|
I no longer want to short Monero. You can rest easier. What I found can be fixed (if it isn't already). I believe I found BCX's exploit, although it is possible I found one that is different than his. And I believe he is incorrect about it not being fixable. At first thought, I too also thought it was a "coin killer".
Note I haven't worked through one part of the math so it is still possible that I am incorrect about this being an exploit, but I think I got the key epiphany of the exploit which makes it is possible.
It is also possible that this was already thought of and mitigated. I haven't checked the source code to verify. This is all conceptual at this point.
|
|
|
|
The dilemma is not whether a wealth tax is "fair". It is. At a level of 2.5% (as the muslims practice) it can fund the poor and make sure that no one's wealth becomes larger than 40x his annual accumulation rate, which is pretty much.
The dilemma is that the old money favors to invest itself in places where there is no inflation or wealth tax. Without old money, the functioning of our new currency is in a questionable, untested basis. Can we create money that is not interesting towards the establishment, yet is interesting for us, so that we ourselves prefer keeping our wealth in our money, instead of the low-inflation alternatives such as real estate, gold, or BTC?
If you are not willing to hold a majority of your savings in this currency, who do you think would?
Again you conflate taxes with movement in a dynamic system. Reductio ad absurdum. Taxes are unsustainable because they feed the centralized beast. The wealthy gladly pay higher taxes in jurisdictions where the profit or gains are higher. |
|
|
|
|
You will know soon. What I've thought out is very preliminary so please don't jump to conclusions.
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone loan me Monero? How much and what are the terms? PM me please.
|
|
|
|
|
Can anyone loan me Monero? How much and what are the terms? PM me please.
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous coin right?
pzzt or psst
That is my gift to you.
|
|
|
|
It's an overrated factor. Most of the money ends up in the hands of a few no matter what the initial distribution is. You won't find an example in the world contrary to this statement.
Nevertheless, it's a bit scary when someone owns over 10% of all the coins in existence. The solution of course is perpetual debasement in a dynamic system where the majority of the money is always moving even if 10% is concentrated it doesn't remain with the same person for too long because the dynamic system keeps competition alive even amongst the elite (otherwise they become complacent, smug, or top-down directed), but how to make it popular is the key challenge... ...one would assume the savers would hate debasement, but they buy coins with very high rates of debasment because they expect appreciation... ...the math that computes the future value of a coin based on total coin supply is DEAD WRONG, refer to my prior post upthread about the math error that rpietila has... Nevertheless, it's a bit scary when someone owns over 10% of all the coins in existence.
Yeah, like Satoshi Nakamoto  I mean yeah, it's worrisome, but copying my post from another thread, if you're interested in a coin with a truely fair distribution, that would be Myriadcoin. No other coin features a more fair distribution through mining. But looking at how unpopular Myriadcoin is one cannot help but conclude that nobody is actually interested in fair distribution. Hence, all these thousand threads on fairness are completely pointless. The key epiphany is how to make fairness popular.  AnonyMint will try to STFU now. |
|
|
|
People can come up with whatever crazy theories they want.
That word "crazy" just incites more animosity. All of the core participants, and many of the active community supporters predate rpietila's involvement at all.
Irrelevant. It is true that perception matters though,
Exactly. it is just that people will believe what they want to believe even when it is totally dead wrong. Nothing we can do to change that.
You are inciting animosity again with that. It appears to be a pompous attitude (whether it is or not the best is to STFU and again I am saying to myself too so please don't take it personally). I also don't agree that hiding in a hole and coding solves these sorts of problems, at all,
The distinction was the talk going on about DOGE was the way the coin was being used as a currency. The tipping for posting commentary. Go find that discussion between kbh and Anonymint in rpietila's speculation thread for the details. In short, let the users of the coin talk. Not a few key personalities over and over again. Any way I don't have any more time to try to hash out that theory. Peace. |
|
|
|
Okay my hunch appears to be incorrect. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf#page=9There is no additional information gained from each ring signature even if they all use the same Pi, because the qi and wi are chosen randomly. So I didn't find any weakness in the math, unless it is something in the modular math. So BCX may mean the "implementation" has an error not the math of the NIZKP, in which case after the attack it would be fixable and the anonymity going forward would be fixed. BCX may be implying (note he didn't exclude that) the exploit can only break the anonymity up to the point of a fix of the implementation. I don't have time to go hunting in the implementation. Not even for 50 BTC. |
|
|
|
The underlying psychological reason people are offended by Monero is because the community's idealism is "we are the underdogs fighting the establishment for the greater good" (with copious delusion, naivete, and repressed selfish motives). That sums up Monero better than just about any other description I could come up with. So perhaps that explains a good measure of its success and popularity in this community. Your suggestion is that Monero does not exemplify these things does not hold up against the significant popularity it has gained here. Perceptions vary. Some apparently see it as that, and others apparently see it as hoodwinked sheep following rpietila. Others such as myself have a technological opinion that it can't possibly achieve the ideal I have. More saliently, it is that key Monero personalities so vocally (to the point it is perceived as spamming the forum by some) and sometime condescendingly defend the above that annoys further those who have an opposing perspective. In short, the community wants freedom of opportunity (to dream), not preaching from one blackhole (sucking up everything) perspective. And then wants to respond to results, not preaching a perspective. Dogecoin got people excited. The results were in proportion to the talk. The amount of talk that goes on about Monero is relatively speaking far out-of-proportion to the lackluster results. No reply you can make will make it better. The best reply is to STFU and go do some programming. And that STFU applies to me also. Have a listen to Andreas' segment about Monero on Let's Talk Bitcoin. He sums up the disgusting level of attacks that comes out of this community and culture on everything and everyone quite well.
I think he understands less well than I do, but STFU and prove it applies here in spades. |
|
|
|
|
The underlying psychological reason people are offended by Monero is because the community's idealism is "we are the underdogs fighting the establishment for the greater good" (with copious delusion, naivete, and repressed selfish motives). So anything that smacks of centralization and establishment creates animosity unless it is Bitcoin because Bitcoin has already achieved that ideal (or so the community thinks, but I think we are fooled). The more decentalized an effort is, the less it can be attacked. The key personalities of Monero have put bullseyes on their foreheads.
I wrote upthread that I learned it is best to "tread softly and carry a big stick".
|
|
|
|
You won't get the developed world to take an interest as a currency, rather only as an investment.
The developing world doesn't have credit cards. They also are interested in $5 a day in extra income.
Did you know filipinos spend more feeding their pigs than they sell for thus no profit? Yet they still raise pigs. Why? Because it is a savings account.
The world is getting smaller, quickly. As you say, Apple, Paypal, etc. are rapidly targeting the developing world. You have a few other such solutions there or going there as well, such as M-Pesa. It still isn't clear to me that the developing world wants decentralized currency. Once the same or similar services from the developed are available there, consumers will likely make the same choices. Credit cards are going away in the developed world too, or more properly becoming a speciality product for high end individuals and businesses. The mass market is increasingly debit, including the somewhat recent trend toward prepaid debit. In part because the masses are increasingly not credit worthy. The original point is valid for "payment cards" though. And none of them are giving away $billions "for free" in $5 daily morsels to rocket launch the inertia. Distribution is the key. How many times have I told you this. And don't forget that the market cap != amount of funds invested, so that "free" can be paid either by the investors (if price is declining) or by the all billions of holders of fiat (if the price is increasing)! That was the gargantuan insight. Also this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=777213.msg8899072#msg8899072Now I've shared so please don't make me pay for my cooperation by stealing from me. Surely if I've gotten that far, you need me so join me don't steal my ideas. |
|
|
|
|
I didn't have time to read all the posts, but I did try to quickly skim the thrust of rpietila's first few posts on the first page of the thread.
rpietila, your analysis is only the constants that disappear in the first derivative, i.e. it is how the distribution travels to the savers that matters. That was a key macro economics insight of mine.
You are failing to view it as a dynamic system, which is why you don't support the historical higher rates of perpetual debasement. Nature will win, and your misunderstanding will lose. The only remaining question is who will create that naturally high rate of debasement going into the future, a decentralized crypto-currency or the centrally controlled fiat system.
|
|
|
|
Actually one-time pads are a form of encryption. So the pedantic and anal lose this time  |
|
|
|
Ring-signatures can I guess be considered a form of encryption because they scramble who is the signer. The secret can be decrypted only by someone who has the private key of the signer. Something that doesn't occur in this system, so there is no encryption (even broadly defined) in the protocol. Agreed, it is the common misnomer one-way encryption because there is no inverse function, so given BCX is not that technical I think it is a reasonable error on his part. Even I could have made that mistake because (I've heard that one-way encryption term from my use in protecting passwords when I've been a programmer before I become an autodidact cryptographer of sorts and) I don't focus too carefully on my words and my brain is more interested in the creativity in any issue. My understanding is BCX didn't create his exploits (he has admitted he doesn't even know how to code), rather he is a coordinator of resources and depends on people more technical than himself such as ArtForz. I just awoke. Will now see if I can break the math of the NIZKP. Should have the answer shortly. Perhaps I was incorrect. |
|
|
|
Novices like you don't seem to understand that anonymity isn't encryption. And the encryption part of CN which hides the one-time destination key doesn't have to be broken for the anonymity to be broken.
That's not what BCX said. He said the "way it is implemented" (with "it" referring to encryption) is the source of the break down. His statement makes no sense as gmaxwell correctly pointed out and trying to spin it into something other than a nonsensical statement is not helpful. That is independent of any other flaws that might exist, which could very well include flaws that BCX does not know about. The 'it' only makes sense if he lumping the ring-signatures together with ECDH key exchange. Ring-signatures can I guess be considered a form of encryption because they scramble who is the signer. The secret can be decrypted only by someone who has the private key of the signer. 2) There is no break down in the encryption but in how it is implemented.
|
|
|
|
James I will sleep first. If anyone can beat me to it, go ahead. Again nothing may come of my hunch. Smooth and Gmaxell the CN does have encryption because only the receiver can decrypt who the coin was spent to. Perhaps you forgot it is not just a digital signature as in Buttcoin. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf#page=7First, the sender performs a Diffie-Hellman exchange to get a shared secret from his data and
half of the recipient’s address. Then he computes a one-time destination key, using the shared
secret and the second half of the address. Two different ec-keys are required from the recipient
for these two steps, so a standard CryptoNote address is nearly twice as large as a Bitcoin wallet
address. The receiver also performs a Diffie-Hellman exchange to recover the corresponding
secret key. Security of ECDH key exchange is trivially provable. The only thing I can think of that *might* be insecure is the ring signatures themselves, though I don't know how. Agreed. * I have found very specific exploits in CN that have not been fixed that would be successful on XMR. [...] One [exploit] is a coin killer. [...] To fix this, anonymity will need to be sacrificed. 2) There is no break down in the encryption but in how it is implemented. These 2 comments stand in complete contradiction to each other. No inconsistency. Novices like you don't seem to understand that anonymity isn't encryption. And the encryption part of CN which hides the one-time destination key doesn't have to be broken for the anonymity to be broken. |
|
|
|
* I have found very specific exploits in CN that have not been fixed that would be successful on XMR. [...] One [exploit] is a coin killer. [...] To fix this, anonymity will need to be sacrificed. 2) There is no break down in the encryption but in how it is implemented. These 2 comments stand in complete contradiction to each other. No inconsistency. Novices like you don't seem to understand that anonymity isn't encryption. And the encryption part of CN which hides the one-time destination key doesn't have to be broken for the anonymity to be broken. Edit: note I am not saying it is possible, because I haven't proven it yet. |
|
|
|
You won't get the developed world to take an interest as a currency, rather only as an investment.
The developing world doesn't have credit cards. They also are interested in $5 a day in extra income.
Did you know filipinos spend more feeding their pigs than they sell for thus no profit? Yet they still raise pigs. Why? Because it is a savings account.
The world is getting smaller, quickly. As you say, Apple, Paypal, etc. are rapidly targeting the developing world. You have a few other such solutions there or going there as well, such as M-Pesa. It still isn't clear to me that the developing world wants decentralized currency. Once the same or similar services from the developed are available there, consumers will likely make the same choices. Credit cards are going away in the developed world too, or more properly becoming a speciality product for high end individuals and businesses. The mass market is increasingly debit, including the somewhat recent trend toward prepaid debit. In part because the masses are increasingly not credit worthy. The original point is valid for "payment cards" though. And none of them are giving away $billions "for free" in $5 daily morsels to rocket launch the inertia. Distribution is the key. How many times have I told you this. |
|
|
|
Smooth and Gmaxell the CN does have encryption because only the receiver can decrypt who the coin was spent to. That is essentially what I meant by arguably. But cracking that "encryption" wouldn't allow you to steal wallets so even that usage doesn't allow for a consistent interpretation of the quote. He said the encryption is not the broken part. Hehe, we are playing word games. Hey you started it. Hehe. No problem. It's all nonsense (meaning trying infer the original usage of encryption as meaningful). The term encryption makes no sense in the original context and was just misused. The "hehe" was me being nice. His usage is correct. The encryption part is not broken. It appears to the be the NIZKP that is broken when you have ____ ring signatures with the same ____ but I am still trying to prove this. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
