|
1
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 01:27:54 PM
|
|
Scrambling my password...
thanks for letting my speak.
I will censor myself now, because I talk too much. I think y'all can figure it out from here...
(I don't belong here. I take programming too seriously. Normal people will never understand us. Where is Steve Jobs when I need him?)
Edit: done. clicking Logout.
|
|
|
|
|
2
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 01:26:04 PM
|
I am pretty sure people who value anonymity would be willing to jump through hoops.
You entirely miss the point that if the n00bs think they are protected, then later are attacked or told they are not, they will run the government's coin and good riddence to that horrible mistake they made to trust. Don't go fucking around. This is why i am a developer of mass adopted software and you are not. |
|
|
|
|
3
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 01:17:43 PM
|
You under estimate the power of cross chain transactions that aren't linked to any exchange.
Especially if the deal is done while in person where the correspondence of the trade is not recorded anywhere on the internet.
You are only thinking of yourself. Most people don't jump through hoops. They use a product and expect it to deliver what it promised as main feature. If you can scare most of the people by attacking the low hanging fruit, society pisses on that coin forever after. Edit: and as a developer, I don't want to be responsible for millions of people being subjected to State wrath some years from now.
You are asking me to be INTENTIONALLY cavalier, irresponsible and careless as a developer. |
|
|
|
|
4
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 01:09:04 PM
|
Just because someday it could be cracked doesn't mean it will be cracked you make as if everyone out there is gunning to destroy anonymity technology.
Sorry but if it takes 10 or 20 or 100 years to be cracked why would I really care? In that time I would likely have moved from one address to another and traded into and out of XMR or another CN coin or I would in the worst case be dead.
Anonymity has 0 value to me once I am dead and gone from this world.
With enough time and resources any thing can be cracked.... No surprise there lol
Why risk it when you don't have to? There are designs that don't risk it. You can't predict when the crack will occur. It could be within a year or 20 years. But 100 years is much less likely. Why? It is simple... I never put all of my eggs in one basket. Should your hypothetical situation come true one day...I could care less as the likelihood of me being exposed to that sort of attack vector is very small. And if I lost coins or anonymity oh well. Personally I can see people wanting anonymity for a short period of time and doing it in multiple iterations where there would be little to discover if say you traded XMR for LTC outside of an exchange...now how do you track that transaction? Right you can't necessarily link them together trivially nor with a super quantum computer down the road. You are clearly vested in Cryptonote and the price is lower than when you bought. Because your logic doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone diversify into more risk when they can choose designs with less risk. Surely there will plenty of CoinJoin-like designs to choose from. DRK would not be my choice either, because it is not well modeled with a white paper. Also Cryptonote has severe inefficiencies too, such as you can't maintain unlinkability if you run a lite client. P.S. don't be led into false security by cross-chain transactions. It can actually increase your risk of de-anonymization. Edit: and as a developer, I don't want to be responsible for millions of people being subjected to State wrath some years from now. |
|
|
|
|
5
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 01:00:08 PM
|
Just because someday it could be cracked doesn't mean it will be cracked you make as if everyone out there is gunning to destroy anonymity technology.
Sorry but if it takes 10 or 20 or 100 years to be cracked why would I really care? In that time I would likely have moved from one address to another and traded into and out of XMR or another CN coin or I would in the worst case be dead.
Anonymity has 0 value to me once I am dead and gone from this world.
With enough time and resources any thing can be cracked.... No surprise there lol
Why risk it when you don't have to? There are designs that don't risk it. You can't predict when the crack will occur. It could be within a year or 20 years. But 100 years is much less likely. Think about what technology was like 100 years ago. BCX, he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. |
|
|
|
|
6
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 12:50:48 PM
|
Math discoveries in SOME cases lol okay like?
Just because there is a way to somewhat shorten the amount of time it may take to crack a key or anonymity doesn't mean that it can't be mitigated in a simple way as using a longer key length.
Perhaps you forgot about the discovery of differential cryptanalysis that rendered all 1970s and 1980s crypto cracked (and no one knew it!). Can't you read? http://cacm.acm.org/news/170850-french-team-invents-faster-code-breaking-algorithm/fulltext#body-3The Future
Barbulescu says the research group has considered trying to push its ideas to medium- and large-characteristic systems, "but there is a huge difficulty porting this algorithm to these other cases," he says. "But if we were able to extend it to large characteristic, then it would be an earthquake in cryptography because every time there is an improvement in discrete logarithm, there is a corresponding improvement in factorization (RSA), because the problems are similar."
Meanwhile, though, existing RSA-based systems should be considered secure. "There are some buzz articles floating around on the Web saying that this is the endgame for RSA," Thomé says. "It is wrong to say that."
The University of Waterloo's Menezes says he is not aware of any cryptosystems in use today that are suddenly at risk because of the work by the French team. However, he warns, "There will be faster algorithms, better implementations of the existing algorithm perhaps through special-purpose hardware, and better analysis. Maybe the algorithms are faster than we think they are." Why can't you understand that once it is broken, you can't go back and hide the history on the block chain. What ever you've already released to the block chain, is never going to get more secure. It WILL BE CRACKED SOMEDAY. That is why do not put your anonymity on the block chain. Mix your inputs and outputs off chain, then put that in a transaction on the block chain (i.e. use CoinJoin). Then the anonymity can never be cracked in the way it can be on chain with Cryptonote's ring signatures and Diffie-Hellman one-time private keys. I hope I don't have to explain that again and again. Boollion. That should get that Keiser guy's attention, I suppose.  I think I was the first to suggest that? |
|
|
|
|
7
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: I have come to the conclusion that "on chain anon" defeats the purpose.
|
on: October 08, 2014, 12:41:14 PM
|
Cross-posting... 1. You can't increase the key size of the historic chain.
2. Cracking historically spent coins is not a threat. The threat is cracking anonymity history at any time in the future.
3. The crack threats are not just due to key length. Key length won't help you in some cases against math discoveries, and certainly won't help against quantum computers.
4. Your heirs won't be dead in 10 - 15 years (or less or slightly more).
5. Why risk it when there are possible designs where you don't have to.
And those aren't the only inefficiencies in Cryptonote that can be eliminated with other possible designs. As I wrote upthread, I never understood why people were so quick to jump on Cryptonote as the Holy Grail of anonymity. Math discoveries in SOME cases lol okay like?
Just because there is a way to somewhat shorten the amount of time it may take to crack a key or anonymity doesn't mean that it can't be mitigated in a simple way as using a longer key length.
Perhaps you forgot about the discovery of differential cryptanalysis that rendered all 1970s and 1980s crypto cracked (and no one knew it!). Can't you read? http://cacm.acm.org/news/170850-french-team-invents-faster-code-breaking-algorithm/fulltext#body-3The Future
Barbulescu says the research group has considered trying to push its ideas to medium- and large-characteristic systems, "but there is a huge difficulty porting this algorithm to these other cases," he says. "But if we were able to extend it to large characteristic, then it would be an earthquake in cryptography because every time there is an improvement in discrete logarithm, there is a corresponding improvement in factorization (RSA), because the problems are similar."
Meanwhile, though, existing RSA-based systems should be considered secure. "There are some buzz articles floating around on the Web saying that this is the endgame for RSA," Thomé says. "It is wrong to say that."
The University of Waterloo's Menezes says he is not aware of any cryptosystems in use today that are suddenly at risk because of the work by the French team. However, he warns, "There will be faster algorithms, better implementations of the existing algorithm perhaps through special-purpose hardware, and better analysis. Maybe the algorithms are faster than we think they are." Why can't you understand that once it is broken, you can't go back and hide the history on the block chain. What ever you've already released to the block chain, is never going to get more secure. It WILL BE CRACKED SOMEDAY. That is why do not put your anonymity on the block chain. Mix your inputs and outputs off chain, then put that in a transaction on the block chain (i.e. use CoinJoin). Then the anonymity can never be cracked in the way it can be on chain with Cryptonote's ring signatures and Diffie-Hellman one-time private keys. I hope I don't have to explain that again and again. Just because someday it could be cracked doesn't mean it will be cracked you make as if everyone out there is gunning to destroy anonymity technology.
Sorry but if it takes 10 or 20 or 100 years to be cracked why would I really care? In that time I would likely have moved from one address to another and traded into and out of XMR or another CN coin or I would in the worst case be dead.
Anonymity has 0 value to me once I am dead and gone from this world.
With enough time and resources any thing can be cracked.... No surprise there lol
Why risk it when you don't have to? There are designs that don't risk it. You can't predict when the crack will occur. It could be within a year or 20 years. But 100 years is much less likely. Think about what technology was like 100 years ago. BCX, he isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. You under estimate the power of cross chain transactions that aren't linked to any exchange.
Especially if the deal is done while in person where the correspondence of the trade is not recorded anywhere on the internet.
You are only thinking of yourself. Most people don't jump through hoops. They use a product and expect it to deliver what it promised as main feature. If you can scare most of the people by attacking the low hanging fruit, society pisses on that coin forever after. Edit: and as a developer, I don't want to be responsible for millions of people being subjected to State wrath some years from now.
You are asking me to be INTENTIONALLY cavalier, irresponsible and careless as a developer. |
|
|
|
|
8
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 12:37:04 PM
|
Nope I was addressing point #1. Perhaps you should reread what you wrote. I re-iterate you missed the relevance. 1. You can't increase the key size of the historic chain.
2. Cracking historically spent coins is not a threat. The threat is cracking anonymity history at any time in the future.
3. The crack threats are not just due to key length. Key length won't help you in some cases against math discoveries, and certainly won't help against quantum computers.
4. Your heirs won't be dead in 10 - 15 years (or less or slightly more).
5. Why risk it when there are possible designs where you don't have to.
And those aren't the only inefficiencies in Cryptonote that can be eliminated with other possible designs. As I wrote upthread, I never understood why people were so quick to jump on Cryptonote as the Holy Grail of anonymity. |
|
|
|
|
9
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 12:32:39 PM
|
The name shouldn't have any thing to do with anonymity because ≈99% of the people have no clue what they would need anonymity for. That percent will improve over time, but far too late for us to scale up usership before Paypal, Apple Pay, etc.. take over. And that is why the anonymity has to be automatic and it can't interfere (nor cause any tradeoffs) with the use as a currency. This is why Monero wins.
This is why Cryptonote loses. You forget that increasing the difficulty to crack a private key is simply in the length of the key while allowing all normal charActers for creating private keys today. Time and resources is the issue. Eventually the limits of technology will not be able to ever feasibly keep up in cracking private keys of crypto coins. Any one interested in cracking private keys will need to employ tons of resources and time while the users and owners of crypto coins only need to implement a longer private key to disallow such cracks to occur in any meaningful amount of time. What is the point of cracking a private key if you are dead by the time it is cracked? Lol Sir, I suggest you re-read the linked thread. It seems you entirely missed the point. 1. You can't increase the key size of the historic chain. 2. Cracking historically spent coins is not a threat. The threat is cracking anonymity history at any time in the future. 3. The crack threats are not just due to key length. Key length won't help you in some cases against math discoveries, and certainly won't help against quantum computers. 4. Your heirs won't be dead in 10 - 15 years (or less or slightly more). 5. Why risk it when there are possible designs where you don't have to. |
|
|
|
|
10
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: I have come to the conclusion that "on chain anon" defeats the purpose.
|
on: October 08, 2014, 12:30:01 PM
|
By your logic "it's not secure, it will eventually be cracked" then private/public keys are in the same boat, no?
Yes but not the same threat. Cracking ancient spent private key keys harms no one, thus no problem with keeping transactions on the block chain. Cracking ancient anonymity potentially harms up to and including everyone, thus IMO an unacceptable risk of keeping the correlation of the outputs and inputs (the anonymity mix) of a mixing transaction on the block chain. With enough time and resources any thing can be cracked including Bitcoin lol Irrelevant, Bitcoin doesn't put anonymity on the block chain. Please re-read my quoted point above more carefully. |
|
|
|
|
11
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 12:25:46 PM
|
|
Paypal is your pal.
Apple Pay is so white, fangurlz and boiz.
|
|
|
|
|
12
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 12:14:56 PM
|
The name shouldn't have any thing to do with anonymity because ≈99% of the people have no clue what they would need anonymity for. That percent will improve over time, but far too late for us to scale up usership before Paypal, Apple Pay, etc.. take over. And that is why the anonymity has to be automatic and it can't interfere (nor cause any tradeoffs) with the use as a currency. This is why Monero wins.
This is why Cryptonote loses. |
|
|
|
|
13
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 11:58:43 AM
|
DuckNote changed to DarkNote. ... Funny that they chose to go with the 2014 altcoin vogue tag of 'Dark' though. Good reason to name your coin with one syllable (or not a concatenation of two words) so copy cats can't ride your coat tails. Why didn't Darkcoin just name it Dark? Now we have BitcoinDark, DarkNote, Darkcoin. Honey can you send me some dark, I am low on funds. That statement is funnier with ducks or fucks or shivers. |
|
|
|
|
15
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: I have come to the conclusion that "on chain anon" defeats the purpose.
|
on: October 08, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
|
1. All crypto will be cracked eventually, it is just a matter of time. First we have key length requirements increase over time: http://www.keylength.com/en/compare/2. Next we have IBM's head of research for quantum computing (with a $3 billion budget) expecting that quantum computing will arrive in 10 - 15 years. All the crypto-currencies to date use crypto that can be cracked with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer. May not happen in 10 years, but eventually it will. Maybe if there is a way to re-encrypt the whole blockchain with a stronger encryption over time, past anonymity is not endangered by computational advances. Just an idea that flew in my mind. It has already been seen, you can't increase the encryption strength. Somebody stored a copy. |
|
|
|
|
17
|
Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: I have come to the conclusion that "on chain anon" defeats the purpose.
|
on: October 08, 2014, 10:12:41 AM
|
Think about it. The fact that we are relying on a public information with a twist to be secure is not the answer.
Interesting that I was making the same point today in private communication before I had seen your thread. 1. All crypto will be cracked eventually, it is just a matter of time. First we have key length requirements increase over time: http://www.keylength.com/en/compare/2. Next we have IBM's head of research for quantum computing (with a $3 billion budget) expecting that quantum computing will arrive in 10 - 15 years. All the crypto-currencies to date use crypto that can be cracked with a sufficiently powerful quantum computer. May not happen in 10 years, but eventually it will. 3. There was a recent breakthrough in math for factoring which hints at the remote possibility in the future of a potential crack of the basic math used for all existing crypto-currencies (that use elliptic curve or RSA cryptography): http://cacm.acm.org/news/170850-french-team-invents-faster-code-breaking-algorithm/fulltext#body-3By your logic "it's not secure, it will eventually be cracked" then private/public keys are in the same boat, no?
Yes but not the same threat. Cracking ancient spent private key keys harms no one, thus no problem with keeping transactions on the block chain. Cracking ancient anonymity potentially harms up to and including everyone, thus IMO an unacceptable risk of keeping the correlation of the outputs and inputs (the anonymity mix) of a mixing transaction on the block chain. I don't see a future in ring signatures
Do investors realize that Cryptonote can't run lite clients without destroying their unlinkability, because you have to publish the "tracking key" to delegate the search for received payments if you did not download the full block chain. But publishing that "tracking key" breaks the unlinkability: https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf#page=8"If Bob wants to have an audit compatible address where all incoming transaction are linkable, he can either publish his tracking key...In both cases every person is able to “recognize” all of Bob’s incoming transaction" Edit: the " Trading off anonymity set size for decreased bandwidth/CPU" section in the following paper hints at a solution where only a portion of the block chain needs to be downloaded in exchange for reduced anonymity set size, but afaik this is not in Cryptonote and I did not analyze how or if it can be integrated (and off the top of my head, I think this might further reduce anonymity sets in intersection with a potential block chain pruning design for Cryptonote): http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/31813471/ |
|
|
|
|
18
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 08:31:45 AM
|
The faucets were also a reasonable method to get folks familiar with the coin. Exchanges have more or less supplanted the faucets.
Imo, faucets are a waste of precious resources. What I mean will be clearer if ever I can get my ideas out into the market. |
|
|
|
|
19
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 08:06:09 AM
|
|
Also by Zoid announcing the decision to retain the Boolberry name, it is possible that he might have caused those who invested in the new name choices to sell.
|
|
|
|
|
20
|
Other / Archival / Re: delete
|
on: October 08, 2014, 05:43:11 AM
|
Unless of course your target market is not BTT, so you don't a fuck what they think. Let the astute ones join the ride if they want. And your target market aren't investors, so they don't even think of that.
Again, that's all cool, but how do you pay for the project? Self funded? That means (somewhat) rich people. At least by my definition. Yours might be "not irresponsible" but either way few are included. You can do what Monero is doing which is people working part time, voluntary funding through donations, etc. We get some work done certainly, but it isn't exactly turbocharged. If the tortoise indeed wins the race, we may well do fine. You seem a bit panicked about the world, so perhaps you want things to move faster. You better have a good team of rich/non-irresponsible people lined up to make a run for it. Indeed that seems to be the case. People who have not put themselves in a position to be entrepreneurs can't be. And thus I feel they are dilutive at the innovation stage. I base this opinion on real world experience of successfully launching for example WordUp which I coded in my basement and generated in the 1980s $100,000 a year in income, which is several times that in today's money. And repeating the feat in 1998 with Cool Page, generating up to $400,000 a year, which is several $million a year in today's money. So I speak from accomplishment, not from BS. (sorry iCETARD) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
