1PaLDgUGDAbHy2bYChmAbbErLdAriDnpNB

How can you make payment ID a required field on transactions that people send to you? It's not like you can return coins to the original address if they arrive without a payment ID (thanks to the deniability afforded by ring-sigs). The only way to make payment IDs a required field would be to maintain a list of exchange wallet addresses (which has the downside of needing to be updated any time an address changes or a new exchange opens) and then make the IDs required on all pool/wallet transactions to those addresses.

No doubt some people would still mess it up and put the wrong ID in, however.

Why scam though? Just leave the site running and rake in that house edge monies. Unless the guy is just a completely soulless bastard, or got hacked and decided to cut and run.

Well made gif! Protip though, you should upload to gyfcat in future, they optimise it as a .webm animation so it's much smoother and smaller (2mb vs 7mb). Not sure how easy it is to embed though.

https://gfycat.com/DelayedShabbyHoneybadger

Maybe you should follow your own advice there? Only people who hold a lot of coins can work to develop a coin? It's open source so anyone who wants to can develop it. What the fuck are you doing bashing developers who put in the effort to develop an open source project for no pay, maybe you should GTFO.

Ah yes, that's where I was getting confused. Thanks for the clarification.

Nekomata, I'm also an XMR supporter but I agree with some of the other posters in this thread that there are a lot of new Monero threads popping up recently (arguably too much), which will undoubtedly lead to fatigue and frustration of other board members & other coin supporters.

I have no doubt that a fair amount of the new posts are 'false-flag' anti-XMR trolls posing as XMR fanboys trying to piss people off. I don't think (or at least I hope you are not) one of those but I also don't think this thread was needed. I would suggest sticking to the existing threads in future.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but would that analysis not require the assumption of constant hashrate/difficulty over the period considered? If there is a sharp rise or fall in hashrate over the period then you will end up with some very improbable results.

So I did a little analysis on the number of blocks generated in the past 3 days (since the timewarp was 'set in motion'). I've broken them down into 12-hour (0.5 day) increments from 11:00 to 23:00 and vice-versa. I then compared the number of blocks we'd expect in these increments given one block per minute, vs the number of blocks we have actually had.

I further considered both cumulative variance (the total blocks generated between now and then vs what we would have expected) and the period variance (the number of blocks generated in any 12 hour increment vs what we would have expected). For any 12 hour period we should be getting, on average, 720 blocks.

Days		No. Mins		Block height		Total Blocks		Cumulative Variance		Period Blocks		Period Variance
0		0		236012		0		0.00%		0		0.00%
-0.5		720		235287		725		0.69%		725		0.69%
-1		1440		234495		1517		5.35%		792		10.00%
-1.5		2160		233792		2220		2.78%		703		-2.36%
-2		2880		233083		2929		1.70%		709		-1.53%
-2.5		3600		232353		3659		1.64%		730		1.39%
-3		4320		231678		4334		0.32%		675		-6.25%

As we can see, the major number that jumps out was the 10% period variance in the 12-hour interval between block 235287 and block 234495. This means there was 10% more blocks generated than we would have expected.

Personally I don't believe this to be outside of the bounds of normal generation-rate fluctuations, especially given the prolonged increase in difficulty over that period of time (see difficulty on http://chainradar.com/xmr/chart between 11am and 11pm on 26th September). This suggests there was an increase in network hashrate over this period, which could account for the 10% extra blocks generated while difficulty caught up.

Obviously this is just my opinion and it's possible that it may be the symptom of some sort of timewarp attack, but I do not believe this to be the case. Especially given that there has only been 0.32% more blocks generated than there should have been in total over the past 3 days.

I'll continue to analyse the block generation rate in 12-hour intervals going forward, and post the results on these forums, pointing out anything I spot that seems anomalous.

I welcome the opinion of others on these figures, or any suggestions on how to improve this analysis going forward.

tl;dr there's nothing wrong with the block generation rate since the 'attack' started. Will keep an eye on it going forward.

~pst~

Just catching up on this thread so forgive me for replying to a post from some pages back.


You would know all about that wouldn't you, being an expert in back-peddling and all. Like the time you claimed to be able to steal Monero private keys, then it just became a timewarp attack. Or like the time you used your Poloniex trollbox name (that you had confirmed by a post on here to be yours) to threaten Poloniex with an attack in a matter of minutes, shortly before it coincidentally went down due to DDOS, then come on here to deny any involvement.

Edit: Not that I'm saying you're not currently trying to execute an attack. Hell, you might even pull it off. But to call someone else out for back peddling is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black in my eyes. And as a result of your past untruths I have my doubts.

Edit: never mind, seems this isn't to do with the ongoing attack threat and the devs are already on top of it.

Edit: never mind, seems this isn't to do with the ongoing attack threat and the devs are already on top of it.

Crying at your own party? How tragic.



Maybe you should find less sociopathic hobbies?

So if, by BCX's admission, it takes a couple of days for the timewarp symptoms to occur (presumably while building up the attacking chain), a viable mitigation strategy may be to checkpoint daily. This then results in him having to continually restart the attack before it builds up a long enough chain to go anywhere. Could do it at a random point each day to keep it unpredictable. If I understand the situation correctly.

It also appears less and less likely to me that BCX has a viable private-key compromising attack.

So are we just going to keep extending the timer by another day every time the 'attack' fails to materialise? Is that how this works?

Hi Rough,

Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that you were mining Bytecoin in 2012? I'd be really interested in the following:

- How did you obtain the Bytecoin distributables back then?
- Was there open-source code available on the darknet, or precompiled binaries?
- Where did you find the code/binaries, and do you still have any of those early copies kicking about anywhere?
- Were there any darknet forums or sites where like-minded individuals could discuss and/or trade bytecoin, and if so where?
- Was it just solo mining or was there any pool mining available?
- When viewkeys are implemented, would you be willing to share the viewkey of the address you were mining to back in late 2012? To validate your claims.

I'm genuinely interested in your answers here!

Just like the unmitigated innovation, developer competency, community and potential of Cloakcoin. Because you got behind that one. Right? Talk about picking a winner!

Anyway I have better things to be doing with my time than sitting here going round in circles with egotistical asshats like yourself!

In two days time I fully expect you to be proven wrong with your Monero doomsday fantasies. Call it five, so the developers have some time to remedy the situation in the unlikely event that some sort of attack actually does go ahead. If after five days, Monero is but a smouldering wreck of a cryptocurrency, I will apologise to you unreservedly and eat a hefty slice of humble pie. But for the time being I have lost interest in continuing discourse with someone whose motivations are as transparent as yours. Until then, adieu.

You. You are my problem. You and your unrelenting attack on Monero and Monero developers/supporters. You and your shilling for your latest pump-of-the-day (stealthcoin in this case). Your very presence in this thread is my problem.

I could ask you the same thing. What's your problem with Monero? You obviously don't own any and you've made it clear that you (or rather your "tech advisor" that we all supposedly look up to) think everyone is going to lose everything in 2 days time, so I don't see what purpose your continued posting here serves.

Fixed that for you.

For some background info on just how upstanding a character Bobsurplus is, I'd recommend this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=730880.0

BTW how long were you banned for again?