So I would guess they are being intelligent enough to take their small victory and run off as there is no way they can ever win on the merits of the topic.
I think it's been quiet because almost everything that possibly could be said has already been said from every possible angle. Although the matter of having to trust that no single entity (or entities collaborating) holds too many XMR's to deanonymize the transactions hasn't been talked about yet, unless I missed it. That is addressed in MRL-0004 and will be implemented in a future update. At the moment there is no particular reason to believe that any one entity holds e.g. 80% of Monero. I guess its possible that Poloniex does, but I doubt it. Also, remember this only affects traceability not linkability (so, loosely speaking "half" of anonymity). One simple way to get an indication of distribution is take the ratio of the 24 hour volume to market capitalization. The results for Dash, Monero and Bytecoin speak volumes. From http://coinmarketcap.com/Dash $ 17,240,322 $ 187,208 Ratio 1.09% Good Monero $ 5,684,312 $ 68,593 Ratio 1.21% Good Bytecoin $ 4,013,438 $ 909 Ratio 0.02% Extremely Poor For Monero and Dash this figure is over 1% indicative of a healthy distribution. For Bytecoin on the other hand the figure is 0.02%. The latter is indicative of an extremely tightly held coin and provides very strong support to the massive premine theory. By the way this issue is not limited to cryptonote, a similar attack is possible against coinjoin. For example if someone were to create a clone of Dash and release it with an 82% premine disguised as a ninjamine the same attack would be possible. Edit: The recommendations in MRL004 implicitly assume a reasonable distribution, not a premine of over 80% of the emission. They apply to Monero but not to Bytecoin. |
|
|
|
|
From the fraudster's perspective the exposure of fraud is pathetic.
|
|
|
|
Bytecoin is a shitcoin and a scam. Just as bad as PayCoin. Was Homero part of the Bytecoin scam?
Monero was not part of this. Please read the thread I posted above it covers these issues. |
|
|
|
I don't blame you for being harsh, but could you possibly consider re-reading what I've written above. You may not believe me now, this doesn't change a thing. Again, I'm telling you, the idea that Bytecoin did not exist in 2012 is absurd and meaningless. Now back to the pillar of your argumentation ([[1] and [2] are clickable and you may read on): Certain people were too fast too lynch both Bytecoin and CryptoNote while there were evidence that this is incorrect [1] [2]. I would suggest reading the whole thread where both sides are presented and then form one's own opinion. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0;all. Nevertheless even if we were to grant that this was a ninjamine rather than a premine disguised as a ninjamine one still has to deal with an extremely poor coin distribution that places over 80% of the coins in the hands or one person or a very small group of people. This leads to the attack against anonymity / privacy / fungibility by the those holding the premine / ninjamine. |
|
|
|
|
True, but there is a lot of information in this thread that is highly relevant to the vulnerability in question. BCN has after all become a textbook example on how to break Cryptonote by creating a massive ninjamine / premine.
|
|
|
|
We will see how long this one lasts "A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations." I'd do it, but you're not worth the effort. My post lives on in perpetuity: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg11034402#msg11034402There's no need spreading fud in the roadmap thread. The point you're making is a good take on the CryptoNote technology itself. I've forwarded MRL-0001 to the team to let them do the review of Monero's research. I'll provide you with our conclusions. I found a more appropriate thread https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.msg11034887#msg11034887 since the vulnerability is directly related to the premine / ninjamine of Bytecoin. |
|
|
|
Some relevant posts on the impact of the Bytecoin premine / ninjamine on anonymity / privacy / fungibility. crossposting because it was posted in a moderated thread and 99% certain it will be deleted CryptoNote assets would be amazing!! If only there wasn't the bad 'smell' around the ~80% premine.
That premine could be a blessing in disguise if it were used to subsidize people who issue and maintain Assets like Bitshares': Assets tied to others. The 82% premine is indeed a blessing in disguise - they own so many of the outputs in the txoset that they can trivially deanonymise everyone's transactions. Let me say that again: as 82% of Bytecoin's outputs are controlled by persons unknown to the cryptocurrency community, those unknown entities (or entity) can deanonymise every transaction you make with Bytecoin. There is no way around this, there is nothing they can do to reduce the attack surface. Even if 1000 sock puppets come forward and claim to own a portion of those outputs it is still impossible for anyone to independently verify. Technical details of why such massive output ownership is a death knoll can be found in MRL-0001: A Note on Chain Reactions in Traceability in CryptoNote 2.0Aaaaaand it's gone. ... and the desire of certain vested interests to suppress this information. "A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations." I'd do it, but you're not worth the effort. My post lives on in perpetuity: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg11034402#msg11034402 |
|
|
|
We will see how long this one lasts "A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations." I'd do it, but you're not worth the effort. My post lives on in perpetuity: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg11034402#msg11034402 |
|
|
|
... **** Cryptonote Territory **** Of the cryptonotes, all pumps are getting a bit mature now for there to be much short term upside in them. XMR was either going to break up or down from here but that last pump took the wind out of its sails a bit and it's now in a bit of a descending triangle situation. Massive order book keeping it in suspension - Real ? Fake ?. Who knows, probably some of both. The rule is if your a Dash fan then it's Dash with a Cryptonote hedge. If your a Cryptonote fan then it's your choice of invisible, semi-visible, pseudo-visible-down-the-end of-a-toilet-roll blockchain coin with a Dash hedge, so take your pick. XMR's flavour of the month (and might still get a backdraught from the interview), BCN's come alive again on fundamentals (but all other cryptonotes hate it cos it's a premine [not more than they hate us though  ]), shadow's got a good video but at an ATH so not ideal, nav's already on the tail end of a pump and coming down. So of that lot if your looking for a hedge I'd wait for the bubble to burst on one of them and take a scoop. ... Just a note. The Bytecoin ninjamine / premine is over 80% of the total Bytecoin emission. This is many times far worse than the size of the Dash instamine. It also, unlike the case of the DASH instamine, places the anonymity / privacy / fungibility of Bytecoin into serious question when one person or a small group of people control over 80% of the emission since there is an over 80% chance that the ring signatures are with the premine / ninjamine. The following thread goes over the BCN premine / ninjamine. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0;all. |
|
|
|
Heya monero speculators! Onemorexmr, fluffypony and I put together something that will make it easier for everyone to buy monero!! (yes, its still buying with bitcoin) With BuyMonero.net, you get your own bot that will place a daily buy order for an amount of XMR that you specify. If no one sells to the bot in 24 hours, your bot will make a second buy order that is sure to be filled. There is a small fee for the service - currently 1% (so 1 XMR lets you buy 100 XMR on the exchange). We made BuyMonero.net for a couple of reasons. My primary motivation was so that I wouldn't have to always login to poloniex and follow the markets to try and get a good deal on monero. The second motivation was to allow accumulators a way to buy a lot of Monero with minimal effort. If you're interested, please checkout the website. The following forum threads are also available for general discussion and tech support. https://forum.getmonero.org/2/economics-and-trading/258/buymonero-net-btc-cost-averaginghttps://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1017131As this is the speculation thread, I assume you all will want some hard numbers - unfortunately, we decided that to avoid exploitation of the bot that we would not publish them. And to keep this on topic - how do you think a service like this will affect the market? This is a great idea. One thing I must mention for cost averaging to work correctly one needs to specify a fixed amount of XBT per day not a fixed amount of XMR per day, if one is purchasing XMR with XBT. |
|
|
|
From: http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html c. De-Centralized Virtual Currencies
A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.
A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter.To note is that this document is a Guidance, not actual code or regulation. It is very helpful and descriptive and references the pertinent code, however. I heard Evan and his Mom have the spork ability. So there goes your daydream. Seriously. I doubt that Evan's mom also having the spork key will have any impact on the "daydream", regardless of whether Evan is living in his mom's basement or not. |
|
|
|
|
I vote for SolidCoin aka Microcash as the original scam coin
|
|
|
|
... Oh and next time before you run MoneroX, please execute the following command in the terminal: sudo apt-get install mono-complete This alone solved the problem and the wallet has now launched and is synchronizing. I did come across the permission issue; however I had solved this beforehand by manually setting the execute permissions on all the executable files (including the .dll files). I am getting the following in the terminal while the wallet is synchronizing (MoneroGui.Net:15221): GLib-CRITICAL **: Source ID 6268 was not found when attempting to remove it
(MoneroGui.Net:15221): GLib-CRITICAL **: Source ID 6286 was not found when attempting to remove it
(MoneroGui.Net:15221): GLib-CRITICAL **: Source ID 6344 was not found when attempting to remove it
(MoneroGui.Net:15221): GLib-CRITICAL **: Source ID 6217 was not found when attempting to remove it
(MoneroGui.Net:15221): GLib-CRITICAL **: Source ID 6253 was not found when attempting to remove it
(MoneroGui.Net:15221): GLib-CRITICAL **: Source ID 6298 was not found when attempting to remove it
(MoneroGui.Net:15221): GLib-CRITICAL **: Source ID 6295 was not found when attempting to remove it I am sill running mono 3.2.8 as this is the Ubuntu LTS version; however I will be setting up a new computer running Ubuntu 14.10 and later Ubuntu 15.04 so I can test it on that platform. |
|
|
|
I am trying to get MoneroX to run on Ubuntu 14.04 (GNU/Linux) After I get Unhandled Exception:
System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'System.Runtime, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a' or one of its dependencies.
File name: 'System.Runtime, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a'
[ERROR] FATAL UNHANDLED EXCEPTION: System.IO.FileNotFoundException: Could not load file or assembly 'System.Runtime, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a' or one of its dependencies.
File name: 'System.Runtime, Version=4.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b03f5f7f11d50a3a' Produces Mono JIT compiler version 3.2.8 (Debian 3.2.8+dfsg-4ubuntu1.1)
Copyright (C) 2002-2014 Novell, Inc, Xamarin Inc and Contributors. www.mono-project.com
TLS: __thread
SIGSEGV: altstack
Notifications: epoll
Architecture: amd64
Disabled: none
Misc: softdebug
LLVM: supported, not enabled.
GC: sgen
Also ./bitmonerod runs and synchronizes without any problem |
|
|
|
Evan has some kind of kill switch too
It is called spork and it allows the holder of the keys (Evan?) to roll back code under spork without a hard fork. As more code is placed under spork the degree of centralization increases since coin features under spork can be taken out without a hard fork by the holder of the keys. One can see from the code, https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/blob/master/src/spork.h that instant X and the masternode payments are under spork. Now here is an interesting question: What proportion of the code in a Decentralized Virtual Currency has to be under spork in order to turn it into a Centralized Virtual Currency, according to FinCEN http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html? The spork needs the consensus of the network (miners and MN operators MUST agree on the code) to be activated, how does it increase the degree of centralization? ... because once the code is activated with the consensus of the network it can be de activated without the consensus of the network. Therein lies the centralization. |
|
|
|
Evan has some kind of kill switch too
It is called spork and it allows the holder of the keys (Evan?) to roll back code under spork without a hard fork. As more code is placed under spork the degree of centralization increases since coin features under spork can be taken out without a hard fork by the holder of the keys. One can see from the code, https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/blob/master/src/spork.h that instant X and the masternode payments are under spork. Now here is an interesting question: What proportion of the code in a Decentralized Virtual Currency has to be under spork in order to turn it into a Centralized Virtual Currency, according to FinCEN http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html? |
|
|
|
I know this topic has been covered before, but I'm asking the Monero community to please consider changing the name to something more descriptive of what the coin does. Before people jump in with the "Esperanto" reply...I know about that, but only because I've been following this coin and other cryptonote coins. It's an interesting name. The problem is that >90% of people have no idea what Esperanto is, nor do they care. A brand name is very important. How about something that describes what the coin does, such as: - PrivacyCash
- PrivacyCoin
- eCash
- eCoin
Those names somewhat describe what the coin does and hint at its features. This is important if it expects adoption outside of the techie circles. I suggested the same points on the Fantomcoin thread. I have a handful of each coin. I say this because I want to see cryptonote coins succeed. I think they are a valuable compliment to Bitcoin since they offer complete privacy whereas Bitcoin is pseudoanonymous. There are legitimate needs and uses for each. A more descriptive name would, imho, have a broader appeal to the general population. No any re-brand. Monero is a phenomenal brand name precisely because it connotes money, cash, currency in a multitude of languages. |
|
|
|
This assumes that one un-compromised round of Darksend is enough.
Enough for what? Could you elaborate please? The problem is that this will not work with a partially compromised masternode network. I could very likely still end up with and effective Darksend of 1 round. I'm trying to get my head round this  While I keep trying, maybe you could illustrate with an example of some kind.  Let us say I face an attack that will work against 1 round of Darksend but will fail against 2 rounds of Darksend. This could be the Sybil example I quoted above. If the attacker has also partially compromised the masternode network, then I need a sequence of 2 un-compromised Darksend rounds for protection from this attack. In this example sequence 1 will not work 1) Honest Malicious Honest Malicious Honest Malicious but sequence 2 will work 2) Malicious Honest Honest Malicious Malicious Honest because of the bold part. So it is the probability of the sequence of n honest masternodes in the chain that matters, and this is much lower than the probability of a single honest masternode in the chain. |
|
|
|
This assumes that one un-compromised round of Darksend is enough.
Enough for what? Could you elaborate please? For the level of privacy / fungibility desired by the user. For example in his paper http://cdn.anonymousbitcoinbook.com/darkcoin/darksend-paper/Atlas_Darksend-Analysis-v001.pdf Kristov proposes using multiple levels of Darksend to mitigate the impact of a Sybil attack. Users can reduce the impact of Sybil attacking peers by increasing the number of rounds of Darksend+ they require their funds to go through in order to be “anonymized.” Increasing the minimum number of Darksend+ peers per mixing transaction also increases the amount of work required for would-be Sybil attackers. One of the problems with the probability arguments that have been made by many Darkcoin/Dash proponents is that they only apply for the most basic level of protection. When one starts to combine attacks then these arguments break down. For multiple rounds of Darksend to provided additional protection one needs a sequence of un-compromised masternodes. So it is not for example the probability of getting a single Darksend round that is un-compromised, with a partially compromised masternode network, it is the probability of getting for example 4 Darksend rounds in sequence out of a 20 round Darksend with a partially compromised masternode network that matters. Edit: With Monero I can increase my privacy / fungibility by increasing the mixing level. The equivalent in Darkcoin/Dash to a large degree is to increase the number of rounds of Darksend. The problem is that this will not work with a partially compromised masternode network. I could very likely still end up with and effective Darksend of 1 round. One the Monero side MRL0004 provided an excellent discussion of some of these risks. https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0004.pdf |
|
|
|
... Then why not buy at market instead until equilibriation? Seems like a good opportunity to me. I suppose someone will p.s.: what is the break even price, if you'd so kindly This assumes a zero value attached to the heat produced in the mining process. If its -30 C outside the economics are somewhat different. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
