This is all speculation. You don't know if there are measures in place. Once PoSA is released, the facts and flaws(if any) will make themselves known.
Attack vectors, threat models, and their mitigations, are all things you design and put in place before you write a line of code. It would be in the whitepaper, and then expressed in the code. Look at sections 7 and 8 in the Bitmessage whitepaper, for instance, that deal purely with threat mitigation. Bad cryptography says "the proof is in the code". Bad cryptography says "we'll solve that later". Bad cryptography says "there is no mathematical model to show how this will work". Don't fall prey to bad cryptography. |
|
|
|
I don't have deep enough understanding so I'm just throwing ideas around here. But there must be a way to distribute the count of the running nodes in trustless manner (similar to how the blockchain is distributed) without every wallet having to go and ping every masternode. This would obviously mean that the implementation wouldn't be so straightforward anymore.  And, the count is needed only before doing the denomination, which could be once a day, or once a week for most users. I'll but in with my thoughts on that, if I may: You'd have to get the MasterNodes to do the consensus finding, as you don't want to have a scenario where individual nodes can be enumerated (eg. by them randomly pinging 2 MasterNodes and then finding consensus with their peer group). The problem is that a superpeer group broadcasting consensus is still effectively centralised (eg. what's your outlier cut-off for network state among the superpeers? well, then that's all that's needed to confuse consensus...whereas with Bitcoin you need to own 51% of the network). It also doesn't let you know if a compromise event occurs. If, for instance, there are 50% of the nodes hosted on Amazon infrastructure (a likely event if the resources required exceeds that available in most virtualised environments), how would you know if Amazon was subpoena'd and the FBI or the NSA or whoever had access to >50% of the MasterNodes? Knowing their up/down status is one thing, knowing if the host OS their VPS is running on is compromised or not is another entirely. |
|
|
|
-
I can't see how you'd care, you're a Bytecoin shill account, and have stated that the Monero devs have no C++ knowledge and that we're spreading viruses. |
|
|
|
Please read if you are a pool operator.Just so pool operators are aware, advertising pools is no longer allowed, including in coin announcement threads: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=718124.0Any pool that wants to be added to the list on our OP can contact us (pm the Monero Bitcointalk account), and they are allowed to make an ANN thread in the Altcoin Mining section (but not a separate ANN thread for each coin they support). If you post about your pool in this thread or any of the altcoin ANN threads, expect that someone is going to report it and it'll get removed.
|
|
|
|
Don't want to troll this wonderful topic, so my last post just to clarify the point of view: If there's already a bounty on the bitcointalk.org, then this is not quite an "academic only" attempt. There's no harm in making the bounty much, much bigger, and there is no scam in launching such a coin with this background. I also believe that tromp is expecting this challenge to be unclaimed, then why not making it more explicit by involving the highest quality coders, which will not make a move for $2500?
If he doesn't want to mess with launching the coin, there are more than enough people who would like to help him doing it. I would help without expecting any monetary reward, simply because I believe this algo is the future and we really need the coin which is CPU only for cryptocurrencies to be widely adopted. Tromp just has to ask and the team around the coin would be gathered in no time.
I think at this stage the bounty is more to refine Cuckoo Cycle at a working-PoC level (for want of a better term). If, thereafter, a cryptocurrency were to adopt it, you can bet they'd discuss it with John and would put paid-for resources on cryptanalysis and code optimisation of the PoW, which would negate the need to launch a separate cryptocurrency merely as a vehicle for this. |
|
|
|
I agree with you that this is not about the "market", but you may have misunderstood the question. I believe he asked if launching the altcoin will bring far greater incentive than $2500 for skilled developers to work on this, since making the GPU miner while all others mine on CPU can get you reward a few orders of magnitude bigger than $2500. That way these technical test could be done much, much quicker. Not a bad idea.
The downside to that is that the GPU miner will be kept on the DL for weeks or even months until the coin has been bled dry. This approach is far more ethical, and it means that as and when an existing cryptocurrency adopts Cuckoo Cycle it will already have reasonably performant CPU and GPU miners. |
|
|
|
Just a wild idea - wouldn't it be easier to start one more altcoin and see market reaction?
The market reaction is irrelevant, this thread revolves around deep technical tests. |
|
|
|
|
Starting in about 45 mins, will post the link to the Twitch stream here and in #monero-dev on Freenode (where you can also interact and ask questions etc.)
|
|
|
|
I thought that anonymous mining is an all or nothing case, am I missing something?
I mean all nodes should mine the same anonymous way in order to achieve real network anonymity, right?
The blockreward is already anonymous, it pays out-of-band to a stealth address and it's outputs only (ring signatures are only applied to inputs). We're talking about hiding whether you're running a regular node or you're mining (submitting blocks), which means masking your traffic. The upshot is that the added latency caused by submitting your block via i2p means that there's a higher probability of it being orphaned. It's hard to quantify it at this stage, once we are at a point where i2p is on testnet we'll be able to play with scenarios and get some real world results. |
|
|
|
Bitcoindark uses sha256 and cryptonote
They are using the term without understanding what it is, or they're just using the name for their own made-up technology. For eg. - "Development of Cryptonote Technology is underway and will include: a near realtime decentralized exchange (Instadex) and a peer to peer sports book (Privatebet) and more!" CryptoNote is a protocol that has nothing to do with exchanges and sports books. Their source code should also tell you everything you need to know: https://github.com/laowais/bitcoindark/blob/master/contrib/debian/novacoind.install - they're forked from Novacoin, not from the CryptoNote reference code. Novacoin (just like Litecoin, Dogecoin, and all the other forks) use the Bitcoin protocol. Monero, Ducknote, Boolberry, and so on all use the CryptoNote protocol. |
|
|
|
Calm yourself, son.
I am likely your elder. Perhaps you've forgotten what culture was like back in the day. You didn't speak to your elders disrespectfully. I told you to reign in dga. He reflects badly on your coin. And smooth made a reply upthread in support of Wolf0 at my expense. You are playing politics right now. You never stop. I would like to have a technical and factual discussion, but instead you want to fucking play this shit. That means fight. You only responded, because I just blew away your entire marketing foundation. Piss off. <middle finger> I'm in my mid-30s, so you'd do well to flip that statement around. We have no control over dga, he is not even involved in Monero on a peripheral level. Even if he was involved, there is little we could do to stop him expressing his (certainly valid) technical viewpoints. There is no fight with you, Mint. There absolutely no desire to fight with you. There is no game. There is no attack. We have nothing but respect for your knowledge, and we have definitely taken heed of some of the valid points you have made. We all have ridiculous amounts of work to do, and arguing is among the least productive things we can do. You have blown nothing away, although I'm certain you feel it important to think yourself capable of doing so, and I have no problem with you continuing to believe that. I have said what needed to be said. Neither myself, nor any of the core team members, will continue this conversation thread with you as there is no value in doing so. Feel free to respond and continue to postulate as you will undoubtedly do. |
|
|
|
Zoidberg, this is an example of an opportunity that you may have failed to grab in the past. At the moment, if you could do some analysis of the issue I raised and come back with some concrete explanation or improvement made to your PoW, it would show that unlike Monero crapholes, you are open source to valid feedback and do try to stay focused on improvements and not political manipulation.
Grabbing such opportunities is the way you win the community.
And nevermind drawingthesun trying to keep you in second place. There is no reason you have to stay in second place, if you can demonstrate better leadership than Monero has. Monero has to cater to the "least common denominator" (e.g. dga), because they are a political paradigm (open source). They don't have any Benevolent Dictator (e.g. Linus Torvalds) to reign in political distraction and keep everything focused on innovation and substance.
Calm yourself, son. You keep using terms like "your" and "them" when you're replying to people that are not even involved with Monero. You get angry and frustrated at conversations with dga and Wolf0 and others that clearly do not know the internal state of Monero development. This, in turn, leads to you saying things that are obviously nonsensical when you know better because you've been told as much. For instance, this choice quote of yours (in response to dga that is not part of the Monero core team, and appears to be more involved with BBR than XMR from my casual observation) - Seriously you have a $6 million marketcap and you all brag about the donation model of funding, so why can't you spend $5000 to get the damn cryptanalysis done going on 3 months after release. Instead you play manipulative political games. Appearances are that you can't get real work done, and you only have BS politics to fall back on.  You can't even build anonymity into mining.  This is in direct contrast to a conversation we had just yesterday where I quoted the Monero Missives, indicating that the mathematicians and cryptographers that peer reviewed the whitepaper are now involved in a code analysis and review, focusing initially on validating the cryptographic primitives used. Subsequent to that they will obviously expand their reach to review and analyse the PoW, ring signatures, and so on. You know this. You know that they are not doing this for free (as indicated in the opening of the whitepaper review which you have read). So making a broad-reaching, clearly baseless, obviously factually incorrect statement as you have made vastly reduces your credibility. Your comment about anonymous mining has already been responded to by smooth who indicated that mining on i2p will work just fine, but the increased latency would likely lead to a higher orphan rate than mining over TCP. So saying that we "can't" build anonymity into mining when we already have is quite bizarre. Let me be as clear as I can to you, and I'm going to put this in bold so you digest it and understand it and no longer make broad, nonsensical claims: Monero has a "benevolent dictator". This is the core team, made up (in no specific order) of the following people: tacotime, eizh, smooth, fluffypony, othe, davidlatapie, NoodleDoodle. That's it. If you are responding to anyone of those people, they are speaking with knowledge of Monero's current state and priorities. We are not perfect, and we will say things online that are regrettable or even incorrect, but unless it comes from our mouths it is not "us". Stop treating people that do not necessarily even represent Monero's best interests as if they were somehow part of a hivemind of Monero souls. Stop imagining that we're playing a political game with you. We're happy to engage in a discussion of technical merits, although we are not obligated to share your unique point of view, but we have no interest in having any discussion beyond that with you. We do not have any ulterior motives, and for the most part we ignore the goings on here to focus on getting things done.I reiterate: DO NOT in future respond to someone who is not part of the Monero core team and act like they represent anything other than their own opinion. |
|
|
|
So Why can't the Cryptonote Protocol use the X11 Algo?
It absolutely can! I can't a see a valid reason to do so, but there's nothing stopping someone from doing that in a CryptoNote-based coin:) |
|
|
|
|
I think that voting is a bad system, it's open to gaming or Sybil attacks. Rather make the decision to add coins yourself, and be fussy about it.
For instance: if you stick to coins that have been around for at least 3-6 months you will already full out a lot of pump-and-dumps.
|
|
|
|
Sure, it's just a bunch of algos.
That's incorrect. CryptoNote is a protocol. X11 is a PoW algorithm using a chain of 11 hashing algorithms. Many CryptoNote coins use the CryptoNight PoW algorithm, although some do not. Currently, there seems to be little advantage to using X11 over CryptoNight, as CryptoNight is also relatively light on heat and electricity consumption, and it has the added advantage of reducing the performance gap between CPUs, GPUs, and ASICs, which is something X11 does not do. |
|
|
|
sounds nice but don't think many people would know about this without somebody telling them , shouldn't this little piece of info be in the OP and the monero website lol  also please i want a high hashrate low fee pool and btw no other amd gpus miner except that claymore high fee under developed miner ? ... Maybe, but it would kinda be like Google making sure everyone knows their name is a misspelling of "googol" (which is 10 100) |
|
|
|
Please clarify your statement? Do you mean you disclaim the need for cryptanalysis of a new hash function used in PoW or do you disclaim something Wolf0 wrote?
Wolf0 I apologize to lose my temper, but I don't like the deal where you require me to do all work for your group, else I can't speak to common methodology in cryptography to offer some insights.
Everyone knows that cryptography breaks when your input entropy is broken. Duh!
That is why it is so important to insure your random generator isn't subject to a birthday attack. The same applies to the random oracles you use when doing lookups in a scratchpad.
I mean we don't make any claims of it never having been broken or being perfectly secure. I'm not sure if you follow the Monero Missives at all, but when we released the whitepaper review we said the following: The initial work has been completed on analysing the CryptoNote whitepaper, and the review that has come out of it is now available to all. This is an academic approach to analysing it, and is the first step in figuring out whether the principles it espouses are reflected in the Monero code, and (further to that) how we can improve on its deficiencies. You can grab the whitepaper review here: http://monero.cc/downloads/whitepaper_review.pdfWe also expanded on that explanation in the following Monero Missive: Now that the CryptoNote whitepaper has been peer reviewed by our mathematicians and cryptographers, they have begun initial work reviewing the implementation thereof. This is most especially important, as Monero has inherited quite a bit from the CryptoNote reference code. The initial focus is on the cryptographic primitives and higher-level cryptographic functions, which will be evaluated by code analysis as well as by running test vectors (that are different from those in the Monero test suite) against those functions. The methodologies and results will, of course, be published in due time.
|
|
|
|
He fails to mention "refrain from including any sort of cryptanalysis to back up that algorithm. Upon which. Your entire. Coin. Is. Based. Ugh.".
Just to clarify (again) - there are only 7 members of the core team, as listed earlier. We do not make any such claims. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
