I guess they are confident the price is going up.

Or they are manipulating the ask/sell total

You don't think it's going to stay there do you?

Here is my guess...

He already told the devs with a public post that too fast of difficulty adjustment and throwing away 20% of the timestamps are weaknesses. The devs were given approximately 25 days to rectify those flaws, and thus far afaik have not done so. Perhaps the devs didn't see any flaws in those design decisions. I thus expended some effort to broad-stroke outline some ideas of potential attacks that require one of those weaknesses.

I understand you want BCX to walk them through an attack with more details, but you know even most very smart Bitcoin devs didn't think selfish mining was real after the white paper was published until they went and built simulations to disprove it and ended up proving it.

Denial and confirmation bias makes climbing the nice wall inefficient. The most efficient is action and demonstration.

I have experienced many times in my life the "not invented here" syndrome and it is very inefficient to fight hierarchies and vested interests to get something done. Much easier is to do what one can do without being dependent on some slow moving molasses.

The other possibility is that he wants to maximization the amplification of his reputation, since it was slandered here. Also I can't rule out the possibility that he has some level of distaste for the hierarchy of XMR and its public face (although that might just be me projecting my distaste for centralized paradigms), but for political reasons I doubt he would want to let that be known.

Hopefully he will answer you too.

P.S. BCX also indicated another of the weaknesses is a coin killer (something about anonymity and wallets), meaning it can't be fixed. So helping the devs in that case wouldn't be evolution, it would be delaying killing what can't live. I am not sure if he meant he would be attacking that weakness though. Maybe not. Maybe he is only trying to wake up the community. And maybe that "coin killer" weakness is only theoretical and hadn't been fully developed into a deployable attack. I lean to this interpretation because BCX has only mentioned TW like aspects in the past days and he confirmed a "decline in price" differentiated that from the other choice of "price to 0".

Edit: in most cases I agree with filing a bug report with the developers. But in the case that forced evolution is timely and a bug report would have to be prioritized, I might choose the former too. But I've never played the role BCX does. I would instead spend my time creating a coin without the weakness I found. If I was a developer for XMR, I would be attempting to change the design, but I would probably be met with some resistance since no attack has been demonstrated yet. Refer to the upthread exchange with fluffypony wherein he stated that until an attack was demonstrated, they could assume they could unwind any damage from a future attack, and that he had time to go think at the beach with his wife (the implication was that I was too stressful and paranoid).

There is nothing that teaches better than the shock of having one's confirmation bias shattered rather than giving one a long period of time to think they discovered and rectified their bias on their on volition.

  You read that too didn't you? Nice catch.

(Missive soon?).

Hey Dumbass OP,


You do realize that you are advocating destroying a value system that measures its value with in multiples of BMILLIONS OF USD?

Do you really want to convince some powerful people that you are a threat to their years of work and wealth?

Not very conducive to a long and healthy life.

You might want to rethink your "Guide"grow up. 


~BCX~

There is no input from BCX

I don't think the devs have been overconfident at all, on the contrary. Maybe I am. But what is BCX's problem?

Can you see where one might come to the conclusion that symptoms will occur in a couple of days bringing chaos?

Why do you believe that the chaos you intend to cause is sweet?

Afaics, because the probability of any trial is always 0.5 in your coin toss. Thus in your analogy there is no stratification of event classes. Whereas I showed that event is in a very rare class (given the Poisson distribution). Thus we wouldn't be including much less rare events in our consideration when summing all the probabilities of the event class we are interested in.

The details matter. Which is why I can't entirely trust closed source proclamations. Skepticism (independent verification and attempting to find an exception) is the basis of the scientific method. I would be a puppet or a clown otherwise.

Edit: I never wrote anything implying there must be something wrong. I am just skeptical of the claim that a rare event hasn't occurred. I am trying to convince myself that BCX doesn't have an attack sneaking up on us. I am playing devil's advocate trying to not blind myself with overconfidence. I think what may motivate BCX is defeating overconfidence. Or maybe he is just full of shit. I dunno. I was surprised to see him come back in the thread and reiterate his original 22 days estimate. It makes me laugh that posters here think he is being inconsistent when he wrote 22 days long before this thread started, if I remember correctly. And he never promised fireworks upon reaching the 72 hour deadline. Where is the inconsistency? I was also surprised to see him challenge the owners of this forum to prove that Moneroman88 is BCX. The DDoS on poloniex is baffling. There is some game theory going on here that I don't see. Ah maybe everyone is correct, he is just profiting on the movement in the price. And then I would be a pawn.

Yawn.. this isn't nearly as entertaining as I thought it would be.

Is Monero being attacked or not? If someone is performing a TW attack is there any way to tell?

There has not been an increase in hashrate.

I check what my pool says everyday.  Since memory can be suspect I checked the recorded data.  There has not been an increase in hashrate.

You said repeatedly that you had no interest in attacking Monero.

You said there was an exploit involving the ring signatures that would allow you to empty peoples wallets.  Your current TW seems not to be related to that.

You said that the results of the TW would start to be seen in 2 days.  You then provided proof of that happening that was not proof.

Then you said 22 days.

So please excuse us if we are confused.

I don't think so.

I called it as I saw it that BCX was just hott air when it came to an actual legitimate exploit to the XMR protocol. Look at his history of "attacking" Litecoin in 2012. Not much different outcome.