I N F O G R A P H I C F I N A L V E R S I O N Hi all ! If no one complains, this is final version, and maybe I'm posting tomorrow on reddit: /r/zerocoin /r/anoncoin /r/darknet (I'm not allowed to post in /r/deepdotweb so if there is an allowed member around...) I'll also do a little emailing to some crypto websites and blogs, if everyone is OK? If you want a .png version just ask (bigger size: 1.6 M). I'll have also snippets with visuals only, no text just in case you need to decorate documents... Keep in mind that there will be another infographic more speficic on the zerocoin feature in the next wallet, it is in progress, but it has to wait until the new wallet is alive! ...and there should be another infographic about I2P embedded too, before that, if I have enough time !   Looks great! As soon as Geekz enables images on the wiki, we can add a copy there as well. |
|
|
|
wiki page is still down !!!!!
Works for me. |
|
|
|
What's the likelihood of a coin implementing this? And which coin will it be? And why is it so difficult to implement?
its not possible to implement Zerocoin/ Zerocash in a crappy altcoin because Zerocash is nearly build from scratch and in development since 2 years. you will not find an unknown developer who can do this in 2 weeks, dont be a fool. there were already several attempts to scam people. Not true at all. Zerocoin was designed to work with Bitcoin. It was in fact a Bitcoin shuttle. Most of these "crappy" altcoins are based on dear old dad Bitcoin. So it can work as intended with Bitcoin and certainly with any of its direct descendants. The Libezero was posted public and released for other devs to use to make work with their coins. It says so on the Zerocoin and Zerocash web pages. Perhaps you should read up on the Zerocoin and Zerocash web pages. Contact someone like Ian M from their dev teams too. Actually, what you say is only true for the original Zerocoin protocol of Miers et al. 2013, but not the Zerocash protocol of Ben-Sasson et al. 2014 (which is what the original post was referring to.). It is easy to make this mistake, and Ben-Sasson et al. are to blame. In their Zerocash paper, they use the term "zerocoin", but this does not have the same meaning as "zerocoin" in Miers et al. I suggest that you read the original papers. Their new combined "zerocash/zerocoin" website is really confusing. |
|
|
|
A few coins are working on this. Seems its the holy grail of altcoins. I'd certainly buy a coin that had this implemented.
There are a lot of coins who claim they will implement Zerocoin, but Anoncoin is the only one who has proven that they are actually working on this. They have already generated and tested the RSA UFOs that will be used for the trustless setup up zerocoin, and there are numerous commits made at github over the past two months that you can inspect showing that progress is in fact being made. If other coins implement zerocoin, I suspect that they will simply fork Anoncoin. |
|
|
|
@rsa_ufo_attack: Do you like fishsticks?
Best response to a troll so far! |
|
|
|
No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.)
We will be able to verify how the accumulators works with the opensource code but the problem is no that. The problem is that Gnosis will generate the keys (RSA) of these accumulators.There is nothing trustless. You need to trust that Gnosis is honest and will not keep the factors to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC. Source: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph) If gnosis has his own rsa ufos - with factors - then he had 8 core years squirrelled away in his basement ? get real !!! You cannot fake the numbers nor the work needed to work them out. But, even if Gnosis had an alternative set of RSA UFOs, these wouldn't work with Zerocoin. The ZC mint transactions use the agreed upon value of N (the rsa ufo), and the spend transaction uses the same value of N. Miners verify that this is done correctly. There is no back door. You turn around too. You try to invalidate my arguments trying to divert the issue. As I said before, in the opensource code, it will be not possible to see if Gnosis hold the factors (P and Q) of the RSA keys or not. You will see only the N number in the opensource code.According to the anoncoin wiki: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph) If Gnosis knows the factors, he will be able to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC. And there is no way to be sure he destroy these factors. You need to trust Gnosis. Excuse me for being blunt, but you really don't know what you are talking about it. If N was chosen using Sanders method of generating RSA UFOs, there is no way that anyone could know the factorization of N. Since we are using Sander generated RSA UFOs for N, which are generated in a deterministic way, and since the number N can be verified in the code and by miners, there is no way that Gnosis could know its factorization, and there is no way that Gnosis could forge zerocoin proofs. This is what makes Zerocoin trustless. What part don't you understand? I think that this is crystal clear. |
|
|
|
No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.)
We will be able to verify how the accumulators works with the opensource code but the problem is no that. The problem is that Gnosis will generate the keys (RSA) of these accumulators.There is nothing trustless. You need to trust that Gnosis is honest and will not keep the factors to forge zerocoin proofs and then infinite ANC. Source: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph) If gnosis has his own rsa ufos - with factors - then he had 8 core years squirrelled away in his basement ? get real !!! You cannot fake the numbers nor the work needed to work them out. But, even if Gnosis had an alternative set of RSA UFOs, these wouldn't work with Zerocoin. The ZC mint transactions use the agreed upon value of N (the rsa ufo), and the spend transaction uses the same value of N. Miners verify that this is done correctly. There is no back door. |
|
|
|
Haha.. No wonder why I'm always offline from here. Listening to those trolls trying to increase their e-penis and save the last of the fallen coins they sit on.. Maybe angry for us not letting them easily copy us... well well, I wouldn't care, either should you.
This was not a reply to the trolls. They are on /ignore.
/Back to work
Liar, you come here everyday but you act like a child.
My last post below is clear but you are not able to provide a real support to your community because you have no arguments against mines. This is unfortunate to see the main dev acting like that.If you are not able to understand, then ask Meeh or Gnosis (they were both online on bitcointalk today):
1) Who will setup the 13 accumulators of zerocoin?
2) If it will be possible to review this setup to be sure that Gnosis doesn't know the factors (P and Q) of the accumulators (to avoid the risk that he forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC)?
The reponses are:
1) Gnosis
2) No because the setup will be done OUTSIDE the open source wallet code.
EDIT: If 2) response from Meeh is YES, then I'm out. You will never see me again here.
@rsa_ufo_attack I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time. Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted. @everyone Some additional information for those that haven't caught on yet. We are primarily in this project to push the boundaries of anonymity technology, not to amuse the investors that buy loads of the coin. To avoid zerocoin implementation using the UFO's (the best tech to date) because there is a slight chance it might be abused is not an option. It was said that it will be attacked and eventually cracked, this is a given. The important factor here is time. To crack the UFO's will most likely require several decades even with a wast constant, or even increasing, amounts of computing power. With previous statements in the thread some people are indirectly implying that all development will halt when zc with ufo launches. This is certainly not the case. With zc and the UFO in place we will have _at least_ 5 years to come up with a better solution without ever being at risk of the UFO's being cracked. If any of these risks are not acceptable to you, I suggest you drop your coin, and shift your interest towards another coin. rsa_ufo_attack: I only saw your question because it was quoted in another post (you are on ignore). 1. The RSA UFOs were generated using the algorithm of Sanders. You can verify this in the code that Gnosis published on github. The fact that it was generated using Sanders algorithm proves that no one knows that factorization. Please read the wiki, inspect the code, and read the Sanders paper. If you don't do this, you will have to trust the developers. 2. Of course. You realize this is open source, right? Thanks BroxTroxer for your response. I'm sad to see that only BroxTroxer is smart and able to think by himself. To lunokhod2: Please understand that even if the code is open source, it would not prove that Gnosis have setup the 13 accumulators with RSA-UFO. You need to trust that Gnosis will setup the accumulators with the trustless RSA-UFO method. He can say what he want. If he setup them by himself to know the two factors (P and Q) of each accumulator, he will be able to forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC. Need to explain you the consequences of that? Source: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin#Zerocoin_in_practice (Section: Criticisms, fourth paragraph) The own Anoncoin wiki say that. We need to trust Gnosis. The implementation of zerocoin in Anoncoin is NOT trustless. About the RSA-UFO project, it was just to remove the small factors (P and Q). Don't say bullshit please. No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.) |
|
|
|
Haha.. No wonder why I'm always offline from here. Listening to those trolls trying to increase their e-penis and save the last of the fallen coins they sit on.. Maybe angry for us not letting them easily copy us... well well, I wouldn't care, either should you.
This was not a reply to the trolls. They are on /ignore.
/Back to work
Liar, you come here everyday but you act like a child.
My last post below is clear but you are not able to provide a real support to your community because you have no arguments against mines. This is unfortunate to see the main dev acting like that.If you are not able to understand, then ask Meeh or Gnosis (they were both online on bitcointalk today):
1) Who will setup the 13 accumulators of zerocoin?
2) If it will be possible to review this setup to be sure that Gnosis doesn't know the factors (P and Q) of the accumulators (to avoid the risk that he forge zerocoin proofs and generate infinite ANC)?
The reponses are:
1) Gnosis
2) No because the setup will be done OUTSIDE the open source wallet code.
EDIT: If 2) response from Meeh is YES, then I'm out. You will never see me again here.
@rsa_ufo_attack I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time. Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted. @everyone Some additional information for those that haven't caught on yet. We are primarily in this project to push the boundaries of anonymity technology, not to amuse the investors that buy loads of the coin. To avoid zerocoin implementation using the UFO's (the best tech to date) because there is a slight chance it might be abused is not an option. It was said that it will be attacked and eventually cracked, this is a given. The important factor here is time. To crack the UFO's will most likely require several decades even with a wast constant, or even increasing, amounts of computing power. With previous statements in the thread some people are indirectly implying that all development will halt when zc with ufo launches. This is certainly not the case. With zc and the UFO in place we will have _at least_ 5 years to come up with a better solution without ever being at risk of the UFO's being cracked. If any of these risks are not acceptable to you, I suggest you drop your coin, and shift your interest towards another coin. rsa_ufo_attack: I only saw your question because it was quoted in another post (you are on ignore). 1. The RSA UFOs were generated using the algorithm of Sanders. You can verify this in the code that Gnosis published on github. The fact that it was generated using Sanders algorithm proves that no one knows that factorization. Please read the wiki, inspect the code, and read the Sanders paper. If you don't do this, you will have to trust the developers. 2. Of course. You realize this is open source, right? |
|
|
|
An "Anon-coupon" I like,
Or why not "Anon-voucher" then  A coupon is something you receive for free to win discounts! We are speaking about a technological product. We are not in the supermarket! You are correct, I have a girlfriend who works as a consultant marketing psychologist for big global corps, and i discussed the idea with her a while back but, basically, ZKPs, it's a great but you cannot sell something with "zero" in it, it will not sell, zero implies nothing/loss and so humans feel no desire to be there. We need a catch-phrase that emits positive vibes, alternatives like Voucher or Coupon, imply value and usability, even if they're a bit corny, we need some more head-banging/brainstorming here. I'll be having have her 'round tomorrow night and that's on the menu ... +1 here. Test marketing 'zerocoin' among friends and acquaintances reveals the same results. Perhaps 'vANC,' for Anoncoin Voucher would work well. Although I will say that once the tech is proven, the name will most likely be insignificant. If cokezero hadn't been shit, the name would have changed what 'zero' means in pop culture. How about : Anoncoin Redeem (ANC.R) OR we could have the coin symbol with .R or r All this talk about "vouchers" and other things seems way more confusing than using Zerocoin the way it was originally intended to be used. I understand that people would like Zerocoin transactions to be as simple to use as possible. I would like to emphasize that: It will be as simple as possible, and NO SIMPLER. If you care about anonymity, unfortunately, you need to know what a zerocoin is, how to buy it and how to redeem it. You will need to check that there are sufficient number of zerocoins for the denominations you buy to assure anonymity. You will need to make sure that you don't buy and then redeem immediately the same number of coins, as this will look suspicious in the blockchain. The user is responsible for using zerocoin correctly, and you can not expect the Anoncoin client to just blindly do all this for you. I am sure that the developers can add warnings in the client when you do something stupid, but this will probably not work for every single case. Such is the nature of Zerocoin. If you want an idiot proof anonymous system, the only one I am aware of is Zerocash, but as we've discussed many times here before, there is a problem with setting up the security parameters using trusted third parties. |
|
|
|
.... TO CLARIFY Zerocoin and Zerocash- https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocoin- https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Zerocash- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg2983902#msg2983902 (scroll down a little further to read about Zerocoin) Everybody asked about how big Transactions are going to be, no real answer has been given yet. Gnosis estimated it would cost more than 50x fees. However, why do you think this needs to be tested first? Way too much ConcernedMost of you guys are too much concerned whether it might work or find more and more disadvantages. Why don't you invest a little and wait for a while. There is no way for you to find out much more about this tech if you are not a programmer or don't have a simple understanding of it. As far as I understand it, the transaction size is exactly the same size as a normal ANC transcation. The only thing that differs is that when you spend a zerocoin, there is extra information that is added to a temporary database, which eventually gets deleted. |
|
|
|
|
I know that there is no news, but....
Does anyone have any information on how they plan on choosing the Zerocash security parameters in a trustless manner?
I've seen a few crytpic tweets from the team about this, and it seems like they have some ideas, but it is not at all clear to me how they are going to do this in practice.
|
|
|
|
Now that we are getting close to seeing Zerocoin in action, we are thinking about translating the (new) website and wiki into a couple of different languages. Based on the political climate in China and Russia, I think that we should probably start with chinese and russian. Given that bitcoin is becoming increasingly important in South America, I think that we should probably concentrate on Spanish as well. How does this sound? So, first, are there any native chinese, russian, or spanish speakers in this forum that would be willing to help out? Second, we would either like to pay a community member to do this, or put out an ANC-per-word bounty. However, given the amount of ANC in the donation address, this wouldn't be too attractive, at least at the current ANC price.... If you want to help jump start this initiative, think about donating ANC to the project. Lastly, I would just like to remind everyone that we still have about 700 ANC in bounties open. Details can be found here on the Anoncoin wiki. |
|
|
|
The point was that anc took advantage of their "intellectual property" without their permission but now some want to claim that work as proprietary to anc. I have no respect for "intellectual property" rights and was not criticizing the use of zerocoin. I was criticizing the hypocrisy.
Libzerocoin is under MIT license: http://opensource.org/licenses/MITLibzerocoin warning on Github: THIS IS DEVELOPMENT SOFTWARE. WE DON'T CERTIFY IT FOR PRODUCTION USE. WE ARE RELEASING THIS DEV VERSION FOR THE COMMUNITY TO EXAMINE, TEST AND (PROBABLY) BREAK.Gnosis worked tons of hours on zerocoin implementation. The code on which it is based has nothing to do with the current zerocoin. Don't be afraid of ANC dude, just buy some and enter in the game. It's not too late. The price is very low today. In some weeks, we will be on the top 3. To top Ripple and get to #3 ANC would have to be worth $116 each, by my calcs. If Zerocoin is successful it will be a monumental step for cryptocurrency. Considering the low supply side sell pressure for a tightly held, low supply coin, and the demand for ANC with ZC, I think it could get there but it would be a phenomenal thing! Ripple is not a crypto currency, its debt based fake crypto money/coins. I know that there are a lot of people that hate Ripple, and I don't want to start a useless diversion, but.... I would consider XRP to be a cryptocurrency, but with a semi-centralized consensus system that is largely controlled by (but not entirely) Ripple and its collaborators. It is true that Ripple did not explicitly intend XRP to be a separate currency, but more of an internal medium for exchanging other currencies, including fiat and cypto (similar to SDRs?). It is also true that all non-XRP balances are based on trust, and could conceivably disappear if the trusted entity went bankrupt. It is also true that the entire supply of XRP was created at once (like NXT and others....). And finally, it is true that they probably are more concerned with the established banking community than most cryptos are (including the Ripple fork Stellar). The benefit of not using mining, and somewhat centralized consensus, is that transactions are instantaneous. As long as you know all this, I think it is a better system than Visa/Mastercard/Paypal/etc, but not as good as what bitcoin-style cryptos have to offer. The thing that gets me mad about ripple is that they recently added Karl-Theodor zu Guttenburg to the board of directors, who plagiarized his Ph.D. thesis.... ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Theodor_zu_Guttenberg). Its hard to trust a company that would do that... |
|
|
|
Good luck to you guys, I have been rooting for Anoncoin to successfully implement Zerocoin, as I think it will be the most anonymous Cryptocurrency if you guys can do so. It is because of Anoncoin's attempt at Zerocoin implementation that I can't stand all the Monero shilling as being a sure bet.
I think if you guys successfully implement Zerocoin, you will be the Anon coin to beat. It is crazy to me that the Monero fan boys aren't the least bit worried about Anoncoin. I am not sure if they are just ignorant, or if they are trying to pump Monero up while they cash out. Either way it annoys me, so I have chosen Anoncoin as my most likely to succeed anon coin at this point in time. It seems Zerocoin implementation is imminent.
I haven't seen any Monero shilling in this thread. Also, I should remind everyone that the lead developer of Monero and Anoncoin are founding members of PrivacySolutions.no, so we are all friends here! Though I think Zerocoin is better than ring signatures, I also think that Monero is one of the few "honest" coins out there today (yes, I have followed the entire bytecoin-scam history). |
|
|
|
Other upcoming dates:
September 15: the RSA UFO project ends, participants are rewarded, and the server source is released to our Github.
September 17: the first Zerocoin commits get pushed to our Github (Anoncoin/anoncoin, "zc" branch). As I said before, the public Github will lag 2 weeks behind active development in our private repository; this is to make things more difficult for copycat coins.
I have thought a lot about this. If commits get pushed to Github as planned (before testnet) then I am done with Anoncoin. Although I admire the honestly and hard work of our dev team I fear all will be lost. Other coins have larger development teams and are capable of copying our work quickly. Zerocoin integration is the only reason why I was interested in ANC. The previous delays I could deal with fine as I know this project was a difficult one. I just cant understand the rush to publish commits to Github before launch. Gnosis and Meeh worked so hard on this coin! Why allow others to copy your work so easily? I really hope our dev team changes their mind on this and quickly. Please speak up if you agree with me as time is of the essence. We don't want to wait a few more days (when commits to Github begin) and long term supporters start dumping ANC shares because other coins are stealing our work with a plan to launch before us. I won't mention the names of the "other coins" here but a search of this forum will reveal several working on zerocoin integration now. Once our work is seen in Github, there will be many more +1000 I think that everyone needs to realize the following: Anoncoin WILL be forked. It won't make much of a difference if portions of the code are pushed to the public repository in advance or not. At best, you are putting off the inevitable by a couple weeks. Also, by forking the code, they will be able to use the same RSA UFOs that we generated (though I would consider that to be pretty scammy if they did... They could at least pick their own security parameters...). The only thing that will save Anoncoin from copycats is that Anoncoin will continue to develop new features and products, whereas the others wont. Anoncoin started as a fork of litecoin, added i2p, formed the non-profit Privacy Solutions, and are about to add zerocoin. As you can see from this forum, more is on the horizon. How many coins have done anything significant after launch? |
|
|
|
|
This is just to let everyone know that I have been having problems mining Anoncoin with FushionHash. I can only recommend that everyone avoid dealing with them.
In short:
1. Even though there are active miners (according to their web site), they haven't found a block in several weeks, and the last one they found has not yet been confirmed.
2. I tried to cash out my (small) balance, but after several weeks, they have not yet processes this.
3. I have sent multiple emails to them, and I have gotten no response.
|
|
|
|
I agree that there are more trolls than normal trying to discredit Monero. The rational for this is very clear, as laid out most recently on this thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0However, to answer your question: will Monero survive? The forces that are trying to discredit it are only strengthening the coin and the community. Monero should be thankful that they are getting such a hard "peer review". This is something that most minor altcoins escape. |
|
|
|
Cool, as soon as we get the wiki to work with images (Geekz is working on it), i'll upload these to the PR folder. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
