True, I am definitely not a part of Monero Development team.  I'm nowhere good enough to be useful to them.  I'm just another innocent bystander enjoying the puzzles presented by BCX, and the merits of the Cryptonote technology as implemented in Monero.

So no comment at all from BCX on the merits of this evolutionary development?  Nothing at all good to say?  Not even an attaboy to those hardworking innovative developers who came up with something new to resolve an element of the TW attack vector universe within the 3 day challange?
I'll give it to them.  This innovation does resolve the classical TW attacks and defang them even when combined with DDoS.  It does this by decentralizing checkpointing.  

If BCX or one of the MUCH larger concentrations of computing power are looking to execute a new type of TW attack...  Say for example and attack designed to exceed the anomaly discards by relying on luckily matching one of a growing set of high difficulty hashes being databased with pre-computed sequential subsequent blocks... Then such an attack is 1) orders of magnitude more difficult, and 2) it requires a fortunate hash collision, and 3) it can take even a massive hashing effort a very long time to build such a block dataset to garner enough matches to hit an effect within the 720 block window of XMR and 20% anomaly discard.  

If something of that nature is contemplated, then such an attack would not be defeated by this innovation.  This innovation defeats only long chain TW attacks, which are the sort that are defeated by checkpoints.   That sort of new attack would be only defeated by actual mining, incrementally increasing over time.  This mining increase would ultimately obsolete the block dataset type of TW attack.  Its how Bitcoin did it.

The example blocks indicated in the previous posts do not present evidence of such an attack capability, at best they could show a test, but likely not even that.  So no.  Not spooked.  Not by that anyway.
===

BCX appears to have decided that more forced evolution is needed?  BCX is maybe awaiting acknowledgement, and a request to BCX for help, from the devs.

I'd ask myself, but 1) I'm definitely not on the dev team and 2) I've really nothing additional to offer.  Nothing except what I'd offer to Satoshi, that I would be helpful to his project when a time came that I could be helpful, and 3) It looks like they are in fact looking for your help here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg8992099#msg8992099

ArtForz postulated novel vulnerabilities in block chain technologies years ago which were tested and executed by BCX and called Time Warp.  It works by saving up pregenerated blocks and releasing them later.  The main idea being that you can compress a lot of proof of work into a shorter period.  These Time Warp vulnerabilities present some dangers to all block chains in their infancy, including Bitcoin, typically by manipulating difficulty algorithms, and also by winning block rewards.  Bitcoin survived that period, we hope.  Every coin however, will have to struggle through this infancy period as hash rate rises.  All can be strangled in their cribs, even if they may grow up to be an improvement on the state of the art as we know it.


Bitcoin was not made for automating very high privacy transactions.   The current development direction is increasingly inconsistent with this.  That is then left to other new coins to experiment with.  And so, the fundamental innovations of Cryptonote, primarily the ring signatures, while possible to emulate in a rudimentary way with Bitcoin, is not something that is likely to ever become incorporated into Bitcoin.  Monero is the largest of these, if it falls, it clearly shows that all the others are much easier prey.  So, BCX may keep working on the game of sneaking into the nurseries and strangling babies while drinking Russian vodka, and others will keep on the game of looking for ways to be helpful for developing these technologies and saving the babies.  I'd like to see Monero grow up, so I'll keep doing what I can to protect the crib, and bring it the occasional bottle when I can.

For immediate funding, donation and MEW membership are useful mechanisms, and encouraging others for this would help also.

Interesting theory.
I typically do the opposite so it is reassuring that I will have lots of students at your school on the opposite side of my trades. 
I tend to buy more when the price is low and less when it is going up.
Sometimes I might even sell a few if the price goes up higher than I think it should be.

That discussion is close to the hearts of the Monero Economic Group.  Have you joined?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776479.0;topicseen

A merge mined fork with a very low, very long (perpetual?) emission would also reward mining, and provide for new entrants into many future generations.  It is something to consider.  It would preserve the currency XMR scarcity.

If it uses the same codebase, with only the emission parameters changed, it could solve the problems for everyone without a huge new burden.
Something to think about anyway.  There would be a lot of details to consider first.

Executive summary sir:

There was a threat.

To the extent that the threat was credible, it was mitigated in the code.
During the mitigation, most exchanges stopped transacting with the monero block chain, but kept exchanging openly.
There were some brief DDoS attacks and minor alerts, but no substantial problems

Business as usual resumed shortly after the mitigation work was completed, with some nice enhancements to the code that prevent this sort of threat from reoccurring. 

Lessons learned discussions are still ongoing but at minimum, the enhancements are sufficiently innovative that they may be adopted by all other coins to prevent this type of threat in a distributed fashion.  This is a win for crypto currency in general.

How is the notion of teamwork so complicated for you?  Some programmers have more means than others.  Why would it bug you if one buys the lunches for another?  Everyone does better if they aren't worried about where the next meal comes from. 

The philosophy is not unusual.  Despite the loud "this is better than that", the truth is often that both tend to better than either individually.
People are like that too.

Gathering a bunch of xNTJs and watching the judgement fly is still sometimes fun, but at the end of the day we have a lot more in common than our differences.

I read it.
There are a lot of new words in that document that I don't understand.
Many of them are words to describe things that are planned.

With that understanding, the "100% coding, 0% marketing" phrase seemed, at least that phrase, to be 100% marketing.
Marketing deals with forward looking projections, plans, and public communications.

As much as the plan seems a great one...
Is there another communications document that only describes what exists already today?

I like the idea of funding development, and funding mining too.

But...
Beyond the practicalities, the problem with voting is that the minority loses.  Whichever way it goes some will see what they bought, changed without their consent (and against their wishes) after they got it home.
If a vote were called, I suspect some folks would simply sell, and if it comes out the way they want, buy back.

Not everyone is so generous as we.

Can we then agree that: Discussion is good, uncertainty is bad.

And so: Let me reframe the question.  

Assuming that this can be accomplished with a merged mined side chain.
Whereas XMR will forever keep to the emission it has, can we then discuss what sort of "core covenant" changes might be good to make in a prospective side chain(s).

Doing it that way has the benefit of rewarding the miners who are merge mining both chains.   It further lets the market decide this sort of thing, without any uncertainty regarding changes to that which we already enjoy owning.

Edit: It needs its own thread.

This.

Eric Raymond is an amazing man.  Worked on a trial with him a while back.  Good times.

Maybe its just me, but I see all these "turf battles" as less of a gang war, and more of good natured prodding?  I suspect that there are places where this culture clash boils over, I may just be missing it.  

Seems like a couple of New York friends saying "Fawk yoo, no, Fawk YOO" over who has the best code, and then going out to grab a drink together and having the same argument over who gets to pick up the tab.  We are all in this together, like it or love it.

The BBR vs XMR rivalry to me doesn't bug me a lot.  It seems an artificial competition, and mostly out on the fringes where the trolls live.  In the central groups, just about all I hear is mutual respect, though I'm mostly just privy to the XMR sentiment, I'd guess its the same with BBR.  I'd bet that when you took this message to Risto, he probably just smiled and nodded.  The rivalry has its uses, to keep folks on their best game.  

Back to this thread... The same is true with the BCX game.  BCX played the 'villain' card, and did it with some panache.  The pressure worked.  Not everyone saw the threat, but everyone came together to get out a fix.  We were red teamed.  Folks placed bets on how it would come out.  We were energized.  Good times.

"I will no longer be participating on Fridays due to the lack of disrespect that I was shown today."

If only the teacher had shown sufficient disrespect, she could have had more florescent and carefully crafted anatomically correct vagina cookies next Friday too?
This can't be real.

Yes, if its on poloniex.
They're updated and open for withdrawals and deposits of all coins.
I've not checked all the others yet, but suspect they are also open or will be soon.

TL;DR
Its over.  TW attacks will never again work against XMR.

If you read the last commit on github, you'll know the whole answer.
ANN here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8961211#msg8961211


XMR Dev team rose to the challenge of forced evolution in the time available.
They have crafted a polymorphic bitmonerod+client that adds checkpoints at will and with no dev team intervention needed.  Its a decentralized self-maintainable solution that scales as needed.  Even if you DDoS github, checkpoints can still be deployed.

Thanks are due to BCX for initiating the game.  I hope it was rewarding, even though he was outplayed, this time.

If there are also some other anon-busters, but that don't rely on defanged TW, they're probably rested and ready for a rematch by now.

Weird, I would have picked some other words to indicate success.
Such as:
"We will be distributing updated checkpoint files that will continue to protect the blockchain without the need for a full update of the daemon."

This has been done exactly never before on other coins.
It shows the innovation on demand this team can produce, with rapid on-point responsiveness to a real-time threat with no warning, whether it be real or not.

They could be writing anything, anywhere, and yet have chosen to work on this project.
I am humbled by their generosity to advancing the state of the art as we know it in this arena.

Thank you gentlemen, thank you kindly, you are a credit to your profession.

Some US Policy examples have already been mentioned
- Cash denomination deduction
- All the AML are anti-cash
- $10K limit on cash transaction without paperwork. 
- Cash declaration at borders (but no questions wearing $100K diamond bracelet or watch)
- some part os tax code

Have you tried going to a bank and handing them cash to deposit into your friend's account?
The bank may likely tell you that they won't accept cash, but if you press them they may let you know that the grocery store or post office across the street will sell you a money order that you can deposit.  This may seem strange, but it is just a part of what you might think of as a war on cash.  Bitcoin helps this goal, and may be used to gain cooperation from governments that are seeking to define regulatory authorities for it.

I don't think the governments reasons for this are all bad, but they may have some pernicious effects on privacy and centralization of consumer transaction data.  It creates some vulnerabilities that are systemic and difficult to address.  There are unintended consequences.  Some of these problems are actually resolved by Bitcoin and its decentralized ledger...but...

This is where it gets weird though. 
The war on cash is being sold through lobbing efforts by those who have some skin in the game.  Here is an example of one of these lobbying groups.
http://betterthancash.org/about/our-members/
They will explain all the merits of a cashless society globally.  This benefits them financially as the governments will make increased use of their services.

There is no bitcoin group on that list, at least not yet.
Bitcoin has all the benefits those companies are offering and more.
It does just exactly what the governments want with respect to the merits the advocates for the war on cash are explaining to them.
Furthermore it reduces the regulatory burden because it is OPEN.  Its hashed, undeleatable transaction ledger is public, can't be shredded.

So then why do governments fight it, when in reality it is the answer to their problems, and reduce their costs more even than the options offered by these "better than cash alliance" guys?
(Did I mention the lobbying?)




From Israel:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/172028#.VCNMaPldVyy
The government on Tuesday authorized establishment of a committee that will examine ways to eliminate cash from the Israeli economy – the better to prevent citizens from cheating on their taxes. The committee will be chaired by Harel Locker, director of the Prime Minister's Office.

Cash is easily passed from individual to individual, and transactions using cash can take place without the tax man's supervision. Not so electronic transactions; with modern computers, banks can keep tabs on how much people deposit into their accounts and how much they withdraw, while credit card companies have an up to the second record of how much people spend.

Members of the panel will include top staff from the Israel Police, the Tax Authority, the chairman of the Government Authority on Money Laundering and Terror, the Bank of Israel's income and payments director, State Attorney's office officials, and more.

According to many of these officials, cash is bad – because it allows individuals to get out of their tax payment responsibilities. Today, an enterprising tax collector cannot easily compare income and outflow. While he may suspect that a person living beyond his reported means is cheating on his taxes, there is no way to know for sure, without solid evidence. In a cashless economy, all records will be electronic, and checking who makes what and how much they owe in taxes – and collecting it before it gets to their account – will be a much simpler matter, the theory goes.

Officials in the Prime Minister's Office declared that “around the world, it is recognized that cash is a key element of the illegal economy and money laundering. It allows a wide gap between reported and actual incomes, with the corresponding effect on tax revenues.” By eliminating cash, the PMO said, “it will be possible to expand the tax base, and prevent money laundering.” The committee will study the issue from all its perspectives and make recommendations, the PMO said.

One issue the committee will be examining, the PMO said, was the imposing of administrative fees on electronic transactions, common in Israel. Whatever solutions the committee comes up with, the office said, it will ensure that individuals who have no choice in the matter will be able to make transactions in a manner that will not tack on extra expenses.
===============
Its everywhere, in some places more blatant.
http://mises.org/daily/6370/The-International-War-on-Cash

https://www.sc.com/ng/download/CBN-Faqs.pdf

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futrolige-historier%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10118319

If you are editing, you might consider replacing 'levity' with 'gravity' in your "THE THREAT" section?  I think it may have been what you meant.

Potete tradurre le frasi avanti e indietro con google un paio di volte fino a che non viene fuori proprio nella traduzione per la lingua?