iCELatte, have you dumped your XMR, btw? the federated SC of Monero will make them worthless.
Incorrect. At least not if Monero is clever about what they do.  |
|
|
|
Re mixing, well, yes, it is essentially impossible to know if they might be centralized or otherwise compromised. But, mixing for me is more about BETTER security, I doubt that I could hide my tracks vs. the Big Rhino (US .gov), so I do not much care. Just hiding the trail somewhat is "good enough" vs. other threats (mafias, etc.) against my BTC.
I'd worry more about the mafia running or compromising the centralized server mixers. They can plant a human at the Host, etc.. Centralized mixing is not safe. Convert to XMR, then mix onchain using the downloadable wallet (browser wallets that don't compromise your anonymity are coming but don't use the exchanges such as Polonex), then spend back to BTC using ShapeShift.io or XMR.to. |
|
|
|
Lol, there he goes again a programming dunce making incorrect technical statements. Cypherdoc what if the side chain uses a different hashing algorithm than Bitcoin? What if it doesn't use PoW? What if it is uses PoW in a clever way that resists 50+% attacks (e.g. my design)? what do you expect being in a Blockstream thread with all it's supporters cheerleading?
why don't you answer the questions i posed since no one else seems to be able to?
There you go being the victim again. Done. |
|
|
|
the initial implementation merely runs off federated servers and doesn't require a source code change like Gavin's block size increase.
That may be the real motivation for minimizing the hard fork increase, so that when it needs to be done again later, hopefully by then the market will be clamoring to get rid of the federated servers. Maybe they see that as their best hope of getting the change into source code in the most timely way. So maybe if there would be a compromise such as you proposed, that might grease the gears. |
|
|
|
I really think Bitcoin should stick to the business of money not the business of business. Blockstream is turning Bitcoin into a vehicle for speculation via SC's.
Its sad to see iCELatte and marcus et al cheering the above sidecoin as a competitor to Bitcoin. It just shows how much misunderstanding there is about Bitcoin as Money which is its original goal.
The properties of money are unit-of-account, store-of-value, and medium-of-exchange. Pegged side chains do not adversely impact any of those attributes. Pegged side chains is a more efficient and granular way of voting for technological progress than the all-or-nothing, high-drama politics of hard forks with MPEX GavinCoin WMD mutual annihilation. It makes these votes more orthogonal to the three attributes of money! The "all-or-nothing, high-drama politics of hard forks with MPEX GavinCoin WMD mutual annihilation" can adversely impact the three attributes. You don't have the logic skills of a programmer. Give up. Quit. Or. Learn. To. Be. More. Humble. About technical issues. |
|
|
|
The main problem side chains has introduced for me, is they can steal my technology and put it in a side chain. So I will just have to put it in a side chain first and make sure I am siphoning value from BTC in a way that can't technologically be improved upon. I know how to do this because it was already necessary in my design.
So everything is falling right into place for me. Monero has eventually been co-opted by side chains (unfortunately).
The above is incorrect. On further thought, I have solved the economic threat of Blockstream's pegged side chains (it threatened to turn all innovation into Communism!). There is a win-win solution for side chains and altcoins to co-exist.   Exciting times ahead... On another topic, again I reiterate that Blockstream's pegged side chains will render MPEX's Bitcoin XT (aka "GavinCoin") short impotent, because Bitcoin XT can then be put into a pegged side chain, thus MPEX et al shorting the BTC value in one chain shorts the BTC value in all pegged chains including MPEX's Bitcoin Core chain. MPEX, iCEBREAKER, and other hard-Core supporters may think this is okay because they can retain their Core side chain, but I assert TPTB can then 50% the minority side chain driving it to extinction (the users will move their value to the non-attacked chain). This is the reason that all side chains that wish to remain decentralized are coming to my redesign of PoW. As I've stated, the redesign is agnostic to the type of onchain encryption and anonymity offered. Multiple offerings are possible. Pegged side chains makes coin value orthogonal to block chain choice. My further modularization makes block chain consensus algorithm orthogonal to block chain transaction algorithms. This is why money is interested to get in early on my technology, yet I have refused most because they don't wish or don't know how to invest anonymously. Yet Cypherdoc thinks I had trouble obtaining a measily $10,000. I'm contemplating selling the design and project to a team that is willing to be non-anonymous. I am also being realistic about what one (getting old) man with subdued but lingering Multiple Sclerosis can accomplish anonymously. Might be better to get something now and see the project move faster to fruition than fail and get nothing and the world not get the design timely. I think I had already mentioned that the following article is interesting but I solve the problem non-heuristically. https://blog.ethereum.org/2015/06/06/the-problem-of-censorship/ |
|
|
|
Long term, it might be possible to auto-generate equivalent-difficulty hash functions. A new hash function for every block. That would fix things back down to FPGA technology level, and contribute better to generic hardware development.
I climbed down that theoretical physics rabbit hole and I am convinced there is nothing there. The entropy is limited by the number of opcodes in the hardware or software instruction set. It is not possible to spontaneously generate deterministic order of out disorder; and PoW requires a deterministic winner of each block. Order that arises from chaos was already there but under sampled (i.e. unobserved). Will you comment on whether you are the author of the Sumcoin whitepaper? |
|
|
|
Ah, sorry for mis-characterizing your earlier comments on Monero, you already know that my understanding of cryptos is still at the beginner level.
Actually my mistake as I forget to address that aspect of your post. Please re-read my prior reply to you; I elaborated. |
|
|
|
you could've picked alot better topics to nitpick at since that seems to be your motive here.
You are always the victim. Freudian slips amass. |
|
|
|
Cross-posted as OROBTC did too: 1) BTC has rather good acceptance, that is, the products you can buy using BTC are rather wide. This is good.
What is available using Monero? How easy/difficult is it to buy Monero?
You can spend XMR any where BTC is accepted by employing XMR.to or ShapeShift.io. You don't even need a login account for ShapeShift.io. I believe those are derivatives of the insight I (posting as AnonyMint) made in 2013 that unit-of-account is dying in relative importance because with crypto-currency all liquid units-of-account are convertible in real-time. Rpietila reiterated that point recently in the Economic Totalitarianism thread. 2) With a little work (and about 0.6% - 1.0%), you can hide your trail a little better by mixing BTC.
No! Those are centralized servers and you have no way to know that they are not compromised. Also research has shown they can be unmasked with traffic analysis. Google afair "Coin fog". IIUC, one of the main attractions of Monero is that the anonymity is/will be better than using BTC. TPTB_need_war has stated that Monero is not yet secure, can anyone explain (in words that even my grandma could understand) Monero and anonymity?
Bottom line is that Monero has the only robust onchain anonymity that I am aware of thus far. Only onchain anonymity is really trustworthy and scalable (assuming you've obscured your IP address when sending the transaction to the network or used a pigeon). I have stated that I am not 100% convinced that the anonymity sets can't be combinatorially unmasked because as far as I know Monero allows unlimited overlapping rings. That is for further study. Also I'd like to see quantum computing resistant ring sigs, because eventually elliptic curve stuff will be cracked by a quantum computer (IBM says maybe as soon as 15 years from and the block chain is a permanent record). We've explained the nuances upthread and else where, but that is all you really need to know. Smooth might chime in as well. My prior post compares Monero's onchain anonymity to the new onchain anonymity proposals from Sumcoin and Blockstream's Confidential Transactions (for their side chains). An easy to use, widely accepted and anonymous crypto would be a great thing.
It is inevitable. And probably within this year. See all the innovation pushing this direction. Just hang on. |
|
|
|
1) BTC has rather good acceptance, that is, the products you can buy using BTC are rather wide. This is good.
What is available using Monero? How easy/difficult is it to buy Monero?
You can spend XMR any where BTC is accepted by employing XMR.to or ShapeShift.io. You don't even need a login account for ShapeShift.io. I believe those are derivatives of the insight I (posting as AnonyMint) made in 2013 that unit-of-account is dying in relative importance because with crypto-currency all liquid units-of-account are convertible in real-time. Rpietila reiterated that point recently in the Economic Totalitarianism thread. 2) With a little work (and about 0.6% - 1.0%), you can hide your trail a little better by mixing BTC.
No! Those are centralized servers and you have no way to know that they are not compromised. Also research has shown they can be unmasked with traffic analysis. Google afair "Coin fog". IIUC, one of the main attractions of Monero is that the anonymity is/will be better than using BTC. TPTB_need_war has stated that Monero is not yet secure, can anyone explain (in words that even my grandma could understand) Monero and anonymity?
Bottom line is that Monero has the only robust onchain anonymity that I am aware of thus far. Only onchain anonymity is really trustworthy and scalable (assuming you've obscured your IP address when sending the transaction to the network or used a pigeon). I have stated that I am not 100% convinced that the anonymity sets can't be combinatorially unmasked because as far as I know Monero allows unlimited overlapping rings. That is for further study. Also I'd like to see quantum computing resistant ring sigs, because eventually elliptic curve stuff will be cracked by a quantum computer (IBM says maybe as soon as 15 years from and the block chain is a permanent record). We've explained the nuances upthread and else where, but that is all you really need to know. Smooth might chime in as well. My prior post compares Monero's onchain anonymity to the new onchain anonymity proposals from Sumcoin and Blockstream's Confidential Transactions (for their side chains). An easy to use, widely accepted and anonymous crypto would be a great thing.
It is inevitable. And probably within this year. See all the innovation pushing this direction. Just hang on. |
|
|
|
Cryptonote/Monero vs. Sumcoin/Blockstream's Confidential TransactionsIn any case, the concept is sort of inane. Who ever receives a payment can trace all the way back through the chain of payment history of obscured amounts. So afaics the anonymity breaks down over time to eventually 0. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Afaics, the anonymity does degenerate in a way that it doesn't in Cyptonote (Monero), which is conceptually relevant to my initial objection above regarding the fact that the recipients must be able to prove the amount they received (i.e. the Sumcoin viewkey). Let's consider the more intelligible summary in the claimed Sumcoin improvement to Blockstream's Confidential Transactions as follows. I remember watching Adam Back's talk about this concept when he was in Israel at a meeting I think sponsored by Meni Rosenfeld. Request for comments http://voxelsoft.com/dev/sumcoin.pdfyou sure were very quick to include Blockstream's Elements and Confidential txs in your work. (sorry no time to read the paper right now) Let me quote from that Sumcoin white paper as follows. 5.2 Comparison to alternatives
...
A Sumcoin user needs not mix coins of relatedequal denominations, she can simply
spend to multiple addresses. A hidden satoshi will mix as well as a hidden [non-fraction of a] coin [e.g. 1 Bitcoin].
5.3 Social
Sumcoin is more like cash than Bitcoin. Users of cash, and Sumcoins, tend not
to discover the value of other user’s transactions. Bitcoin nodes see the value of
all unrelated transactions on the global network.
With cash transactions, if a party chooses to publicly disclose a transaction
amount, their claim would initially stand unproven. They would need additional
evidence, such as a confirmation from the counterparty (or intermediary)
to prove the claim. With Sumcoin, such disclosure is immediately and forever
provable on the blockchain. This permanent and undeniable record should discourage
the use of this technology for nerfarious purposes.
Properly kept, crypto-currencies such as Bitcoin are the least practical asset
class to take from an owner without consent. This process reduces to probabilistic
rubber hose cryptanalysis in extremis, which may only be feasible on a small
scale. Unfortunately, not all owners can be assumed to make sufficient effort to
protect their coins...
The author apparently thinks that users won't reveal their view keys in public. But the recipients viewkey can also be hacked or pressured with rubber hoses. The author doesn't state the holistic problem ( conceptually analogous to holistic issue I had pointed out to the Monero devs during the BCX debacle), that as values are revealed where the coin histories are not untraceable and unlinkable, then solving for other unknown values in the system is a system of simultaneous equations ( then there was the discussion about practical computability and complexity classes P and NP). So mixing is still required. Also compared to Cryptonote where the values (denominations) of mixes have been forced to be equal, unmasking some values will reduce (unmasking) the anonymity set of mixing that was done by any external protocol if unequal values were used for the inputs and outputs. If I am not mistaken, hacking the private key of the recipient in Cryptonote does not weaken the anonymity set of the ring of outputs serving as inputs to the transaction. In other words, in Monero the viewkey is controlled by the sender; whereas in these new homomorphic (not homocoin, lol) encryption schemes the recipient gets the viewkey. However this new homomorphic encryption of sums does appear to add some value where it is not reasonable to mix with equal denominations, e.g. such as merging outputs of Cryptonote ring (i.e. might be useful to combine both types of onchain anonymity?). I find it very interesting and I am impressed with the work of the author of Sumcoin. Adam Back outlined how it might be feasible to simulate ring signatures by mixing zero and non-zero denominations as follows which I presume is an analogous special case of what Sumcoin mentioned about mixing unequal inputs and outputs in a transaction. Lets call the homomorphic coin for short morphcoin (and not homocoin;) Or ringcoin from the additional implication of the below extended protocol.
One more proof which allows a ringcoin (ring signature analog of Greg Maxwell's coinjoin) is to create a ring input R=g^v'*h^x' and change C' and then prove that with respect to someone else's coin where it can be publicly audited that C=R*C' (ie the coin adds up) and C' is the change left for the original owner. The proof you need to make that an acceptable proposition for the original owner (subtracting random amounts from his coin!) is that either R=g^(v'=0)*h^x' OR RP(C') and RP(R) such that C=R*C') where RP is the range proof construction from parent post.
That proves either you have a coin with 0 value (so its safe to subtract it without someone else's permission or cooperation from their coin) OR that you know the coin private key, so you can subtract whatever you want because you're its owner. The way the subtraction is proven not to underflow, is you split the coin into two or more outputs range proofs that add up to the original coin, proving you are the owner. The coin private keys for C is x, for R is x' and C' is x" and x' is random and x"=x-x' mod n, so final validation is simply EC addition of the split proceeds (which could be spent to other person and change address eg.)
The OR construction is standard and the same technique as in parent post to allow to prove v_i=0 or v_i=1 (namely you intentionally allow a maximum of one forgery, by adding one degree of freedom to the choice of the challenge).
Now a ringcoin is like coinjoin, but more powerful because you dont need the cooperation of the other coins! That makes sense because you are provably not removing any value from them (as you dont know their private keys). The additional cost for the "v'=0 OR "clause should be small, about 3 or 4 values (96-128bytes) on top of the two range-proof encrypted values.
...
Again to summarize:
Ringcoin is like coinjoin except you the spender choose who to mix your inputs with, and you take 0 from each input, but because the value is homorphically encrypted no one but you can tell that, and you dont need to mix other people's outputs.
Ringcoin seems likely to outperform zerocoin in anonymity, certainly in performance (coins can have flexible value unlike zerocoin which is one denomination, or dilutes the anonymity set if you have multiple denominations and 2 output coins are 10x smaller and much CPU cheaper to create and verify). You can mix with 10 ringcoin inputs per 40kB zerocoin proof, and you dont have the competing anonymity-set issues from having to balance number of denominations (for efficiency of payments eg $1000 coins = 1000x $1 coin payment) against anonymity set (introduce $1, $10, $100, $1000 coins and now you can infer possible sources from handling of coins of required value and so reduces the anonymity-set). Unlike zerocoin there is no unwanted trapdoor (the n=p*q issue where p, q is a global trap door allowing coin forgery that you cant prove you destroyed).
5.1 Features
...
In addition to standing on its own, Sumcoin can be
implemented as a sidechain[42] or integrated into the Monero (or Bitcoin) protocol
as a hard fork with a new transaction version. Spent transaction pruning[43]
is possible in Sumcoin.
Everyone can stop caring about block chain size once my radical redesign of PoW is realized.
|
|
|
|
I suppose Cypherdoc will hallucinate and postulate the possible possibilities (excluding the impossible impossibilities) that Martin Armstrong was in a thread discussion with Meni Rosenfeld and Adam Back in 2014. Or he will ululate that Armstrong using my name TPTB_need_war is claiming to be AnonyMint who was actually another person. Or any permutation thereof including but not limited to the introduction to the plot some Space Cowboys horseback on UFO pixie dust flying carpets dressed in dainty lace lingerie and rawhide boots singing "I'm Too Sexy, for this coin".Thanks Meni for sharing that. On the historical technical level (not applicable to be implemented in Bitcoin), Adam Back did not mention the double-spending solution where the person who double-spends would expose their identity. Hal Finney summarized it. The offline double-spend of Chaum reveals identity. Brands also has a mechanism to do that (reveal private key and all attributes, one of which could be identity). ... The main problem with doing that in bitcoin is if you accidentally send twice (because your client crashes) you lose money. And people keep reusing addresses. These extended addresses would "discourage" address reuse (which some would say is a good thing:) Note Adam Back replied to me (AnonyMint). The bolded statement (my emphasis) is incorrect. Numerous copies of a signature can be sent without changing the signature. Instead, the reason that penalizing double-spending by revealing the private key won't work for crypto-currency is because we need an ordering of transactions so we know which of the double-spend(s) are invalid, so that the first person paid attains probablistic non-repudiation after waiting for sufficient confirmations. This attribute remains in my radical redesign of mining despite the fact that certain censorship critical attributes can't be 50% attacked as they can be in all existing PoW schemes that I am aware of. In other words, you could create an alternative chain with a 50% attack in my radical redesign of PoW, but if you tried to actually achieve anything with it, the undesired effects would be filtered out. This is what modular design achieves.
In any case, the concept is sort of inane. Who ever receives a payment can trace all the way back through the chain of payment history of obscured amounts. So afaics the anonymity breaks down over time to eventually 0. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
I think I conflated with the "respendable commited-tx". The homomorphic encryption was 5 slides above that. So perhaps the HE does not have the flaw I assumed. So it hides payment amounts but doesn't mix outputs from numerous entities. You'd still need CoinJoin for that, which is unscalable. And if you add on-chain ring sigs, then you don't need the HE. Also I don't understand how hiding the amount helps when the amount needs to be same for all those who are mixing in CoinJoin  (otherwise analysis of permutations between input and output amounts can decrease the anonymity set). So far this looks like another one of those half-baked Gregory Maxwell ideas.  I await clarification. Links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=509674.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.0I was pushing too hard for too many days (and too many calories feeding those bad bacteria which drive immunological inflammation), M.S. inflammation flaring-up due to it, thus the incorrect "analysis" above was the result of delirium:   I will be posting a new analysis next.
|
|
|
|
Im not saying fermented foods aren't great, I eat some kefir myself sometimes, but all those people that say "cancer is curable with X", X being MSM, vitamin C overdose, probiotics.. I think they are making claims way too big with little proof, and the proof presented is usually vague as hell.
I know a guy with MS and he was on steroids and stuff. What would you recommend? We can test it out, he's still young and the disease is not at a crucial stage yet.
Quit the steriods immediately! He is making it worse! Emulate what I am doing... (note I am not a doctor, so do not hold me responsible) Did you not see the clinical research on mice I linked to in my prior post? People are taking probiotics from capsules which are ineffective because they are the wrong strains and/or lose efficacy before consumed. I see a direct correlation between my inflammation flare-ups and when I eat. Immediately after I eat, my immune system goes whacko (nose starts dripping, ear plugs, back of my head itches, aches, cranium nodules flare-up, gut aches or on fire, inflammation all over my body). That research I linked to explains the mechanism by which the certain strains of good bacteria (in combination) are down regulating IL-10 (interleukin). I am feeding those damn bad bacteria very time I eat which produce toxins, or at least lacking sufficient good bacteria to modulate the inflammation resulting from my body fighting the bad bacteria and the proteins they resemble throughout the body. The progression of my illness (the cause) was clearly related to destroying the gut bacteria by not eating correctly in the Philippines, because I was just eating only fast food here for years because I didn't immerse myself in the types of fermented and natural foods the locals eat which are really strange for a white guy from California. And then numerous instances of super doses of bacteria, especially Metronidazole for killing gut pathogens, and that antibiotic is known to be a neurologic toxin (excotoxin). The high dose vitamin D3 is a great modulator (and reduces the EDSS score of most sufferers, myself included down from a 3 - 3.5 to 1.5 - 2.5 over 2 months) but it can't suppress the relapsing inflammation flare-ups; rather only making them milder episodes. I seem to do much better on those days I eat foods with vinegar, such as today feeling pretty good all day and ate 8 pieces of chicken cooked in apple cider vinegar ( raises the pH of my stomach?), soy sauce, and onions (with black pepper). And camote instead of any grains. And the B Healthy with every meal (which contains some probiotics and the all important co-enzymated B12 and B complex for the protection of the sheaths in the brain). I didn't take any vitamin D3 today, so as to give my kidneys some relief. Will be whipping up some of the fermented salsa tomorrow or next day! Will report back if ever I am able to attain complete remission. Note the lactic acid fermentation requires submersing the food in water (at least initially) and adding some sea salt, so only the anaerobic good bacteria can take over the culture. |
|
|
|
Okay I now realize one of the mistakes I made since going on the high dose vitamin D3 treatment is I introduced more bread, mayonnaise, potatoes, tomatoes, and less vegetables into my diet. .... http://brainhealthbook.com/leaky-gut-diet/The health of the gut profoundly influences the health of the brain. Studies link gut problems with depression, mood disorders, schizophrenia, Parkinson’s disease, memory loss, and brain lesions. This may come as no surprise if you have found certain foods alter your mood, personality, focus, or concentration.
Gut flora, the several pounds of bacterial organisms we carry in our intestines, affect brain chemistry and imbalances can cause depression and psychiatric disorders. Poor diets, stress, excess sugars and carbs, repeated antibiotic use, and other factors tip the balance of gut flora so that harmful bacteria outweigh the beneficial.
Intestinal permeability, or leaky gut, is a condition in which the walls of the intestine become inflamed and porous, allowing undigested food, bacteria, toxins, and other antigens into the bloodstream. This provokes the immune system and causes inflammation throughout the body. Leaky gut can also cause brain inflammation and has been linked with depression and autoimmunity. http://paleoleap.com/you-and-your-gut-flora/The importance and many functions of the gut and gut flora... ... Back on the tangent of probiotics as a cure for nearly everything since the immune system really resides in the gut. Some specific strains of Lactic acid bacteria have been shown in the laboratory to reverse Multiple Sclerosis in mice: http://probioticsnow.com/node/1762http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009009http://www.metagenics.com/mp/products/ultraflora-immune-boosterPurchasing probiotics is really silly because much of the bacteria can die before you consume it. And the strains chosen may be the ones that survive the longest without their culture, not necessary the most beneficial strains. And the diversity of strains is probably less than an unprocessed, naturally cultured product. Food fermented in this process below will continue to gain more good lactic acid bacteria over time and can't spoil, because the good bacteria dominates the bad bacteria. This is why the sea salt is added at the start to keep the bad bacteria down until the good bacteria has populated and colonized. Hmmm. All we need is purified water, sea salt, and food. Our ancestors migrated along the sea coasts out of Africa. This sounds like about as Paleo as one could achieve. Note at the link below how the Nigerian ogi which is produced only with kernels of corn in water has greater diversity of identified strains of the Lactobacillus plantarum bacteria than the foods fermented in vinegar: http://www.probiotics-lovethatbug.com/lactobacillus-plantarum.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactic_acid_fermentationLactic acid fermentation is a biological process by which glucose and other six-carbon sugars (also, disaccharides of six-carbon sugars, e.g. sucrose or lactose) are converted into cellular energy and the metabolite lactate. It is an anaerobic fermentation reaction that occurs in some bacteria and animal cells, such as muscle cells.
If oxygen is present in the cell, many organisms will bypass fermentation and undergo cellular respiration; however, facultative anaerobic organisms will both ferment and undergo respiration in the presence of oxygen. http://paleoleap.com/fermented-food-recipes/General guidelines for lacto-fermentation
Even though the whole process might seem long and complex, fermenting food at home takes nothing but a few basic instruments and ingredients. At its basis, most lacto-fermented foods are nothing more than whole, chopped, sliced or grated vegetables placed in a brine of salt and water for a period of time at room temperature to let the beneficial bacteria develop. The important thing to keep in mind is that the vegetables should stay submerged all along to prevent mold from forming. Lactobacillus bacteria is a facultative anaerobic category of bacteria, meaning that it doesn’t need oxygen for energy production.
You’ll probably come across a lot of recipes calling for fresh whey as a starter for the ferment, but simply using salt gives out the same desired result. Whey is only a way to bring more lactobacillus bacteria right at the beginning of the process, but that desired bacteria is already present on the surface of the vegetables you’re fermenting and will multiply fast enough when given the opportunity.
You don’t have to use much salt either and in fact you could even ferment food without salt, but using at least some salt prevents undesired bacteria from gaining power over the lactobacillus [before it becomes the dominant colony]. Using salt also helps the vegetables stay crunchy and helps draw water out of the vegetables. This extracted water can then act as the liquid for the brine. The quantity of salt to use is up to you, but 3 tablespoons per 5 pounds of vegetables is a good ratio to follow. http://www.culturesforhealth.com/naturally-cultured-fermented-salsa-recipehttp://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/2010/08/lacto-fermented-roasted-tomato-salsa.htmlhttp://www.rebeccawood.com/recipes/fruit-kvass/http://sharonglasgow.com/2013/01/8-fermented-food-recipes-for-your-health/http://www.probiotics-lovethatbug.com/fermented-foods.htmlHere is some disinformation, propaganda planted on the internet: http://www.rawfoodexplained.com/fermented-foods/the-myths-of-fermented-foods.html |
|
|
|
|
Cypherdoc's laser cataract surgery advertisement is showing up on every site I visit that has Google ads displayed (with a small thumbnail of his face). I had to delete the Google cookies to resolve the haunting. I suppose this was set when I visited his bio page. Lol.
Brave new world.
|
|
|
|
In any case, the concept is sort of inane. Who ever receives a payment can trace all the way back through the chain of payment history of obscured amounts. So afaics the anonymity breaks down over time to eventually 0. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
I think I conflated with the "respendable commited-tx". The homomorphic encryption was 5 slides above that. So perhaps the HE does not have the flaw I assumed. So it hides payment amounts but doesn't mix outputs from numerous entities. You'd still need CoinJoin for that, which is unscalable. And if you add on-chain ring sigs, then you don't need the HE. Also I don't understand how hiding the amount helps when the amount needs to be same for all those who are mixing in CoinJoin (otherwise analysis of permutations between input and output amounts can decrease the anonymity set). So far this looks like another one of those half-baked Gregory Maxwell ideas. I await clarification. Links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=509674.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.0 |
|
|
|
I remember watching Adam Back's talk about this concept when he was in Israel at a meeting I think sponsored by Meni Rosenfeld. In any case, the concept is sort of inane. Who ever receives a payment can trace all the way back through the chain of payment history of obscured amounts. So afaics the anonymity breaks down over time to eventually 0. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Also in the linked text from Maxell, he claims that ring sigs need a forever expanding high bloated unscalable block chain. I have solved that problem. The main problem side chains has introduced for me, is they can steal my technology and put it in a side chain. So I will just have to put it in a side chain first and make sure I am siphoning value from BTC in a way that can't technologically be improved upon. I know how to do this because it was already necessary in my design. So everything is falling right into place for me. Monero has eventually been co-opted by side chains (unfortunately). |
|
|
|
There is one fly in the ointment of curing the altcoin disease with pegged side coins.
Users will use a side chain for features they like, but there is 0 direct incentive for them to use a side chain to get a higher ROI on their investment.
Thus those who want to maximize ROI of some new feature such as for example on chain anonymity (off chain anonymity is untenable), will prefer to buy the altcoin version of the feature assuming that altcoin has a superior adoption curve to Bitcoin (remember smaller things grow faster on percentage basis).
And especially if that altcoin has an ecosystem that refuses to accept BTC directly because it is recognized that Bitcoin is a NWO paradigm wherein the future is Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, Facebook, etc will move their zombie masses onto a pegged side chain they control with a centralized ledger, with full compliance government KYC required on all transactions. The masses don't care. They already completed the KYC requirement when they joined those sites.
It will come down to a war over anonymity. Bitcoin gets the non-anonymous world. Another altcoin will vie for the anonymous world if it is done correctly. The key will be driving anonymous usage and thus adoption.
One could argue that an anonymous side chain would suffice for users of anonymity, but this depends on the usage of anonymity. If all you are doing is storing value, then you plan to cash out via BTC, then that isn't going to drive much adoption as evident for Moanero.
But if you've got an ecosystem for anonymity that has investors and operators who refuse to accept BTC then such an ecosystem can outpace Bitcoin's percentage growth and thus ROI for investors.
Why would investors and operators of an anonymity ecosystem refuse to accept BTC? Because they'd be shooting their own foot in terms of their investment in the altcoin with a higher growth rate. They'd be siphoning off their own network effects and diluting them into the larger monolith of BTC chains. It is a simple economic calculation. One can assume that anonymous operators will be intelligent, otherwise they wouldn't be interested in anonymity.
I remember watching Adam Back's talk about this concept when he was in Israel at a meeting I think sponsored by Meni Rosenfeld. In any case, the concept is sort of inane. Who ever receives a payment can trace all the way back through the chain of payment history of obscured amounts. So afaics the anonymity breaks down over time to eventually 0. Please correct me if I am mistaken. Also in the linked text from Maxell, he claims that ring sigs need a forever expanding high bloated unscalable block chain. I have solved that problem. The main problem side chains has introduced for me, is they can steal my technology and put it in a side chain. So I will just have to put it in a side chain first and make sure I am siphoning value from BTC in a way that can't technologically be improved upon. I know how to do this because it was already necessary in my design. So everything is falling right into place for me. Monero has eventually been co-opted by side chains (unfortunately).
In any case, the concept is sort of inane. Who ever receives a payment can trace all the way back through the chain of payment history of obscured amounts. So afaics the anonymity breaks down over time to eventually 0. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
I think I conflated with the "respendable commited-tx". The homomorphic encryption was 5 slides above that. So perhaps the HE does not have the flaw I assumed. So it hides payment amounts but doesn't mix outputs from numerous entities. You'd still need CoinJoin for that, which is unscalable. And if you add on-chain ring sigs, then you don't need the HE. Also I don't understand how hiding the amount helps when the amount needs to be same for all those who are mixing in CoinJoin (otherwise analysis of permutations between input and output amounts can decrease the anonymity set). So far this looks like another one of those half-baked Gregory Maxwell ideas. I await clarification. Links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=509674.0https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.0 |
|
|
|
There is one fly in the ointment of curing the altcoin disease with pegged side coins.
Users will use a side chain for features they like, but there is 0 direct incentive for them to use a side chain to get a higher ROI on their investment.
Thus those who want to maximize ROI of some new feature such as for example on chain anonymity (off chain anonymity is untenable), will prefer to buy the altcoin version of the feature assuming that altcoin has a superior adoption curve to Bitcoin (remember smaller things grow faster on percentage basis).
And especially if that altcoin has an ecosystem that refuses to accept BTC directly because it is recognized that Bitcoin is a NWO paradigm wherein the future is Coinbase, Circle, Paypal, Facebook, etc will move their zombie masses onto a pegged side chain they control with a centralized ledger, with full compliance government KYC required on all transactions. The masses don't care. They already completed the KYC requirement when they joined those sites.
It will come down to a war over anonymity. Bitcoin gets the non-anonymous world. Another altcoin will vie for the anonymous world if it is done correctly. The key will be driving anonymous usage and thus adoption.
One could argue that an anonymous side chain would suffice for users of anonymity, but this depends on the usage of anonymity. If all you are doing is storing value, then you plan to cash out via BTC, then that isn't going to drive much adoption as evident for Moanero.
But if you've got an ecosystem for anonymity that has investors and operators who refuse to accept BTC then such an ecosystem can outpace Bitcoin's percentage growth and thus ROI for investors.
Why would investors and operators of an anonymity ecosystem refuse to accept BTC? Because they'd be shooting their own foot in terms of their investment in the altcoin with a higher growth rate. They'd be siphoning off their own network effects and diluting them into the larger monolith of BTC chains. It is a simple economic calculation. One can assume that anonymous operators will be intelligent, otherwise they wouldn't be interested in anonymity.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
