It doesn't have "more ring sigs." That phrase doesn't even mean anything (more technobabble). Both coins allow the user to specify the desired number of mixins in a ring sig.

True but this doesn't apply to SDC or Monero or DRK.

SDC (along with several others using a similar model) is a slightly different sort of scam from most alts, where they actually did some significant coding, but then blow way out of proportion the novelty and value of it with a lot of misleading technobabble.

Yessir, that explains the quote from the SDC whitepaper. Fabricated obviously. Fucking Monero scammers are faking a white paper now.

Clue for the clueless: I'm a Monero dev but I'm also a long-time cryptocurrency enthusiast and who doesn't approve of ignorant (or perhaps not ignorant; that would be worse) pumpers using technobabble to rip of non-technical investors by misleading them into believe there is more substance than there actually is.

I'm not trash-talking, I'm calling you out for exactly this sort of scamming.

In fact now that you bring it up, the entire reason I'm involved with Monero at all, is that I recognized Bytecoin for their premine/instamine/ninjamine scam complete with fake suggestions of Cicada 3301 involvement and called them out for their bullshit just like I'm doing now with SDC. The difference is they actually had some substantive new cryptographic technology that was worth rescuing.

For it to be a non-sequitur it would have to be incorrect. It is not.


Try this, dumb shit:

As implemented today there is no there there. All you have are outputs, which can be used in ring signatures. If and when they implement something different in the future such as zerocoin we can discuss that.

Don't worry I only call people that when they are actually behaving like dumb shits


dafuq

Sigh.

I guess the new iteration of this nonsense is "anonymous tokens are not just anonymous outputs." Hey dumb shit, that's exactly what they are in SDC.

Fair point, this thread is not an example of SDC spamming. SDC is right in the subject so clearly it is on topic (though there are many other examples). It is an example of ignorant nonsense showing no understanding of how cryptocurrencies work (including their own) being frequently throw out by SDC supporters, as illodin very well identified. I don't always agree with illodin but in this case he's absolutely right.

Opinion not FUD

FUD = fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

My post promoted none of those, it described what I have seen about your group's behavior. It didn't even say anything about about the coin per se, just about the idiots who post about it.

Come on man, don't spam their thread. That's rude and inappropriate. It doesn't reflect well on the coin you are trying to pump either.

SDC people run all over these forums pumping their shit. Its the most blatantly overpromoted coin on this entire forum, and furthermore there are constantly ignorant technical comments made by them about how it is like zerocoin because it has minting, isn't copied from cryptonote, zero-knowledge anonymity, etc. (all false).

It's annoying as all fuck, and its not even done by third party trolls trying to create a backlash the way a lot of the Monero faux-shilling has been. It's actual SDC supporters spamming everywhere.

I am Monero core team. If you think I'm biased, ignorant or a pumper, ignore my posts please.

Enough said, and I'm sure you agree.


Everyone has a price right? Where did I read that?

Devs are basically doing a slow motion version this (it was his last post ever)


To his credit crypto_zoidberg was actually reasonably honest about not having time to work on BBR. More so than the blatant "development is still going" scams, while the developers are actually doing nothing but denying abandonment to prop the price up so they can cash out a few more coins.

In order to "reveal everything" you would have to break both unlinkability and untracability. These come from two entirely different cryptographic methods (ring signatures based on EdDSA, and ECDH). If one or the other were broken there would be some degree of leakage but far from a total reveal.

In the event that one or the other were broken, it would be replaced, coins could be moved around some more and linkages to the past severed. Only a double-break would expose everything.

Furthermore there is always some degree of off-chain mixing that occurs naturally in an economy as coins move through merchants, exchanges, p2p casual transactions, gambling sites, lending, etc. much as happens naturally with cash. Are you aware that some (?) banks now record the serial numbers of cash going in and out for each customer using a scanner? Yet because cash moves around "off-chain" in the normal economy, cash transactions between private parties are still fairly private. Likewise even total exposure of the blockchain would still leave a lot of questions unanswered. This is true of Bitcoin as well of course.


 

It isn't true there is "no correlation." Obviously there are all sorts of correlative coinjoin attacks, timing attacks, sybil attacks, etc. That's why darksend does what it does with mixing ahead of time, multiple rounds, denominations, etc. -- to try to defeat these correlations over multiple rounds. However, there is really no way to know how many rounds are needed, how long to wait after receiving coins to start mixing them, how long after mixing to use them, etc. Are 3 rounds enough or do you need 300?

The mathematical analysis that is presented on this to give numbers like 0.0000001% is flawed and deliberately misleading. They are mostly treating as independent events things which may not be independent and also are assuming an ideal model with no leaks (even probabilistic) in each stage. I don't believe it is possible to accurately compute these numbers in a real-world adversarial context. And that's just for public blockchain analysis. Once you include additional information from masternode logs the problem gets even messier.

To be fair various combinatorial, timing, etc. attacks exist with cryptographically-private systems such as cryptonote too. The main difference is the lack of additional inputs (masternode logs) from untrustable third parties, and also the lack of a simultaneity requirement for mixing.

Consult the masternode logs. Profit.

I'll never say impossible, but it is hard to imagine something you couldn't fix by repairing or replacing the cryptography with something else, unless the flaw were so catastrophic as to affect all or nearly all cryptography, in which case no coin would likely escape.

And I guess if something absolutely catastrophic like that happened to Bitcoin, where the integrity of the system were thoroughly compromised (for example if it weren't discovered for quite some time and ownership of coins somehow got very scrambled), it could be fatal for Bitcoin itself even if the code got fixed (and other coins using the Bitcoin code might be able to recover).

Flaws in a codebase can be fixed. The flaw of everything related to Bitcoin being highly political and subject to a thicket of conflicting entrenched interests can't be easily fixed. That's why, for example, they have been talking about the block size for years and are no closer to a solution.

That wouldn't necessarily affect other coins based on the Bitcoin code but it is the more likely cause of unfixable problems that would open major opportunities elsewhere.

This old poll is still going so if there are any new or old Monero supporters who haven't voted please take look: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=568166