Has anybody here ever bought goods or services by XST coins?
i traded 2k XST for an antminer s1 with a guy on craigslist.. came out to about .13btc at the time What if craigslist accepted XST as its sole payment gateway  I would be good with that if there was a better way to convert fiat into xst, maybe an exchange built into the wallet U are 100% right. That`s what I told to Hondo yesterday. XST adopters must have the ability to directly purchase XST coins without the participation of BTC. There must be gateways to acquire directly XST coins with fiat currency. Like the gateways Ripple has for its xrp coins. In Europe we have a Netherlands based gateway where u can buy XST with Euros by credit card or bank deposit/transfer: www.litebit.eu But when u buy XST with them by credit card, they do not fill your XST wallet simultaneously. They need hours  With all the dumps XST has been taking lately it would be really nice if you could use it to buy toilet paper |
|
|
|
Ah, I see. Cool. Yes, I had another look - it does always start running again, sure. And then left-over transactions do get processed. The coin is really fully functional - just "stuttering". It is suddenly very fast, and then in a regular rhythm very very slow. (Still - much faster than a standard fiat bank - they need not hours but days for a tx  ) The blockchain doesn't even get much bloated probably - because the slow blocks recreate the average of "3:42 minute block targets" ( = 420 blocks per day) ? Another non-existing problem, good. Still, I was getting more and more fascinated. Irregularities are more interesting than smooth boredom :-) All this is purely empirical, I haven't taken the time to look into the KGW code yet. I just did some preliminary data analysis - What else could I find out? --> The difficulty adjustment algo seems to have a strange pathology that it very suddenly increases the difficulty by a huge factor, from one block to the next one. (for an example, have a look at blocks 252656 and 252657 here http://abe.darkgamex.ch:2751/chain/Anoncoin?count=12&hi=252662). And it is such a strong jump that when the miners are leaving (and every clever miner should leave when there is suddenly a difficulty a hundred times higher) ... then it suddenly takes many hours, even half a day, for the next blocks. That slowness brings the average block time back on track. And 2 or 3 blocks later, it's running fast like mad again. Rinse repeat. As the programmers very very probably did not intend it to be like that  it looks to me as if the difficulty adjustment algo is getting gamed somehow. Different from, but comparable to an instamine. It happens regularly. I call those 2-3 blocks 'difficulty-walls' for now - they can be higher than 6000, while the bottom in between can be as low as difficulty 25. Right now we are on block 253261, the last 'difficulty-wall' was at 253140, the ones before at 253019, and 252898, and 252777, and 252657, before that at block 252534 ... - so the distances are 121, 121, 121, 121 blocks, 120 blocks, 123 blocks, etc ... http://abe.darkgamex.ch:2751/chain/Anoncoin?count=1000 Then the two or three SLOW blocks take 2 - 8 hours, usually. The total time for the ~120 FAST blocks between two such difficulty walls has been 6 - 33 minutes. That's the time in which 600 ANC can be mined in one go - with little effort. One block every 3-16 seconds, worth 5 ANC. Interesting phenomena. And still 20 full days time until November ... make me think now: Why leave all that wealth flow into the pockets of that perhaps only one guy? He would get 5 * (1440/3.42) * 119/122 ~ 2000 ANC per day, which -dumped at the current price- could mean almost 50000 dollars until then. Not much compared to the market cap of a million dollars, actually. (Perhaps that is the reason that this is not even perceived as a huge problem here? - which I found really odd when I encountered this first.) Still, is there anything that could be done about it? First I thought: What if I rent a few rigs now, in order to catch some of that seemingly-easy-to-harvest wealth ... BUT I need to be there in those few minutes, when all those ~120 blocks are generated, at ridiculously low diff. And then as soon as there is a difficulty-wall, while those 1-3 blocks with a 20 - 150 higher difficulty are mined (which takes 2 - 10 hours, seemingly) ... I have to stay away, and simply mine something else. Where can I find such an algorithm? Do I really need a special sgminer variant? Or can I just use cgwatcher to switch? But if I rent rigs, I could not use cgwatcher, only choose the pool - so do you know WHICH pool provides such cleverness? ... BUT then of course, the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant comes to mind ... What would happen if more people used such an algorithm now? ... very probably those difficulty walls would become even higher, right? --> I decided to have a longer look at the time series. The peaks already seem to get higher indeed! The first plot shows the past 10000 blocks.  19/09/2014 00:41 - 10/10/2014 19:31 = 21.78 days
--> 3:08 minutes per block on average, that's pretty close to the targeted 3:42 minutes.
Actually: When did the raping appear first? I only looked at the past few thousand blocks. Conjecture: The recent (re)appearance simply comes from the price surge. While the price was below approx 0.002 BTC/ANC, the problem always went away again - probably other coins were simply more profitable for that clever rapist (Isn't there a more neutral term? Essentially he is simply harvesting money ... in a way that the source code of this coin allows.). But then on October 6h, everyone went nuts about ANC https://cryptrader.com/charts/cryptsy/anc/btc and since October 7th, the stuttering hasn't stopped anymore. The second plot zooms into the recent past, the last 11 difficulty-walls, within the last 1212 blocks.  08/10/2014 15:01 - 10/10/2014 19:31 = 2.19 days
--> 2:36 minutes average block time, only 30% too fast. Not a big deal. N.B.: The x-axis is not proportional to date, but to block number - you can easily see the regular 121 block frequency. While ANC is getting raped, it is 'breathing' with a base frequency of about 10 / ( 2.19 * 24*60*60) = 0.00005 Hertz, and with very fast breath of about 0.3 Hz during those 119 highly profitable blocks. What a stuttering. Here are examples for the 119 fast blocks:  At least no one is getting any coins into exchanges to dump!!
The bright side of very high diff raping situation, lol... Well I was wrong about that I guess, those dumps are insane. Yes, because the leftover 7 - 47 transactions are then simply processed in the fast phases. Speculation: The dumps might actually also happen exactly in those intervals? You can check the times of the dumps yourself, I wouldn't be surprised if they always happen shortly after a fast blocks phase. There have been precicsely 4 dumps in the time span where there were 4 low-diff runs with 600 ANC each. But hey - that is speculation. Welcome to Anoncoin!
Thanks a lot. And thank you strange coin, for these pleasurable nerdy hours, analyzing your unique heartbeat ...  Send me BTC 1NceECxBgg5E7si8gJwinuBcBhpZTn5889 or [ANC] Aa96FUJyZXXZN2AhPtGbbAUsM7Nsxd1xhU If this analysis helps you to make money (or avoid to loose money) - or if you simply enjoyed this, then send me some coins please. Thanks.  EDIT: I started here and here, actually. Is it possible the dev team is part of the secret mining group getting rich from the difficulty issue? Just a crazy theory but that may explain why they have taken so long to fix the problem |
|
|
|
I just want my fucking coins because dumps are happening and I dont have access to my funds. Im getting furious.
Calm down bro, don't panic. While some listen to FUD and dump, others are buying more ANC for cheap. I highly doubt prices will be this low in another week once Zerocoin beta has started. You will get your coins back. I don't see why there is a rush. Why would you want to sell at these prices anyway? If you are nice, I know of someone (K1773R) who I am sure would be happy to help mine the stuck transaction for you.... See this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg8870717#msg8870717meeh can you give us the status of the AuxPow fork? I assume you are working on it so that Gnosis can keep focusing on Zerocoin. Thanks! I already have picked up some stuck txs. But as the relation of network hash vs me has gotten bigger, i only rarely (magnitude of days/weeks) find a block. Tough, if you have some miners and want to help get your stuck tx mined, i can give you my pool address That is nice of you! Hopefully he accepts your offer to mine together in your pool. It makes sense that it would take longer to find a block with the current hash rate. |
|
|
|
I just want my fucking coins because dumps are happening and I dont have access to my funds. Im getting furious.
Calm down bro, don't panic. While some listen to FUD and dump, others are buying more ANC for cheap. I highly doubt prices will be this low in another week once Zerocoin beta has started. You will get your coins back. I don't see why there is a rush. Why would you want to sell at these prices anyway? If you are nice, I know of someone (K1773R) who I am sure would be happy to help mine the stuck transaction for you.... See this message: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg8870717#msg8870717meeh can you give us the status of the AuxPow fork? I assume you are working on it so that Gnosis can keep focusing on Zerocoin. Thanks! |
|
|
|
http://forum.bleutrade.com/index.php/topic,40.0.htmlPOSSIBLE ANONCOIN BUG REPORT Hi. Today we are faced with a problem reported by some Bleutrade users that withdraw his was not working. We found it strange being our lasts withdraws with 0 confirmations. We decided to investigate. ::::: Normal Withdraw Today ::::: { "account" : "", "address" : "ALvNv6ydiqNuey129MXJV4tywqBPn9USyW", "category" : "send", "amount" : -47.78000000, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 0, "txid" : "0013dd6a25d222ceb203b1977d60a7db5f6f9b91c1c186f65517b29abcc8dfbc", "time" : 1412854096, "timereceived" : 1412854096, "comment" : "b w17686 e4050480", "to" : "b w17686 e4050480" }, 0 confirmations? why?... This transaction also does not appear in explorer. hmm... ok, let's investigate... For this example, we will use a normal transaction in the original wallet (Another Normal Withdraw, days ago): { "account" : "", "address" : "ASz5NtGjBRjHoP2RPqeCAEcbvm1KC3xwcx", "category" : "send", "amount" : -446.11059087, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 65164, "blockhash" : "7f5310f1bab45d6157fb4fc00d0f440f1d5db5c6b4d689e72118dce046373512", "blockindex" : 2, "blocktime" : 1401023096, "txid" : "df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07", "time" : 1401022562, "timereceived" : 1401022562, "comment" : "b w2721 e126667", "to" : "b w2721 e126667" }, First step to test, creating a new wallet.dat with all existing addresses and privkeys. After RESCAN and REINDEX and CHECKBLOCKS etc..: :::: SURPRISE ::::: The transaction of example disappears and this appears: { "account" : "", "address" : "AMwxitA4zzi54Ax2kngNnvw8nGChwBDQuh", "category" : "send", "amount" : -757.03044568, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 65193, "blockhash" : "bc31fcc6c5c333e7efdaadbd088e6873a7e7c7c9007444feccd0b8bb4dc321dc", "blockindex" : 1, "blocktime" : 1401017947, "txid" : "deef70d946477552db8b70aac87fe16a5eb06767fd6668e6e00bca3f4ffceb2c", "time" : 1401017947, "timereceived" : 1412871290 }, http://ancblockchain.com/tx/df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07"AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J(310.91985481 ANC - Unspent)" - Anonymizer? ok, but... Our ORIGINAL wallet.dat does not contain the private key or another key or path of 'AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J'!!! This is the explanation for non-confirmations of the lasts withdraws. The Blockchain not recognize this and other addresses. Was forgotten in time. This may not have been affected by a forked block, because it is an old transaction. We can not trust the current app, we does not understand because on send 446.11059087, 310.91985481 ANC lost to a arbitrary nonexistent address in a original wallet.dat! The application is not storing correctly the private keys of anonymizer addresses. Final Thoughts We ask immediately withdraw their ANCs from Bleutrade. We do not know what may happen in the future, because this app is not updated over 1 year. We believe that there may exist bug in a hidden zero coin system that does not properly stores the transactions wallet.dat file. Sorry for the inconvenience.Best regards, Felipe McMont COO/CTO & Co-Founder Bleutrade.com OK. Seems bleutrade is dead now too. They are even more stupid than craptsy... Actually Cryptsy thinks its is our fault https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg8869037#msg8869037Quote from mullick (Cryptsy): "Ok lets clear this up once and for all. I have NOT modified our daemon in anyway. We have built directly from source with no changes. Anoncoind is creating these transaction and paying the large fee required. yet they are not being accepted into the chain. As you can see by my previous post." Quote from: mullick on August 14, 2014, 07:45:14 PM Hello everyone, Im currently investigating an issue with our ANC wallet where the blockchain isnt picking up the majority of our send transactions. We apologize it took us so long to spot the issue. But we are working hard on correcting it and getting the unconfirmed transactions pushed to the blockchain Some of them get confirmed after a simple restart of the daemon but others do not/ Ill keep everyone informed when I find the solution Thank you for your patience Smiley UPDATE: I think it comes down to transaction sizes. Our daemon is sending transactions that are too large to be accpeted into the chain. Im basing this on the fact that all unconfirmed send transactions have unusually high fees paid. Our default Txfee is .01 ANC and the mean over the last 1000 transactions is 0.10169169169169 which is why our withdrawal fee is set to .1 ANC Code: anoncoind listtransactions "" 1000 | grep -A 1 -B 4 '"confirmations" : 0,' | grep fee "fee" : -0.82000000, "fee" : -0.90000000, "fee" : -0.98000000, "fee" : -0.65000000, "fee" : -0.69000000, "fee" : -0.72000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.76000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.81000000, "fee" : -1.00000000, "fee" : -0.68000000, "fee" : -0.72000000, "fee" : -0.73000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.76000000, "fee" : -0.76000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.78000000, "fee" : -0.79000000, "fee" : -0.85000000, "fee" : -0.96000000, "fee" : -0.64000000, "fee" : -0.66000000, "fee" : -0.67000000, "fee" : -0.69000000, "fee" : -0.71000000, "fee" : -0.72000000, "fee" : -0.73000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.77000000, "fee" : -0.79000000, "fee" : -0.84000000, "fee" : -0.87000000, "fee" : -0.92000000, "fee" : -0.95000000, "fee" : -0.98000000, "fee" : -0.63000000, "fee" : -0.64000000, "fee" : -0.65000000, "fee" : -0.66000000, "fee" : -0.68000000, "fee" : -0.68000000, "fee" : -0.69000000, "fee" : -0.70000000, "fee" : -0.71000000, "fee" : -0.71000000, "fee" : -0.72000000, "fee" : -0.73000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.74000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.75000000, "fee" : -0.76000000, "fee" : -0.78000000, "fee" : -0.80000000, "fee" : -0.83000000, "fee" : -0.88000000, "fee" : -0.92000000, "fee" : -0.99000000, "fee" : -0.98000000, "fee" : -0.97000000, "fee" : -0.87000000, "fee" : -0.81000000, "fee" : -0.86000000, Our daemon is up to date so ill be going over the source to see if I can find anything that would cause this As you can see from my request to the daemon: Code: anoncoind listtransactions "" 1000 | grep -A 1 -B 4 '"confirmations" : 0,' | grep fee I grabbed the last 1000 transactions and searched for any with "confirmations" : 0, and grabbed the fee for the transaction. All of the unconfirmed transactions in our wallet paid a high fee suggesting its due to block size. To counteract this until the issue is resolved by the developers i have merged any input in our wallet less than .1 anc ( about 50k of them ) into inputs over 1 ANC. These may have broken down to some smaller ones now so ill likely have to run it again Here are some others with the same problem Quote from: shtako on August 23, 2014, 07:57:45 AM Quote from: SmokingSkull on August 21, 2014, 07:50:06 PM Same Problem. It makes me mad all the time Angry And It's not good at all for beginners who want to buy into ANC when there are problems with Buying and Withdrawing. Same problem. Tried to withdraw from bleutrade 2 days ago and the transaction still havent gone trough. To fix this should be highest priority. Quote from: niteglider on August 22, 2014, 11:31:12 PM Quote from: TCB4728 on August 21, 2014, 06:32:52 PM Anyone else with the following problems with ANC? My multipool operator sent earned ANC to me on August 18 at 2:01AM CDT, was not received and posted to my wallet until August 21 at 13:58 CDT. The multipool operator states: "The transaction hasn't been included in a block yet. It should make it into a block eventually and be confirmed. I have no control over this. It's been an ongoing issue with the ANC network for a few weeks now." That would seem to be a very strong negative against this coin. Yes, I am on the anonmining.com pool and it took a couple of days for an autotransfer to actually post to my wallet. It was only 5 ANCs. What gives? In conclusion this is not a problem with cryptsy or "craptsy" as it is being called. It seems meeh and k1773R are aware and getting these transactions to confirm eventually so i see no reason to suspend the wallet as suggested above" |
|
|
|
http://forum.bleutrade.com/index.php/topic,40.0.htmlPOSSIBLE ANONCOIN BUG REPORT Hi. Today we are faced with a problem reported by some Bleutrade users that withdraw his was not working. We found it strange being our lasts withdraws with 0 confirmations. We decided to investigate. ::::: Normal Withdraw Today ::::: { "account" : "", "address" : "ALvNv6ydiqNuey129MXJV4tywqBPn9USyW", "category" : "send", "amount" : -47.78000000, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 0, "txid" : "0013dd6a25d222ceb203b1977d60a7db5f6f9b91c1c186f65517b29abcc8dfbc", "time" : 1412854096, "timereceived" : 1412854096, "comment" : "b w17686 e4050480", "to" : "b w17686 e4050480" }, 0 confirmations? why?... This transaction also does not appear in explorer. hmm... ok, let's investigate... For this example, we will use a normal transaction in the original wallet (Another Normal Withdraw, days ago): { "account" : "", "address" : "ASz5NtGjBRjHoP2RPqeCAEcbvm1KC3xwcx", "category" : "send", "amount" : -446.11059087, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 65164, "blockhash" : "7f5310f1bab45d6157fb4fc00d0f440f1d5db5c6b4d689e72118dce046373512", "blockindex" : 2, "blocktime" : 1401023096, "txid" : "df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07", "time" : 1401022562, "timereceived" : 1401022562, "comment" : "b w2721 e126667", "to" : "b w2721 e126667" }, First step to test, creating a new wallet.dat with all existing addresses and privkeys. After RESCAN and REINDEX and CHECKBLOCKS etc..: :::: SURPRISE ::::: The transaction of example disappears and this appears: { "account" : "", "address" : "AMwxitA4zzi54Ax2kngNnvw8nGChwBDQuh", "category" : "send", "amount" : -757.03044568, "fee" : 0.00000000, "confirmations" : 65193, "blockhash" : "bc31fcc6c5c333e7efdaadbd088e6873a7e7c7c9007444feccd0b8bb4dc321dc", "blockindex" : 1, "blocktime" : 1401017947, "txid" : "deef70d946477552db8b70aac87fe16a5eb06767fd6668e6e00bca3f4ffceb2c", "time" : 1401017947, "timereceived" : 1412871290 }, http://ancblockchain.com/tx/df1298124eb24a0b24dcd80a921e9c60578391bf7eff54241d05760976dd2d07"AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J(310.91985481 ANC - Unspent)" - Anonymizer? ok, but... Our ORIGINAL wallet.dat does not contain the private key or another key or path of 'AYQWQCixS4cpi4gyc8vVdmrNCzKRsm245J'!!! This is the explanation for non-confirmations of the lasts withdraws. The Blockchain not recognize this and other addresses. Was forgotten in time. This may not have been affected by a forked block, because it is an old transaction. We can not trust the current app, we does not understand because on send 446.11059087, 310.91985481 ANC lost to a arbitrary nonexistent address in a original wallet.dat! The application is not storing correctly the private keys of anonymizer addresses. Final Thoughts We ask immediately withdraw their ANCs from Bleutrade. We do not know what may happen in the future, because this app is not updated over 1 year. We believe that there may exist bug in a hidden zero coin system that does not properly stores the transactions wallet.dat file. Sorry for the inconvenience.Best regards, Felipe McMont COO/CTO & Co-Founder Bleutrade.com OK. Seems bleutrade is dead now too. They are even more stupid than craptsy... So Cryptsy keeps getting ANC transactions stuck and now Bleutrade gives this warning telling people to withdrawal ANC coins. Where are we supposed to trade? Is it a coincidence that both Cryptsy and Bleutrade are blaming us or is something seriously wrong with our code? See response from Mullick (Cryptsy rep): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg8929222#msg8929222 |
|
|
|
Looks like bleutrade froze anoncoin for some reason? Anyone have any ideas? Their message is below. ***** This market is frozen: [ANC] We are investigating a major problem. We are suspecting that the application anoncoind is suffering loss of coins due to a possible bug. We need to wait for the blockchain work again to confirm this hypothesis. Currently the network is stopped a few hours. http://ancblockchain.com/chain/Anoncoin***** https://bleutrade.com/exchange/ANC/BTCI thought the long block times where simply high difficulty? I would like to respond you, but this is K1773R area At this point it is clear that there is much more than just a Cryptsy problem. We should take this very seriously and wait for the dev team to comment the problem is not serious, but we have already known, and it will be resolved. ANC is 1.3 years old. The problem did not arise when you come here:) Hard fork will be done, 1 time, with ZC implement and all other changes, not every week hard fork as with some other coins... If the problem is known, why not inform the exchanges? Dev should tell Bleutrade because they seem to think the problem is serious enough to halt trading. Often when one exchange freezes trading, other exchanges quickly follow... Well trading is still open on Cryptsy. Fingers crossed that it stays open:) If all markets are halted before Zerocoin launch new investors might get spooked. |
|
|
|
Can you double check that this transaction gets included in a block? It says it was confirmed but I don't see it anywhere in a block explorer, 855c148b7fcdcec1832c973948f105692303e26b7b85e0c77f846f6d21fd1d4d also i donated 25anc earlier! match that sweet stuff!  Is this another stuck transaction from Cryptsy? Hopefully after Zerocoin there will be more exchange options! How are we supposed to trade when transactions to/from the biggest exchange ANC is listed often get stuck? |
|
|
|
Thank you for merging inputs. Over what transaction size is there an issue? Is the size (in terms of # of ANC involved) at all relevant for the deposits or withdrawals getting stuck? Or is it purely a matter of transaction size? Anoncoin Mining
Guys do you know good cloud mining services on which I can get some mining power on the Anoncoin network?
Remember this is scrypt.
Mintsy will offer this soon https://mintsy.codont fall for cloud mining services, they are all scam and ripoff. no wonder craptsy now offer such a service too... its getting pathetic. Yesterday , we had cryptsy developer in this forum. Please communicate with him to solve the cryptsy issue. I agree fixing this issue with anc should be a priority. Nothing else needs to be done on cryptsys end. The issue seems to be getting sidelined.... Ill continue to merge inputs to reduce tx sizes until they get it resolved |
|
|
|
I do have one question about zk-snarks. Will it be trustless or not? https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/879.pdfFrom page 4: "As in any non-interactive zero-knowledge proof, a zk-SNARK requires a one-time trusted setup of public parameters: a key generator samples a proving key (used to generate proofs) and a verification key (used to check proofs). However, current zk-SNARK implementations [PGHR13, BCGTV13a] require the setup phase to depend on the program F, which is hard-coded in the keys. Key generation is costly (quasilinear in F’s runtime) and is thus difficult to amortize if conducted anew for each program. More importantly, per-program key generation requires, for each new choice of program, a trusted party’s help." |
|
|
|
You do realize we are building technology at the edge of what is thought possible right now? We are creating tech that noone has ever created before, the PoS Lite wallet as example. We also pride ourselves of releasing actual tech that works and does as it's supposed to.
Stop ADDing. See us as the Blizzard of Crypto. We make awesome stuff and it'll be ready when it's ready.
+ 1 Thanks. Sorry for being impatient. I love the tech so far. I was just reading more about zk snarks and am really liking the idea! https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/879.pdf |
|
|
|
The new UI, which is based on HMTL5 technology, will be released later this week for both desktop and mobile (ShadowGo) with ShadowLite support. We wanted to get the bloom filters (which are required for proper working of the lite wallets) in place for the full nodes.
Stay tuned for more exciting updates this week!
"This week" is now over in South Africa (where dev is located) and we dont have a new UI. How much longer should we expect to wait? What was the exciting update we were supposed to be waiting for? No its not, jeez man ADD much. Yes the week is over. Look at any Calendar. Each week ends on Saturday and begins on Sunday. It is Sunday now where the dev lives. |
|
|
|
The new UI, which is based on HMTL5 technology, will be released later this week for both desktop and mobile (ShadowGo) with ShadowLite support. We wanted to get the bloom filters (which are required for proper working of the lite wallets) in place for the full nodes.
Stay tuned for more exciting updates this week!
"This week" is now over in South Africa (where dev is located) and we dont have a new UI. How much longer should we expect to wait? What was the exciting update we were supposed to be waiting for? |
|
|
|
I mean PoD is a good idea. But who is to say that the issuer of these "PoD-Stars" is even legit.
In addition he gave 5 "stars" and a "plus" to somebody this CryptoAsian didn't even see face to face.
Since almost every Altcoin is a thought out scam, I'd be careful what to think of such things. The proof I need is already here, anoncoin existing over 1 year and devs are still working on the code. Find another Altcoin which has the same history, you will find almost none.
Good idea? Someone rating someone else even without understanding everything? This leads to problems. The usual folk need susch "services" to feel safe, so they dont have to bother. But overall its just a way to make money (if it aint free) or pure marketing/fame shit. I agree that Proof of Dev are not perfect although it is much better than nothing. Procedures vary based on the company, but (depending on the rating desired) require such things as communication from a Linkeden profile, upload of a DL and Passport, Video Chat, etc. Crypto Asian is free. They make money selling t shirts, from donations, etc http://cryptoasian.com/faq/Coinsource uses different criteria but does charge .1BTC: http://www.coinssource.com/trust-index-verification/ |
|
|
|
Can someone respond to this: http://zerocash-project.org/"Zerocash improves on an earlier protocol, Zerocoin, developed by some of the same authors, both in functionality (Zerocoin only hides a payment's origin, but not its destination or amount) and in efficiency (Zerocash transactions are less than 1KB and take less than 6ms to verify)." What will the size of our Zerocoin transactions be? If the transactions are large and blockchain bloat is an issue, is there a way we can develop a "lite" wallet such as used by Shadowcoin (who is also working on zk-snarks btw). Spending Zerocoins from mobile devices (without a ton of storage space) would be a great feature! Besides RSA UFO generation (to ensure Zerocoin can be minted in a trust free manner) does Zerocoin have any other advantages over Zerocash? Zerocoin mint transactions will be only slightly larger than normal transactions, with about 128 bytes per minted coin. Zerocoin spend transactions will have a small part that lives in the blockchain, and then about 125 KB that does not get stored in the blockchain. Using 8 cores on a 2.4GHz Core i7, Zerocoin spends would take about 3 seconds to generate, and 0.5 s to verify. It's not completely out of the question that a modern smartphone with an optimized libzerocoin could do this, with some battery drain. Minting zerocoins, storing them, and using Anoncoin balances that were previously received from zerocoins could all be handled easily by a mobile app. I don't think anybody knows a procedure for generating the zk-SNARK parameters in a manner that doesn't require trust from the users. There's no way for an outside party to prove that they destroyed the sensitive data used to generate the parameters; anybody who has access to this data would be able to create unlimited currency units, completely destroying the currency. Worse, it would go undetected until it hits the exchanges and the value plummets. This is why it's so important to have trustless parameter generation! Great explanation. Clear and concise. Thank you Gnosis! |
|
|
|
Okay troll, this is my first and last reply to you, since I'll be putting you on my ignore list. [...]
3) It is silly for such a fuss about others stealing zerocoin from anc when anc took it, nearly complete, from others with no negotiation nor respect.
[...]
Negotiation was not possible, since the Zerocoin team at JHU ignored my attempts to reach out for months, and I have credited them in the past, and will also credit them in the Anoncoin app when Zerocoin is released. Furthermore, they obviously no longer have a stake in libzerocoin, as they started from scratch to design a new system that they believe is better. I disagree with that belief since there is apparently no way to generate the parameters in a trustless manner, so I am building on their original system. Also, it is not a trivial matter to add RSA UFO support (which I have completed a couple days ago), and integrate it into a working crypto-currency (which I am now working on). This is why no other coins have added Zerocoin, AFAIK. I dont know if you mean that I'm the troll here but then your wrong. I bought some anc a while ago and heard some guy on ltb say that there was this problem with the zerocoin protocol. This guy was apparently some well respected brilliant coder etc so I took that for granted since I don't have the capability to understand the whitepaper myself. With the latest price movement I visited this tread again and then I saw this guy's question what I was wondering myself. Still not understand if there is a solution, but maybe that because of my lack of knowledge regarding the topic. RSA and UFO says me nothing..  could you explain? Just trying to understand it better to see if I should invest more You are not a troll, you are just a curious person. I am the troll. Still, something is not quite right about gnosis and this whole zc project. The missed deadlines are trivial, there are enough other peculiarities that people should at least be cautious. None of the questions I asked earlier were unreasonable, but the questions were either ignored or diverted. I'll ask one of those questions again. Maybe it was covered somewhere and I missed it. Question What exactly are gnosis's qualifications, and are there people who will vouch for him? Zerocoin today is a month or two away, as it was last month and the month before. Gnosis has made it clear he wants cash up front for the project. He himself would not accept that his work would increase the value of anc enough to compensate him. Or perhaps he does not have any savings and needs cash up front to pay bills? No money in the bank but a yifted cryptographer who will revo altcoins? I doubt it. Again, some hint about your qualifications gnosis? A college degree in something? Please be cautious people. I hold anc, still. But something does not seem right here. No need to abandon ship yet. Lets give him some more time to respond. I understand he could have valid reasons for not answering such questions here. Therefore I recommend a Proof of Developer Analysis: http://cryptoasian.com/ |
|
|
|
Nice, can we betatest? How long do you plan testrun on testnet? This is all we know atm: [23:12] <coinRelay> <Gnosis@I2P> myeagleflies: I am aiming for July 10 for getting it on the testnet
[23:13] <coinRelay> <Gnosis@I2P> probably not much longer before it's on mainnet It is past July 10th. Is ZeroCoin working on testnet now? If not, what makes your forecast this time different? |
|
|
|
ShadowLite
Today we are releasing our brand new lite wallet (ShadowLite) functionality for desktop systems. This is a big update to the backend portion of the wallet and although this update is not mandatory, we do recommend that anyone running a 'full node' update to support the lite nodes that will be added to the network.
We've taken a completely different approach to wallet design based on the principles of the "Simplified Payment Verification" or “SPV” system outlined in section 8 of Satoshi’s Whitepaper (https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). Instead of releasing a separate client, we’ve integrated optional lite functionality within the wallet. This allows for startup configuration to determine which mode you are running (thin or full).
The lite wallet functionality brings with it new options for wallet storage. For example, setting up a staking node on an isolated device such as a Raspberry Pi allows for better security, while still supporting the Shadow network.
ShadowLite mobile users have access to all existing functionality (including staking) with a reduced bandwidth, storage and memory footprint.
Instructions
Full mode: The new wallet is set to ‘full mode’ by default and as a result it requires no setup.
Thin mode: Enabling staking on thin mode uses a bit more data and storage, as it needs to verify transactions with full nodes. In addition, fetching information about previous blocks and the current state of the chain.
For those of you who wish to use the lite wallet, just add the following to your configuration file:
Alternatively, you can startup with the -thinmode parameter.
To enable staking in thin mode, run with -thinstake. It is recommended to run -thinstake with -thinfullindex
Running with "-thinfullindex" will keep the entire filtered chain in memory, like full mode which increases memory usage and decreases database reads.
Or add the following to your configuration file:
thinstake=1
thinfullindex=1
Updated Shadow UI/UX
The new UI, which is based on HMTL5 technology, will be released later this week for both desktop and mobile (ShadowGo) with ShadowLite support. We wanted to get the bloom filters (which are required for proper working of the lite wallets) in place for the full nodes.
Stay tuned for more exciting updates this week!
Downloads:Great news! Thank you for yet another pleasant surprise. You keep delivering great innovations |
|
|
|
Gnosis: Somebody asked what will happen when (eventually) Shors algorythm breaks RSA. As it relates to Anoncoin, the RSA-UFO will be factorable and a malicious party could mint bogus Zerocoins
that is a good question. Is there an estimated timeline for when Shors algorythm will have the potential to break RSA? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
