CryptoNote technical discussion and Chess Challenge

[smooth]

...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions.  The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.

... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.

I should have added more context. I think jl777 is concerned with immediate transfers between SuperNET coins, some of which are not anonymous.

I commented on the BBR Speculation thread (without having seen this comment). It certainly does make sense that if you are considering a decentralized exchange where some of the coins are not anonymous, then timing correlation and the level of background activity on a cryptonote does matter. I'm somewhat skeptical of decentralized exchanges overall due to the inherent lack of privacy. It's certainly nice not to be goxed, but part of the purpose of centralized exchanges and brokers is to maintain a degree of client privacy.

[boolberry]

...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions.  The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.

... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.

I should have added more context. I think jl777 is concerned with immediate transfers between SuperNET coins, some of which are not anonymous.

I commented on the BBR Speculation thread (without having seen this comment). It certainly does make sense that if you are considering a decentralized exchange where some of the coins are not anonymous, then timing correlation and the level of background activity on a cryptonote does matter. I'm somewhat skeptical of decentralized exchanges overall due to the inherent lack of privacy. It's certainly nice not to be goxed, but part of the purpose of centralized exchanges and brokers is to maintain a degree of client privacy.

You comments were very hopeful. I don't know how closely he will watch that thread but I am curious what his response would be.  Based on what you said one of my original questions to jl777 (why use CoinShuffle and CryptoNote instead of just CryptoNote) still seems to be a valid one. I am guilty of not spending time in SuperNET slack to read about the reasons for their specific plans. I might take some time over the next week to try to learn more.

[smooth]

...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions.  The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.

... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.

I should have added more context. I think jl777 is concerned with immediate transfers between SuperNET coins, some of which are not anonymous.

I commented on the BBR Speculation thread (without having seen this comment). It certainly does make sense that if you are considering a decentralized exchange where some of the coins are not anonymous, then timing correlation and the level of background activity on a cryptonote does matter. I'm somewhat skeptical of decentralized exchanges overall due to the inherent lack of privacy. It's certainly nice not to be goxed, but part of the purpose of centralized exchanges and brokers is to maintain a degree of client privacy.

You comments were very hopeful. I don't know how closely he will watch that thread but I am curious what his response would be.  Based on what you said one of my original questions to jl777 (why use CoinShuffle and CryptoNote instead of just CryptoNote) still seems to be a valid one. I am guilty of not spending time in SuperNET slack to read about the reasons for their specific plans. I might take some time over the next week to try to learn more.

Coinshuffle as a concept has added value even on a cryptonote coin itself.

Without something like coinjoin/coinshuffle you an infer that inputs to a transaction are controlled by the same party. This in turn requires additional measures which are inconvenient and not really desirable (MRL-0004 suggests at least sometimes sending a torrent of microtransactions rather than a single large one to spend multiple outputs rather than combining them).

Certainly coinshuffle is also needed if his supernet system includes coins that aren't anonymous, but that's a different issue.

[boolberry]

...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions.  The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.

... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.

I should have added more context. I think jl777 is concerned with immediate transfers between SuperNET coins, some of which are not anonymous.

I commented on the BBR Speculation thread (without having seen this comment). It certainly does make sense that if you are considering a decentralized exchange where some of the coins are not anonymous, then timing correlation and the level of background activity on a cryptonote does matter. I'm somewhat skeptical of decentralized exchanges overall due to the inherent lack of privacy. It's certainly nice not to be goxed, but part of the purpose of centralized exchanges and brokers is to maintain a degree of client privacy.

You comments were very hopeful. I don't know how closely he will watch that thread but I am curious what his response would be.  Based on what you said one of my original questions to jl777 (why use CoinShuffle and CryptoNote instead of just CryptoNote) still seems to be a valid one. I am guilty of not spending time in SuperNET slack to read about the reasons for their specific plans. I might take some time over the next week to try to learn more.

Coinshuffle as a concept has added value even on a cryptonote coin itself.

Without something like coinjoin/coinshuffle you an infer that inputs to a transaction are controlled by the same party. This in turn requires additional measures which are inconvenient and not really desirable (MRL-0004 suggests at least sometimes sending a torrent of microtransactions rather than a single large one to spend multiple outputs rather than combining them).

Thank you again. I need to reread the CoinShuffle paper I linked in the OP of this thread!
http://crypsys.mmci.uni-saarland.de/projects/CoinShuffle/coinshuffle.pdf

[boolberry]

Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play Nc6. Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.

Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
white to move

1.e4    c5
2.Nf3   d6
3.d4    cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4    Nc6

[smooth]

Qe3

Who will blink first?

[letsplayagame]

Coinshuffle as a concept has added value even on a cryptonote coin itself.

Without something like coinjoin/coinshuffle you an infer that inputs to a transaction are controlled by the same party. This in turn requires additional measures which are inconvenient and not really desirable (MRL-0004 suggests at least sometimes sending a torrent of microtransactions rather than a single large one to spend multiple outputs rather than combining them).

Certainly coinshuffle is also needed if his supernet system includes coins that aren't anonymous, but that's a different issue.

Just when I feel like I am starting to understand the basics in this thread now you start talking about the combination of things.

Here is a problem some of you chess addicts may like to solve while I continue to study cryptography:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1148538.msg12620343#msg12620343

[8XMR]

Qe3

Who will blink first?

2 votes Qe3

[XMRpromotions]

I support Qe3

[LucyLovesCrypto]

6.Qd3 because I think we may want our bishops on e2 and e3.

[letsplayagame]

I will make the 3rd vote for c4. We will have to make a new move at some point because black ended up with a good position in the World Cup game. I have an idea about when we can do something different, but I don't want to disclose that yet.

White was playing with the goal of securing a draw in that game. Sometimes when you work too hard to limit complications you end up making suboptimal moves.  My comment is not meant to imply c4 was a bad move.  I am just referring to the goal of white in that game.

[ArticMine]

Qd2. I do not like the weak c2 after Qe3.

[boolberry]

Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Monero has chosen to play Qe3. Now it is time for Team Boolberry to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.

Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
black to move

1.e4    c5
2.Nf3   d6
3.d4    cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4    Nc6
6.Qe3

[boolberry]

Nf6 is my preference here. It is the best square for that knight and lets us retain flexibility of where to develop our bishop (g7 or e7) for another move or two depending on how white responds.

[newb4now]

With their queen on e3 they may want to put their bishop on b2. Why not play g6 and Bg7 now to make that harder for them?

[dre1982]

I would go here for g6 to prepare Lg7.

[languagehasmeaning]

I would go here for g6 to prepare Lg7.

+1 for g6

[boolberry]

So far my Nf6 proposal is losing 3-1 against the g6 votes. The polls will close at about 0:00 so Team Boolberry members should cast their ballots before then.

[dre1982]

Damn I already like our (black) position. The white queen is very bad positioned. Just develop our bishop on the diagonal to prevent he does that.

[boolberry]

Damn I already like our (black) position. The white queen is very bad positioned. Just develop our bishop on the diagonal to prevent he does that.

It is still very early but I like this type of position too. White will use their e4 and c4 pawns to try to control the center but we will will have active pieces and good pressure on some of the dark squares.  The next few moves will tell us more about the plans being developed from both sides.