Oh please, the insinuation is that fiat has not done this for decades. No one said it was easier or not - obviously the technology is superior. That is a moot point

I don't want to overstate my role. There are other developers working hard behind the scenes who don't get credit. Someone offered me an additional 5 BTC but I said it could go to those developers working behind the scenes such as to build the simulation to test my pseudocode.

We are not yet sure if anything I contributed is actually a viable attack. I reasonably strongly think so for the de-anonymization and mitigation I provided, but until they build a simulation we probably won't know. The math ideas were really just quickies and not too much effort applied (maybe an hour or two total). I did also write up my summary in this thread of some ways to think about the TW attack and mitigation, which expounds a bit I guess on what I hadn't read before writing that.

I have already received 2.5 BTC from smooth as a preliminary payment, I assume until they can verify with simulation.

Responding to his PM, I also gave jl777 my initial feedback on his Teleport anonymization in a PM. I am waiting on him to describe some of it to me better, so I could analyze more specifically and give specific suggestions, if any. My upthread post about offchain anonymity coins was not intended to say they are necessarily worse than one-time ring signatures on the block chain. I was saying we need more quantified understanding of how these methods compare. And hoping the developers of those coins will produce whitepapers that explain the specifics and do so in a way I can understand. So far the only offchain anonymity whitepaper I've seen which gives a lot of specifics is the one from jl777, but I can't really understand it. Maybe it is just me. For example, there are terms used as as "cloned" which are not defined, or at least I didn't see the definitions in that wall of text. Darkcoin's specifics were last time I checked some months ago buried in the discussion thread. I had formed an understanding, they since refined the design to do premixing, which I commented on in rpietila Altcoin observer thread. The problem with all this piecemeal analysis spread all over the place is it is not collected in one coherent whitepaper for investors to read.

Ah - that makes me understand your definitions better.  I do believe that BCX had hinted at basically doing a timewarp and then dumping all of the coins on an exchange for bitcoin.

So in that scenario there might be an attack that was both beneficial inside the network and destroys it.  But it's probably not worth bringing up.  I do have to wonder what happens inside of BCX's head.  Odd duck.

yes it does. I doubt BCX is a genius like at your level.

Is it plausible to make clients checkpoint themselves regularly? This would require the checkpoints to be saved in some external file that is integrity-verifiable.

There is still a threat of forking.

Sounds like Cyprus with frozen bank accounts all over again.  One thing if there was a fatal flaw that required time to fix, but freezing transactions due to a threat?  Is XMR really this fragile?

Mt. Gox was their Board member at the time so suing a member also has issues. 

The volume-weighted average price in each the 3 days after the attack, including today, has been 316. Simply put, the market has not made any adjustment in the perception of the value of XMR during the time. From speculation standpoint, everyone who gets suckered to the pumps or panics in the dumps, plays inoptimally. The one who supports the price below 316 and provides coins for sale above it, plays optimally.

However, there is the danger that the price will go flash crash and then to terminal decline. If you believe this is the case with high enough probability, you should aim to sell, and you cannot ask for 316 if you want volume. 310 average might be possible for small lots and higher slippage for higher ones.

If the attack does not materialize or comes out weaker than expected, the price may also be ready for a rally. Loading up now at the bottom is a good idea, and you should expect to be able to buy at about 322.

This just in: BCX has channeled all his hash power into a worm hole through which he can traverse space-time.
You have 72 hours to devise a defense.

Monero cant be traded on bittrex anymore?  

Oh, so, like, 72 hours or so? Rightio. 

source?

I would say these people were essentially going "all in" with the blood transfusion. In a quite literal sense.

I wasn't disagreeing with you in my prior post (hadn't even read your post yet), because I meant the TW attack could intermix the legitimate and attack chains from the CPs forward.

If my recent conceptual post is correct, the check points might not help because the legitimate and bad forks could be intermixed?? So you'd be unwinding legitimate transactions? I am the wrong person to ask. I have no experience with these sort of attacks. This is mostly off the top of my head in the span of a couple of hours. The anonymity issue was something I felt more qualified to delve into.

My question was directed towards someone that has insight into the vulnerability and sufficient technical knowledge to answer my question... Such as a Monero developer or Anonymint... Not trolls. :p

In reality, the only entity that can protect the US economy from other government aggressors is the US government. This has nothing to do with domestic politics. The ex-im bank protects the US economy from trade war with other countries. You are implying that AIG and other insurance companies should be able to protect itself and fight in War with other countries.