeck works heavily with Golang. And David Zimbeck suggested that BitBay (that wonderfully fabulous disaster of a scam) would work on Meshnet projects in the future. Yes, three points of contact is pretty slim but I'm going out on a limb and calling Skycoin dev is actually Zimbeck (with the possibility of multiple users of infamy trading account use). There might be other similarities if one was motivated to do some tedious compare and contrast; or none. I suspect the latter since I don't believe that a lot of altcoin devs decided to go overseas in order to find cheap developers (correct me if I am wrong). Be careful with your funds, people. I am happy to crowdfund this project even if David Zimbeck is the Skycoin dev. David is a very smart young man and while he had a very shady role in the Bitbay shamble he can make that up to the digital currency community by delivering a good software which I hope Skycoin will be. I actually would tend to agree. I have some pretty mass respect for his talent and think that he is capable of it. I was/am excited for this project but if he is working on multiple projects in tandem with the ill advised collaboration with -omitted- then I think caution is not bad advice. I'm not here to fud and will leave it at that. I prefer lurking and supporting on my own whims but thought this was relevant enough to post. I just expended 30 minutes studying this boy genius who I assume could kick my butt in chess. http://bitcoinwarrior.net/2014/09/talk-david-zimbeck-bitcoin-2-0-bithalo-blackhalo-nighttrader/His BlackHalo main innovation is double deposit. Well I have to raise my hand and blow a hole in his balloon, for the same analogous reason that I (as AnonyMint) did to Gregory Maxwell in his CoinJoin thread. The problem is DoS attack. If you have to place your double deposit with an unknown party, then you can be DoS'ed to hell and have gridlock. gmaxwell retorted that the adversary could be blacklisted by coin address but the entire point of anonymity on spending is to enable one to obscuring the payer, thus whoops he can't achieve that without some global blacklist which is about as evil as it gets. Fail. |
|
|
|
It shows that TPTB prefer to take action against the centralized aspects of the system, i.e. the manufacturers. This is why centralization of mining in crypto is so dangerous. |
|
|
|
OROBTC, here is a kickstarter project that could give us all anonymous WiFi internet access and also make it much more difficult to censor and take the physical internet down every where: Whoops. Kiss that project above good bye: It shows that TPTB prefer to take action against the centralized aspects of the system, i.e. the manufacturers. This is why centralization of mining in crypto is so dangerous. |
|
|
|
It's more of a philosophical question if you even consider such a requirement to be the same coin at all. Not really an important distinction imo. We agree in substance.
To recap past discussions, one can not be entirely sure how the world politics will play out. So it is even philosophical from the standpoint of each person's view on the landscape out there. I understand you meant philosophical on whether removal of anonymity is equivalent to a shut down. The reason I make the distinction is because humans have a tendency to conform in order to cope, so the government can maybe get what it wants which is compliance without destroying the entire Monero economy. Again that is one person's view point on the world landscape, so not to be taken as gospel. Last time I checked, my crystal ball wasn't perfect, lol. |
|
|
|
Confidental Transactions from Blockstream hides the values of a transaction so business privacy is retained. CN doesn't do this.
It does to some extent because there are multiple outputs with some being change and some being payment (or payments). How they are grouped is not visible, so combinatorially this can give reasonable privacy of the payment amount. The choice of outputs affects how much actual privacy there is in practice and the current algorithm in Monero is not great, but is being improved. As for size I gather that CT and CN are similar but I haven't reviewed it carefully. You could hide value with CN. Split your value into small morsels, mix, then recombine through mixes. So then no one knows who owns that large balance. Or simply use Monero as it is with balances split into powers-of-10 and thus (in theory) no one knows which sets of transactions are really the same transaction. Thus I agree with smooth's statement. However, I have my doubts as to whether those powers-of-10 balances are not correlated via timing analysis. I don't have a specific algorithm nor research paper to cite, but rather just that we are dropping patterns all over the place. In an ideal anonymity set, everything should look the same, so there is no entropy to analyze. So thus hiding value has the advantage of removing information that can be used to aid in combinatorial and timing analysis (combined). Also it has another advantage which I won't mention yet... In any case, I want to acceded that CN does in theory effectively add value privacy. I am just not confident that Monero is sufficient against the 5 Eyes and powerful analysis research that might be forthcoming if ever these CN coins become popular. Think of my work as (an attempt at) the second stage of furthering the technology. I'd just add that power-of-10 is not required by the protocol even today. That is just a convention. One might imagine other useful conventions that when further defined require only implementation in wallets. Anyway, the last part isn't too important since protocol changes are fine and even expected at this level of maturity. That doesn't invalidate or disagree with your comments about timing attacks, etc. I think careful use can mitigate most timing attacks even today, but that's not a solution for end users who don't know how to be careful and won't. So none of these solutions is fully ready for prime time today. Some are better than others is about the best we can claim right now. Yes flexibility and users (or their wallets) decide. I presume convention is often followed to maximize anonymity sets and reduce simultaneity conflicts. And agree that perfection exists only in words and we do live in here and now. And if one needs anonymity on chain here and now, Monero is probably the best option available. Even if someone were to design something "better" (different or some claimed advancement), will it even have enough adoption and all bugs worked out in time? Of course I don't know that either, even being on the inside as a developer. We appear to be in agreement. I am not telling anyone to not buy Monero, except for my advice to lighten up (on all crypto and gold) for the coming low in crypto this Spring 2016. For those who have well diversified and want to HODL through any sell off, then they can ignore my warning on that. Edit: it is possible I end up using Monero because it is what is working best when I need it. Well we've already used XMR in fact. |
|
|
|
No CN coins and in fact no altcoins that I am aware of, have really solved the issue that centralization of mining can cause transactions to be censored. This is an open problem for cryptocurrency.
This is only a problem if the miner can identify which transactions they want to censor by linkability or other analysis. Presuming that you can maintain unlinkability, miners won't censor transactions unless they want to censor all transactions. There's no easy fix for that - if someone wants to spend lots of money suppressing nearly all transactions, you are correct - they can do this. CN has a viewkey. If the government takes control of the mining because due to centralization they can regulate 51% of network hash rate, then they can require every transaction publicize its viewkey. Effectively the government can force anonymity to be turned off, if they control 51% of the network hash rate. That's essentially the same as blocking all transactions and thereby preventing the protocol from being used at all (so people would then have to use another, transparent, one, which doesn't even need to be limited to a view key but could include signing it with your name). Anyway, I made exactly this point last year. Too much crap got posted last year for me to find it though, but the conclusion was identical. I remember. We've had this same discussion at least twice in the past. Well there is a difference between shutting the coin down entirely and demanding that you must present your signed KYC serial number before your transaction will be allowed through the network. And that is essentially where I see Bitcoin and all crypto-currency headed. And I am trying to do something about that. |
|
|
|
Afaics his abstract paper does not deal with some of the intricacies of the economics that have to be solved in order to make the design actually work in the real world.
You see that often in unseasoned theorists. Someone asked me in a PM for my opinion of VanillaCoin. I just expended 15 minutes studying it for the first time: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=977245.0The DarkPP stuff is vaporware and no details are available. It claims some efficiency improvements over Bitcoin and Peercoin. Appears the developer is a seasoned P2P networking programmer. If I had to venture a guess, he probably was a former developer of a Bittorrent client. The main feature of significance is the zero confirmation time research which attempts to gain a faster consensus. Unfortunately he seems to entirely forget any game theory analysis. The Byzantine fault tolerance in proof-of-work consensus is due to game theory incentives given by the proof-of-work rewards. He expects these peers to behave a certain optimum way when they are not being paid to do so. Many faults will be found in his design because of this. I don't have time to go outline the faults. Satoshi was a lot more astute than many people might realize. If you are going to improve upon Satoshi's work, you need to be very sharp.
My reply there, please go there for further discussion and their rebuttal: How much is the bounty?
Will it pay out if I just tell you how it can be done?
It is pretty simple actually. Bribe some nodes by sharing some of the double-spend theft.
There is created an incentive to aggregate mining power in order to sell capacity to double-spend. It is an economics issue. Just because it can't be accomplished on the controlled testnet is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
I'm very impressed!
So are the others: Can you add a third dimension for market cap so we can see how relevant this is? Everyone knows a homeless guy selling water on a hot day can double his networth in an hour. But is that may not be relevant to every observer of that homeless man. I bet some rabbit just increased his family size by a exponential factor while I was writing this. Seeds grow rapidly to saplings, and saplings grow less quickly to Oak trees. But Oak trees don't grow to the moon. I think you are onto something with relevant and large implications by distributing the coins to the users of the coin. But is this the framework within which to be relevant to the world? |
|
|
|
Afaics his abstract paper does not deal with some of the intricacies of the economics that have to be solved in order to make the design actually work in the real world.
You see that often in unseasoned theorists. Someone asked me in a PM for my opinion of VanillaCoin. I just expended 15 minutes studying it for the first time: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=977245.0The DarkPP stuff is vaporware and no details are available. It claims some efficiency improvements over Bitcoin and Peercoin. Appears the developer is a seasoned P2P networking programmer. If I had to venture a guess, he probably was a former developer of a Bittorrent client. The main feature of significance is the zero confirmation time research which attempts to gain a faster consensus. Unfortunately he seems to entirely forget any game theory analysis. The Byzantine fault tolerance in proof-of-work consensus is due to game theory incentives given by the proof-of-work rewards. He expects these peers to behave a certain optimum way when they are not being paid to do so. Many faults will be found in his design because of this. I don't have time to go outline the faults. Satoshi was a lot more astute than many people might realize. If you are going to improve upon Satoshi's work, you need to be very sharp. |
|
|
|
|
Smooth appreciate that coming from you.
|
|
|
|
|
I like your ideas. Concur.
Unfortunately with the M.S., I don't really enjoy life the same as I used to. I prefer to work, because then I am not focused on what my body feels like.
So in my mind it has been work, work, work to get money to get cured.
I do agree though I need to get to the gym twice a week at least. The problem is I suffer so much the backlash from the M.S. after workouts.
As I said, sometimes I feel if I could just discard this body, I could smile again. But then when I go to the gym and still able to fly to the basketball rim, I still want to keep my body.
I had glimpses of my old life. I think it was in June, I had this night where I felt totally normal. I didn't want to stay in the house. I wanted to drive around, find the party, the disco, etc.. My gf was very happy. But unfortunately it was only that one night.
There is the thought that if I actually just did outdoor activities all day every day, then my M.S. would improve. I may be making this worse by being inside always looking at a 24" flat screen.
That may be true, but it would require letting this opportunity slip away.
Tough choices.
Thanks. Okay let's stop this. Will get embarrassing. I hope now everyone knows who I am. So there won't be any doubts about me being a scammer or not serious or what ever.
|
|
|
|
Confidental Transactions from Blockstream hides the values of a transaction so business privacy is retained. CN doesn't do this.
It does to some extent because there are multiple outputs with some being change and some being payment (or payments). How they are grouped is not visible, so combinatorially this can give reasonable privacy of the payment amount. The choice of outputs affects how much actual privacy there is in practice and the current algorithm in Monero is not great, but is being improved. As for size I gather that CT and CN are similar but I haven't reviewed it carefully. You could hide value with CN. Split your value into small morsels, mix, then recombine through mixes. So then no one knows who owns that large balance. Or simply use Monero as it is with balances split into powers-of-10 and thus (in theory) no one knows which sets of transactions are really the same transaction. Thus I agree with smooth's statement. However, I have my doubts as to whether those powers-of-10 balances are not correlated via timing analysis. I don't have a specific algorithm nor research paper to cite, but rather just that we are dropping patterns all over the place. In an ideal anonymity set, everything should look the same, so there is no entropy to analyze. So thus hiding value has the advantage of removing information that can be used to aid in combinatorial and timing analysis (combined). Also it has another advantage which I won't mention yet... In any case, I want to acceded that CN does in theory effectively add value privacy. I am just not confident that Monero is sufficient against the 5 Eyes and powerful analysis research that might be forthcoming if ever these CN coins become popular. Think of my work as (an attempt at) the second stage of furthering the technology. |
|
|
|
Confidental Transactions from Blockstream hides the values of a transaction so business privacy is retained. CN doesn't do this.
It does to some extent because there are multiple outputs with some being change and some being payment (or payments). How they are grouped is not visible, so combinatorially this can give reasonable privacy of the payment amount. The choice of outputs affects how much actual privacy there is in practice and the current algorithm in Monero is not great, but is being improved. As for size I gather that CT and CN are similar but I haven't reviewed it carefully. You could hide value with CN. Split your value into small morsels, mix, then recombine through mixes. So then no one knows who owns that large balance. Or simply use Monero as it is with balances split into powers-of-10 and thus (in theory) no one knows which sets of transactions are really the same transaction. Thus I agree with smooth's statement. However, I have my doubts as to whether those powers-of-10 balances are not correlated via timing analysis. I don't have a specific algorithm nor research paper to cite, but rather just that we are dropping patterns all over the place. In an ideal anonymity set, everything should look the same, so there is no entropy to analyze. So thus hiding value has the advantage of removing information that can be used to aid in combinatorial and timing analysis (combined). Also it has another advantage which I won't mention yet... In any case, I want to acceded that CN does in theory effectively add value privacy. I am just not confident that Monero is sufficient against the 5 Eyes and powerful analysis research that might be forthcoming if ever these CN coins become popular. Think of my work as (an attempt at) the second stage of furthering the technology. |
|
|
|
No CN coins and in fact no altcoins that I am aware of, have really solved the issue that centralization of mining can cause transactions to be censored. This is an open problem for cryptocurrency.
This is only a problem if the miner can identify which transactions they want to censor by linkability or other analysis. Presuming that you can maintain unlinkability, miners won't censor transactions unless they want to censor all transactions. There's no easy fix for that - if someone wants to spend lots of money suppressing nearly all transactions, you are correct - they can do this. CN has a viewkey. If the government takes control of the mining because due to centralization they can regulate 51% of network hash rate, then they can require every transaction publicize its viewkey. Effectively the government can force anonymity to be turned off, if they control 51% of the network hash rate. Being able to guarantee that the mining will always be decentralized, is required to be able guarantee non-censorship. This is probably the major flaw of crypto-currency. I do believe I have a design solution and this should be published this year (hopefully). At this point, I wouldn't take my assertion as 100% given, because without peer review and implementation, one has to remember "devil is in the details" and faults could be discovered. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
