He proved that it is truly anonymous, in that he agrees that transactions are both cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable. He thinks that our decision to use i2p as a low-latency mixnet to disguise traffic is no going to prevent a determined attacker with lots of resources from ascertaining whether an individual (as in an IP address) is using Monero, but on that point we disagree. That notwithstanding, he does not fault the cryptography or the implementation behind Monero's transactional and address privacy.

It was invented in early 2011 by "vinced", the guy who created Namecoin.

Here is his publication on it: https://github.com/vinced/namecoin/blob/mergedmine/doc/README_merged-mining.md

We don't know who Vince was, and he disappeared from public view years ago. Yet his contribution, both merged mining and Namecoin, live on.

A coordinated attack requiring 50% of Bitcoin's network is very different from me running a few hundred guarantor nodes and offering my services to any transactions I pick up. The one is hard, the other is trivially easy.

Blockchain reorg and confirmations have NOTHING to do with malleability. The issue here is relying on the txid, when malleability has shown that the txid can change. This so-called "trustless system" relies on txid's to confirm transactions in an automated fashion. That is bad, stupid, and fundamentally broken.

I'm tired of trying to demonstrate why you're wrong. You pointed out that Cloakcoin's PoSA system is not trustless, and I backed you on that because you were right. But now I see it was just a gimmick, a way of pivoting off that into this post about how Supercoin's system is trustless. Both are broken and flawed, and both are clearly designed by people who haven't the slightest clue about cryptography. I wish both Cloakcoin and Supercoin all the best. Goodbye.

Someone said the devs need to make the wallet easier. Someone else showed that we're in the process of doing that. You replied and said that we haven't completed the thing that we've just said is in progress. Seriously??

Also, it's not a mockup, it's a working interface that runs on all the major operating systems. We past the mockup stage ages ago.

I'm sure you have other threads you can troll in, so I'll say "see you round".

"once again" - are you implying that I've lied about BBR before? You'd do well to think through your words before writing.

We own very little - collectively we own less than 50 000 Monero between all 7 of us. We earned it legitimately, either by buying on the OTC trading thread / first exchange, or by mining.

I don't get the PS3 comment, are you meaning that XC should lie in the hands of only a few?

There's no doubt that verification is slower with CryptoNight. That having been said, the reduced performance gap benefits vastly outweigh any "perception" benefits switching algorithms at this stage. If we switched algorithms it definitely wouldn't be to something that is as broken as Wild Keccak (no offence to BBR, I greatly respect what CZ has done), it would be to something technically superior to CryptoNight.

So you've gotten pruning working in XC, then? Can you link to the code on github? Because not even Bitcoin has pruning right now. Until you've written the code that lets you prune the blockchain and run off a new merkle root, your claim is spurious and incorrect. Don't claim to have solved a problem when what you mean is "we will solve it later...once Bitcoin does the work for us".


Doubtful, 99% of our orders since the market tanked in March are from large farms and are based around our 19" rack ASIC grids that aren't even on the website. None of them have stopped ordering. But it's completely fine to tell yourself that's the case if it'll make you feel better.

Hah hah - exactly!

We need the best, so we premine the most!

Well, the thing is, we don't want the daemon making non-p2p connections unless explicitly allowed by the user, so checking via the web is a no-go. What we *can* do is add functionality where if > 58% of connected peers (ie. 7 of the standard 12 max) are on a newer version, notify the user that a new version is available. Peers can indicate the last mandatory version, too, and if you're on a version < that version the daemon can pump out lots of warnings, and simplewallet can have an additional confirmation dialog for every transaction before sending.

As one of the 7 core team members working on Monero, I can assure you that despite us getting paid nothing, having no premine, having no instamine, we work hard and Monero is progressing accordingly. You don't need to cheat to be able to push out excellent code.

Nobody is claiming we have. Unlike other cryptocurrencies, we're hell-bent on doing things properly and not rushing something out just to say "first!!!!" only to discover later on that it's half-baked and fraught with problems.

Nonetheless, there are two GUI wallets that are out and working that are linked in our OP on Bitcointalk, and the command-line wallet works perfectly well.

Actually no, the "guarantor" is only involved in the act of sending coins, which is a "communication" in the context of the Two General's problem.

The "guarantor" is being trusted to do arbitration between the sender and the mixer. Therefore, given the nature of 2-of-3 multisig transactions, the guarantor and the mixer can sign the transaction, and then refuse to sign the cancellation transaction, leaving the sender out of luck and out of funds.

Even worse - the workflow is based on the txid and verifying the txid. Have we not learnt by now that the txid can change? How do you people not understand that this was the very thing that mtgox blamed for their destruction?

In fact, if there was ever a clearer indication that the idiot "developer" that designed this system should stick to something less complicated, Satoshi Nakamoto himself wrote a seminal post in December 2010 explaining why this is a bad idea, so it's not like this is a novel and unknown thing:


This is not a trustless system, this is a trivially broken, fundamentally flawed system. Praising it as anything but an idiotic idea merely reduces your own credibility.

I fully agree: https://i.imgur.com/gyMMHcC.gif


I fully agree: http://imgur.com/a/ERheR

Message received.

*beep* *boop* bzzzz*

250 000 XMR transferred to your personal holdings.

Monero was launched by thankful_for_today, not by us. It only really started to become "ours" on April 30th, and on May 7th the crippled hashing code was fixed and released (2.5 weeks after launch).



On May 4th the network was 20 000h/s (this was when the the crippled miner was in use). At that stage mining on one of my dedicated servers ran at around 11h/s, and an Amazon EC2 c3.8xlarge slice ran at just under 50h/s. Thus the network speed at that stage was the equivalent of 400 Amazon c3.8xlarge slices - considering a newly registered EC2 user can run 50 spot instances (spread across the regions) without increasing their limit, this is still within what we'd expect. And lest we forget that leading up to that point, Monero's hash rate hovered at about half of that.

But wait! There's more!



Block reward stayed consistent and exactly in line with the published mathematics.



And the emission curve stayed exactly as expected.

Absolutely nobody had some super-fast miner from the outset. It's plain, simple, and clear to see that there was no unfairness, no cheating.

The situation on the other side of the pond is vastly, vastly different: [1] [2]

It would depend on difficulty - per http://dwarfpool.com/xmr/calc it looks like 1000h/s (1kh/s on the calculator) will net you around 1 XMR a day.