Bitcoin Forum
January 24, 2019, 07:51:12 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Viᖚes (social currency unit)?
like - 27 (27.6%)
might work - 10 (10.2%)
dislike - 17 (17.3%)
prefer tech name, e.g. factom, ion, ethereum, iota, epsilon - 15 (15.3%)
prefer explicit currency name, e.g. net⚷eys, neㄘcash, ᨇcash, mycash, bitoken, netoken, cyberbit, bitcash - 2 (2%)
problematic - 2 (2%)
offending / repulsive - 4 (4.1%)
project objectives unrealistic or incorrect - 10 (10.2%)
biased against lead dev or project ethos - 11 (11.2%)
Total Voters: 98

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?  (Read 94833 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
tromp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 577
Merit: 521


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 03:52:40 AM
 #661

If you're willing to target recent x86 exclusively, then you can increase resistance by employing the AES-NI instruction.

That is not one but rather a group of instructions. Perhaps you just typoed the missing 's'. One of those instructions was of particular focus of mine.

I wasn't sure if it was one or multiple, but was too lazy to figure out which:-(
Thanks for correcting...
1548316272
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548316272

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1548316272
Reply with quote  #2

1548316272
Report to moderator
1548316272
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548316272

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1548316272
Reply with quote  #2

1548316272
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1548316272
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548316272

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1548316272
Reply with quote  #2

1548316272
Report to moderator
1548316272
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1548316272

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1548316272
Reply with quote  #2

1548316272
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 02:47:23 PM
 #662

What happens if the MSM refuses to cover Monero (or any altcoin)? Can an altcoin overcome any way?

Okay good angle.

Quote
Did Bittorrent become popular without MSM coverage?

I'm not really sure.

Quote
Is Bittorrent as popular as Bitcoin?

Bittorrent is more popular than Bitcoin by a wide margin. I've seen reports of 30 million Bittorrent nodes at times, and that does not include all users.

Thanks that is very inspirational.

What I remember is the music industry in cahoots with politicians attempting to kill off file sharing by attacking Napster and some dumb ass politicians thought they could do the same to the decentralized file sharing apps and then later became aware they wouldn't have the power to shut them down (at least not without some global control of all internet protocols).

Then the battle moved to downloaded movies with Bittorrent and the subsequent Kim Dotcom saga which is still ongoing (but looks like they will be able to extradite him to the USA although that is irrelevant to the point of our inquiry I think except it shows the elite are the ones who are one step behind a popular activity).

It seems to me that if there is a popular activity that the world's users want to do and it is decentralized such that it can't be easily regulated by the elite, then the elite are on the losing side.

Thanks! That has been my theory all along and I just wanted to check it again with others to see if I am in delusion.

Bittorrent was spreading for the same reason that VCRs spread. It enables the popular activity of archiving and sharing your favorite media.

The problem for digital currency is it doesn't enable any popular activity. And all my marketing thoughts have been about how to find killer apps for digital currency that users will clamor for. And that is why I think the marketing discussion (and thus the design of the crypto currency to address the marketing) is the most important discussion. Hey I am not trying to belittle the capabilities of the Monero developers. I wish we could all work together. The first order of business is identifying how we address the marketing issue. We need a Bittorrent movement in crypto.

The reason I have resisted just contributing to Monero is because as smart as the devs are at coding, they don't have any marketing sense. And thus they can't lead. Sorry I am not trying to ruin you all, but I can't let you ruin me by leading me in the wrong direction. And Blockstream is no better at marketing and identifying which features are important. Thus again as smart as they are, they can't lead. You will end up in endless discussions and not getting any where.

Note that XMR.to was a stroke of marketing genuis. Who ever did that should be getting more attention from us. And Shapeshift.io was even better. But still both of those haven't identified the killer app for crypto currency that we need to make the masses clamor for it. I have some ideas to try out, but they require me to do a lot of programming just to be able to test the markets. It is a lot of risk for me to take on given I am nearly bankrupt. It is a major sacrifice and I am just thinking about whether I can manage. I am leaning on moving forward and stop posting. But I am still in deep thinking and discuss mode on this first. Maybe a couple or few more days max (hopefully).

Ideally would be to join forces with other devs. But most devs (smooth included) don't want to work for free on crypto. They want something where they can see a reasonable ROI or at least where they are not coding full time (so they can sustain their larger income in their day jobs). Or perhaps they will work for free if it is their own project so they can express their desire to lead or be in that leadership role. It is difficult to figure out how to organize. Seems a leader (e.g. fluffypony) just has to do and not talk and not seek out anyone. Those who are interested chime in when they feel inclined to.

Yet again I come back to that for all the teamwork in Monero, there isn't the leadership focus on how to address a killer app for crypto (perhaps they thought originally anonymity was a killer app and that is another reason I won't follow Monero's leadership because I disagree with that marketing analysis). And the attitude seems to be "build it and wait...markets will come to us".

On top of all that, is since the focus of all altcoins are on speculators and not primarily on users, we end up with all these cat fights and inability to discuss user driven feature sets without getting mired in turf battles.

monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 02:53:08 PM
 #663

The problem for digital currency is it doesn't enable any popular activity. And all my marketing thoughts have been about how to find killer apps for digital currency that users will clamor for.

You're looking at the problem from the wrong country. The unbanked are your users. Users who's governments are so corrupt that their national currency is basically unusable.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 03:04:59 PM
 #664

The problem for digital currency is it doesn't enable any popular activity. And all my marketing thoughts have been about how to find killer apps for digital currency that users will clamor for.

You're looking at the problem from the wrong country. The unbanked are your users. Users who's governments are so corrupt that their national currency is basically unusable.

Well the peso is usable for cash transactions. The unbanked only lack the ability to transact online. That is where the action is in terms of marketing to them.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 03:05:14 PM
 #665

I first read about bitcoin in Wired when bitcoin was about $6-8 in 2011

The story in Wired that got a lot of attention (and introduced many people to Bitcoin) was late 2011. It was a large review (maybe cover?) that included the history of Satoshi, etc., the pump, the MtGox hack, etc. The price had hit $30 earlier that year and was on its way down to $2 or whatever the low ended up being after another year or so. Still I guess $6-8 when the article came out.

The one I read was before the bubble. Let me just find it

EDIT: Here it is. The article came out just before the bubble:
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/silkroad-2/

Price was $8.67 according the article.

Ah okay, I hadn't seen that one. The pump started in late April though (maybe Silk Road becoming popular?). The price as of April 15 was still $1, and arguably even back in October ($0.06). Maybe the Wired piece did contribute to the blow-off high at $30 though.

More to do the point, do you agree with my perception that the next pump that attracts mainstream media attention will be much, much bigger?



Yes, I've made some posts about how I think the recurring bubble cycle is based partly on the bitcoin hype expanding into increasingly wider demographics through different media outlets, starting with cryptoanarchists and STEM guys hearing about bitcoin from Slashdot getting us to $1, and then Silk Road/Gawker/Wired geeks getting us to double digits, and so on. We have a lot more demographics that we can expand into. 

We still haven't seriously broken into the worldwide baby boomer demographic at all.

We haven't broken into Japan at all. There are 450,000+ millionaires in Tokyo alone. Almost all babyboomers. How many of them own bitcoin? We can probably round the number down to zero. The yen is the third biggest currency in the world. We haven't cracked it at all.
We have very few women owning any bitcoin.

We actually haven't really broken into China. If Chinese retail investors were buying bitcoin like they were buying Chinese stocks in 2015, we would've broken $20,000 easily. All we did in 2013 was break into the Chinese geek population.

If we can break out into the wealthy babyboomer demographic and get them buying bitcoins like they were buying real estate or dotcom stocks, then we could have a media hype cycle and bubble that could dwarf anything we've seen.

The problem is that they are going to be the hardest demographic to crack. The previous bubbles were low hanging fruit. Of course we could get the DollarVigilante, Max Keiser, Wired/Gawker, Zerohedge, PirateParty, Wikileaks guys on board.  The delay between the last bubble in November 2013 and the next real hype cycle goes to show how difficult it is to crack the next demographic nut.

Good analysis. Is there another intermediate stage?

Not for investment without widespread user adoption. Without viral user adoption, we probably need Bitcoin to be sanctioned by the State as money to bring the wealthy demographics into it.

The only angle I see is viral user adoption, thus of course driving investment like crazy.

Achieving viral user adoption of money is crazy difficult because money has no utility until it is wide adopted. Thus it is a chicken and egg problem.

With file sharing, you only need a few people to share and then any one can gain utility from it.

Thus it seems any plans for viral adoption are doomed. I should just quit.

But ... what if users became investors and investors became users in a virtuous spiralling cycle that lead to wide spread adoption by both.  Wink

monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 03:26:04 PM
 #666

Well the peso is usable for cash transactions. The unbanked only lack the ability to transact online. That is where the action is in terms of marketing to them.

I presume you mean M-pesa?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa

Still, this does not represent a good store of value, and crypto in general probably isn't that because of the massive volatility. This is why things like nuBits and bitUSD are compelling offerings if they could be made to work more robustly.
AlexGR
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1026



View Profile
January 19, 2016, 04:02:05 PM
 #667

The problem for digital currency is it doesn't enable any popular activity. And all my marketing thoughts have been about how to find killer apps for digital currency that users will clamor for.

You're looking at the problem from the wrong country. The unbanked are your users. Users who's governments are so corrupt that their national currency is basically unusable.

Well the peso is usable for cash transactions. The unbanked only lack the ability to transact online. That is where the action is in terms of marketing to them.

A relatively good crypto does have a market for

- the unbanked
- capital control bypass / making payments online despite the "barriers", for countries where foreign reserves controls are imposed to prevent currency devaluation and capital flight
- accepting payments from all over the world without the government confiscating your hard currency and automatically replacing it with the national currency equivalent in your bank account
- store of value if foreign currency and/or gold is hard to find, for countries that have devaluing currencies
- black markets (in some cases)
- non-reversible transactions where paypal / visa etc fail
- ...investment / speculation

The killer app and marketing is actually done by ...the powers that be, by pushing on our throat the digital economy where they want to monitor and control all our transactions, by eliminating cash and imposing their electronic transactions. So anything that you don't want to go through *their* electronic currency, will, by necessity, either be cash (impossible for online transactions), or ...an e-cash alternative to the government's currency.

In terms of marketing, I believe a wallet simplification would be in order for most crypto. Human-readable addresses or virtual "bank accounts" that approximate the balances people already are familiar with, would be a good "front-end" solution to addresses like 490138410924809135u22fdjfwu;r92qu8weudwq09, change getting "lost" into addresses that people do not understand, etc. The front end should ensure a good user experience, the code should ensure best practices in terms of security and efficiency of transactions.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 08:02:29 PM
 #668

Quote
Did Bittorrent become popular without MSM coverage?

I'm not really sure.

Yes, it did.  The Bittorrent whitepaper was a breakthrough in p2p not matched until Satoshi came along.

All the cruft of Gnutella (anti-leech arms race kludges, supernodes, etc) was swept away by Bram's brilliantly elegant tit-for-tat algorithm.

Well someone did come along before Satoshi in 2008 and that was me (Shelby), but I was apparently ignored. I basically predicted the Net Neutrality shit we have now and was trying to improve Bram's concept:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130401040049/http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?pid=178#p178

Did Bittorrent implement my proposal? I never followed up (my life went on a tangent).

You can detect some more coherence in my writing back then because that was before I became so ill. I am amazed in hindsight that I understood the concepts of Bittorrent so well having absolutely no experience whatsoever as a developer in P2P.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 08:10:03 PM
Last edit: January 19, 2016, 08:46:32 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #669

Well the peso is usable for cash transactions. The unbanked only lack the ability to transact online. That is where the action is in terms of marketing to them.

I presume you mean M-pesa?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa

Still, this does not represent a good store of value, and crypto in general probably isn't that because of the massive volatility. This is why things like nuBits and bitUSD are compelling offerings if they could be made to work more robustly.

No I meant the Philippines peso (the national currency). Aren't you aware I am living in the Philippines.

I don't think stable store-of-value is the issue. Investors don't want it, and my intuition is hypothetical microtransaction spenders don't care much about it (because the value at risk is so small) and are much more interested in what the hell can they do with this silly online currency that they can't also do with fiat.

Edit: one could argue that pegged assets would be functionally equivalent to a digital credit card, being denominated in the user's national currency, thus making the unbanked instantly banked in their national currency. But the problem is there are losses involved in any peg and businesses already operate on low profit margins due to competition. Also there is no opportunity to do clever marketing based on rising value, as the currency can only be funded by real value equivalent to the pegged asset value.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 08:17:12 PM
 #670

In terms of marketing, I believe a wallet simplification would be in order for most crypto. Human-readable addresses or virtual "bank accounts" that approximate the balances people already are familiar with, would be a good "front-end" solution to addresses like 490138410924809135u22fdjfwu;r92qu8weudwq09, change getting "lost" into addresses that people do not understand, etc. The front end should ensure a good user experience, the code should ensure best practices in terms of security and efficiency of transactions.

I already implemented that in code:

There is a way though to get perfect compliance which I am using in my design because I use one-time Lamport/Winternitz signatures

Forcing perfect compliance through cryptography sounds great. Unfortunately I cannot pretend to understand the math and cryptography behind everything you say except on a conceptual basis.

It doesn't gain anything from an anonymity perspective (and is arguably retrogressive), if that is what you were thinking. We pay to a name instead of an address. The address can change and the name remains the same. For security it helps, and my greater motivation is eliminating lost payments (payments to addresses for which no one knows the private key) and overhead for microtransactions (and potentially IoT).

Edit: it is a usability feature for targeting the masses, and I think ShadowCoin has a similar feature but maybe not for the same motivations.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 09:09:39 PM
Last edit: January 19, 2016, 09:33:18 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #671

The problem for digital currency is it doesn't enable any popular activity.

I think you are way, way ahead of yourself. This is not the time to judge yet.

A captain without a map and compass (or a clear night sky) can get lost in a sea of wrong turns.

The 'marketing', ie building out the monero ecosystem has just kicked of.

The marketing should begin with the design of the product. If the marketing and the design are not in sync, nothing is likely to work out.

- China is being addressed (translations & campaigns)

Chinese investors who have a strong desire to invest in crypto already know about Monero.

The issues of why they are not investing in droves in Monero will be the same as why Western investors are not. My guess is because anonymity is not a very realistic feature for anyone. Who needs to use it? I would like to use anonymity to maintain my privacy from Uncle Sam, but I certainly can't trust Cryptonote's vulnerabilities to metadata correlation and systemic combinatorial analysis. I'd be crazy to risk jail time trusting that.

I only see highly criminal markets for Cryptonote, who tolerate such risk as their profession demands. Those are not who I want to be marketing too and in the company of.

I'd like to see really strong anonymity such as Zerocash, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that only a popular activity can resist the State. And anonymity will never be popular. People love to share everything on Facebook. We'll never be able to solve the metadata problem, probably not even with Zerocash.

Chinese investors are not going to invest in features which have no market, unless it is just a pump & dump or some other money making corruption.

- Privacy centered services are being approached (succesfully)

Elaborate please? What does this mean?

- additional exchanges are being talked to

As if that is the problem when liquidity is already too low. You can further dilute liquidity across more exchanges.

Okay it perhaps provides access for some more investors. But access is not likely the major issue limiting Monero investment.

- Websites/blogs/infographics are popping up everywhere
- twitter / facebook is being actively used

Telling us more about an anonymity feature that we don't need.

I also believe that the community is greatly responsible for this, not the devteam. The devteam must make sure they optimize the code and features, so that the community can build out on those fundaments.

It just takes time to develop this project into something that is worth the effort to market. As the features pile up, so will the possibilities and thus ideas.

Incorrect. Marketing is holistic.

For example think about what will be possible when Monero has multisig combined with the existing killer ano-features, so many ideas will be springing up.

Oh the delusions we tell ourselves when we are bagholders.

- Marketplaces (like openbazaar)
- Darknet markets

As if they need anonymity that is not resistant to the tax and regulation authorities. What is the point? Do I want to buy shit from anonymous individuals. No.

- Monero streamium copy for ano webcam-chat etc
- filesharing (bittrust)

What does anonymous block chain tech have to do with chat encryption  Huh

- Privacy crowdfunding / political donations platform

Wow that is going to have at least 1 or 2 participants.

There's so many bitcoin examples which would work a lot better with untraceable and unlinkable payments. It's just a matter of time for someone picking up an idea and replicating it. And over time, yes, users will recognize the benefit of anonymity. As they are slowly discovering now (outside of the crypto-currency spehre). It just doesn't happen instantly. Rome wasn't build in one day...

Keep on dreaming.

Now I need to get back to reality.

Edit: I still hold out hope for optional mixers based on Zerocash. I see no reason to prefer a bloated, unscalable block chain such as Cryptonote with its unreliable anonymity (but if you know of large markets for that please correct me).

But for that to be useful we need to make decentralized, permissionless crypto currency popular. Otherwise the mixers will be useless anyway.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 19, 2016, 09:46:12 PM
 #672

The problem for digital currency is it doesn't enable any popular activity. And all my marketing thoughts have been about how to find killer apps for digital currency that users will clamor for.

You're looking at the problem from the wrong country. The unbanked are your users. Users who's governments are so corrupt that their national currency is basically unusable.

Well the peso is usable for cash transactions. The unbanked only lack the ability to transact online. That is where the action is in terms of marketing to them.

A relatively good crypto does have a market for

- the unbanked
- capital control bypass / making payments online despite the "barriers", for countries where foreign reserves controls are imposed to prevent currency devaluation and capital flight
- accepting payments from all over the world without the government confiscating your hard currency and automatically replacing it with the national currency equivalent in your bank account
- store of value if foreign currency and/or gold is hard to find, for countries that have devaluing currencies
- black markets (in some cases)
- non-reversible transactions where paypal / visa etc fail
- ...investment / speculation

The killer app and marketing is actually done by ...the powers that be, by pushing on our throat the digital economy where they want to monitor and control all our transactions, by eliminating cash and imposing their electronic transactions. So anything that you don't want to go through *their* electronic currency, will, by necessity, either be cash (impossible for online transactions), or ...an e-cash alternative to the government's currency.

This all sounds nice but it is all IMO incorrect in terms of the details.

The unbanked can't use a crypto currency for the things they would need a bank account for anyway, because crypto currency isn't widely accepted and especially not in the developing world where everything is sold mostly for cash retail.

Ditto why crypto currency won't help any one transact across capital controls. You still need a fiat exchange at both ends.

The store-of-value point is reasonable and I have even used Bitcoin to temporarily hold value, but it is so damn volatile that it is a crapshoot except for those diehards TO DA MOON type of speculators.

Black markets operate mostly in cash.

Non-reversible transactions are not always good for the consumer. Most people don't want that. They want some protection.

Investment/speculation without mass user adoption is just a zero sum game of us mining each other. And turf battles and lots of other time wasting crap and pump & dumps. I am tired of that shit.

This is why I have concluded that the only possible mass market for crypto currency are instant microtransactions.



All i know is bitcoin is http, and monero is https*

And nasal snot is Vicks. I still can't sell my snot.

Very loose analogies are almost always misleading.

Marketing is about drilling down to the details.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 20, 2016, 01:28:25 AM
 #673

This is why I have concluded that the only possible mass market for crypto currency are instant microtransactions.

This is what RaiBlocks does https://raiblocks.net/  No fees (micro) subsecond confirmation time (instant).

Sorry no such multiple chains (or branches of a tree) design can ever be Consistent:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13611845#msg13611845

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 20, 2016, 01:53:55 AM
 #674

This is why I have concluded that the only possible mass market for crypto currency are instant microtransactions.

This is what RaiBlocks does https://raiblocks.net/  No fees (micro) subsecond confirmation time (instant).

Sorry no such multiple chains (or branches of a tree) design can ever be Consistent:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13611845#msg13611845

Can you fill in the gaps?  Global instant consistency isn't required for correct state coherence: for instance NUMA CPU configurations can perform correct global memory updates without requiring an exclusive memory bus lock.

Please I am not going to debate your coin's theoretical design in my coin's thread. You can try to join the Decentralization thread linked for you in my prior post and see if you can make coherent theoretical arguments there.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 20, 2016, 06:01:55 PM
 #675

I have no clue what just happened, what a rollercoaster.



Surprised the rally tapered so fast, well looks like I gets me some more on the cheap. Smiley

Someday you guys will realize your time is worth more than this nonsense discussion about how you can be fooled by bid/ask walls and other non-statistics.

Anyone kicking himself for not having bought as much as they were planning to, during this long plateau we seem to leave now?

Short-term performance doesn't indicate anything about the future. Every rational speculator knows this.

I wanted to talk about serious planning and features to burst out of this nonsensical waste of time that crypto currency is stuck in. I will carry on that work in other more serious threads.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 20, 2016, 06:30:30 PM
 #676


Okay so this is not http://z.cash (which is the inferior zerocoin) and apparently is the real Zerocash! Wow. I am happy to see this in open source. Real progress at last. Maybe this is the reason for the dump of Monero?

I am happy to see this because I want to use something like this and also because I do not expect them to get the details correct on mining (no one has yet!). So there will be an opportunity to integrate this open source into a better block chain.

Major opportunities right now in crypto. Pick who you want to work with and pick carefully. I am looking for a few good men.

Okay so this is not http://z.cash (which is the inferior zerocoin) and apparently is the real Zerocash!

They are the same

Quote
The Zerocash protocol is being developed into a full-fledged digital currency, Zcash.

I don't know what happened. Last time I thought I loaded that page, I was looking at two young developers one of which was Asian. I need to sort out my confusion. I am very perplexed as to what I accidentally loaded last time.




This is what I had seen before and I have no idea why the wires in my brain crossed and throught it was z.cash I had recently view before (perhaps I am just overloaded with so many technical issues in my mind at the moment and I just woke up). Apologies for the unnecessary noise due to my error.

Zerocoin implementation that is supposed to launch early this year:
http://moneta.cash/technology.html
https://github.com/MonetaOfficial/moneta

I think it is basically a rebranded version of Zerovert, which was a closed-source implementation released last year. One of the creators is one of Matthew Green's former students.

That is Zerocoin, not Zerocash. Zerocoin is a mixer only for sending coins to your self and delinking, thus it is subject to all metadata correlation breakage the same as for Monero (Cryptonote coins and ShadowCash and everything else!).

Only Zerocash hides everything and thus is immune to metadata correlation. Zerocash mints zerocoins (which are not the same as the coins in Zerocoin). Zerocoin was created by some of the same people who created Zerocash, but they are totally different technologies. Zerocash is much more powerful anonymity because all the coins and all the actions (e.g. transfer payment to another) are totally hidden in one big blob.

With that being said, it's still unproven technology, and I think there are some issues with launching the currency in a trustless manner, so for now Monero is probably most bestest.

It is not even clear if Zerocash will work in a real world implementation for scalability and DDoS reasons (and maybe other issues).

But none of that absolves the fact that Monero is fundamentally (mostly) useless for the reasons I stated upthread.



A for-profit coin company, i dont care what they make, iwill never trust them.

Agreed that is the opportunity to beat them by open sourcing their code. But you will also need my block chain technology to make the big win.

moreover RingCT will move Monero closer to Zcash

Sorry no. It is still not immune to meta-data and the theoretical combinatorial analysis. Not reliable. Not realistic.

We need to move forward. It is up to you, I know my thinking and priorities on this matter.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 20, 2016, 08:18:55 PM
Last edit: January 21, 2016, 03:35:00 AM by TPTB_need_war
 #677

A for-profit coin company, i dont care what they make, iwill never trust them.

Agreed that is the opportunity to beat them by open sourcing their code. But you will also need my block chain technology to make the big win.

moreover RingCT will move Monero closer to Zcash

Sorry no. It is still not immune to meta-data and the theoretical combinatorial analysis. Not reliable. Not realistic.

We need to move forward. It is up to you, I know my thinking and priorities on this matter.


A for profit company with closed source code controlling the initial key for a zerocash like currency is a regulatory nightmare.

No closed source. The key would be produced publicly at a ceremony.



Would this metadata and combinatorial analysis hold even if mixin 10 was a default on all tx's?

The meta-data (e.g. IP address, browser cookie, timing analysis and location of connection, what you said in facebook or on the phone, etc) correlation problem isn't likely impacted no matter how many times or inputs you ring mix. It is very difficult for mere mortals to cover their tracks on all the possible meta-data correlations. It is unfathomably difficult. Don't fool yourself into thinking it isn't.

The combinatorial analysis flaw (which I introduced to smooth during the BCX incident and hence followed up in debate with Shen-noether) is very theoretical and may or may not be plausible. In my thinking, it comes more into play if combined with meta-data breakdown of the anonymity systemically. Mixing more may help somewhat, but it can also make it worse because it is the excessive overlapping in mixes that causes the combinatorial unmasking.

In short, it is a clusterfuck (not a clean, clear, provable solution) and that is why I abandoned it.



...
All miners will have to register as money transmitters under FinCEN regulations, same as the issue for Dash masternodes. There has seriously bad implications in their investment strategy. But their code and developers are valuable. The investors can probably recover their money on the initial IPO. They should IPO the damn thing and do it legally and not mess with this "master of the universe" idea above.

I am contemplating contacting them, but I need to think through their economic options. It may be impossible to get them to do the right thing.

But they could definitely benefit from my endorsement in an IPO. A legal IPO! As well, they could benefit from my block chain tech.
...

Miners do not have to register as MSBs. Please read the guidance. https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/html/FIN-2014-R001.html The jury is very much out on Dash masternodes. How will the investors recover the funds from an IPO? If it is by emission then the IPO company is an MSB in the United States.

My interpretation of FinCEN guidance is miners would have to register as MSBs if they are forced to transfer some of the coinbase to some other party. Just because it is enforced by the protocol, doesn't absolve the miner from (the legal culpability of) creating the block which created new supply and transferred it to a third party.

Disclaimer: IANAL.



I hate when n00bs make me repeat the same shit over and over and over again. Do you think my time is free?

The masterkey has to be produced in a way that no one knows it. The proposals had been to use a public ceremony and a computer examined by everyone attending, to be sure the masterkey is unknown to anyone.

Note if the masterkey is known, that person can create coins out-of-thin-air, but he can't unmask the anonymity. That is a crucial distinction.

This is why I proposed the idea of using Zerocash as a mixer that eventually times out, so that we can be sure the mixer hasn't created any new coins. Everyone going into the mixer takes the risk that they may not be able to come out of the mixer if the attacker has already created coins. Then we could have many of these mixers in a free market, and users would decide which mixers they trust. Again anonymity is never compromised and the run on the bank can only be a loss to participants, not to the entire ecosystem. I am pretty sure this solves the problem and this is why we can take their open source and beat them.

I am loaded with ideas and designs to solve real problems in crypto. Hopefully some smart devs are going to realize they are better off working with me.

I am aware of that. However, for an stand-alone altcoin creating coins out-of-thin-air is just as detrimental as unmasking the anonymity, because both will likely result in the coin dying.

I already proposed a solution in my prior reply to you that is using their technology in ephemeral mixers, which thus avoids systemic risk and reveals which mixers are compromised (which is likely to be quite rare because participants will learn to judge which masterkeys were generated correctly at ceremony).

Free markets always work best as long as systemic risk is avoided.


RingCT has the same problem. I explained in I believe both the chess thread and my Zero Knowledge Transactions thread. This is another reason I abandoned it (in addition to the inability to get reliable anonymity since it doesn't hide meta-data the way Zerocash/Zcash does).


No it doesn't, because coinbase transactions are mixin = 0 in Monero and therefore you can check if the total supply hasn't been tampered with.

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Exemplifies that you are a n00b who should STFU.

If there is a flaw in the cryptography for proving the homomorphic sums (and that is new cryptography), then indeed the attacker can create new value out-of-thin-air and not be detected. I am not going to explain the examples and math again. I already did in the past. Go ask Shen-noether.

You should have paid attention the last time I explained this! You always want to use me but then you don't respect me enough to reward me[1] and then you expect me to correct for your inability to study and remember my posts carefully.

I don't think you should bet against them, because Zerocash has anonymity and nothing else does! The community will make sure it is peer reviewed. We must. You had better start figuring out how to transition and pronto.

I don't say I do. eb3f stated on reddit the following: "Monero uses ring signatures, as you may know, which is battle-tested and well-understood in the cryptography world and in practice". Even with community review it will take a long time to get to this state. I also don't agree with bolded here, but I won't go on a back-and-forth discussion with you over that.

Again my point is that you could have the safest snot in the world, but if people can't use snot for anything, then they are going to put their energies into perfecting and peer reviewing what they need.

Seems you all often miss the points entirely. They fly right over your heads.

I do agree that the new cryptography for Zerocash and zk-snarks is more complex than the new cryptography for homomorphic proof-of-sums for RingCT (or my ZKT), but I don't think that helps given the meta-data problem for RingCT/ZKT/Cryptonote (and every anonymity technology other than Zerocash). What is the point of pursuing a direction which is known to be unreliable and fundamentally flawed (in a way that can never be fixed), when we can pursue a direction that fixes the meta-data problem and is a matter of convincing whether the technology is sound with much peer review. Certainly the peer review can be done over time, and probably incentivized if the technology has a popular application.

I'll let others which are more knowledgeable comment on the metadata.

Please don't tell me I will have to waste more of my time defending an obvious point (for anyone who has the slightest technological understanding).

I am frustrated how much fucking time we waste. You all have been convincing yourselves in your little delusions for years of what ever circle jerk bubbles you prefer to be in (which often include ridiculing/dismissing me).

Edit: correction:

[1] I was rewarded by smooth, jl777, and rpietila. Big thanks to them. Very much so. I am just frustrated because I need a viable financial direction and we need to work smart and find a way that we can make these matters work in our favor. And I am trying to find people who value me and find a way to get it done.



...

No closed source. The key would be produced publicly at a ceremony.
...

Using what operating system and firmware?

Of course they will need to convince the public the master key is sound. Or use my idea above of having multiple mixers and timing them out. I believe there is a solution, yet I will agree the current organization of their plans seems legally and structurally flawed.

That is why I say we can transition and beat them. But the technology is real anonymity. If you want real anonymity, you have to find a way to use their technology. Period. (and I have been studying this for a long time)

This does not answer my question which is cut and dry and goes to the heart of the trust issue.

If you apply that line of thinking, then every anonymity is insecure because operating systems and computers are never 100% secure.

I already proposed how to spread the risk out and make it non-systemic.

Note that Monero (Cryptonote one-time rings and every other kind of anonymity technology) also has systemic risk due to combinatorial analysis cascade as more and more users are unmasked with meta-data and overlapping mixes.



...

No closed source. The key would be produced publicly at a ceremony.
...

Using what operating system and firmware?

Of course they will need to convince the public the master key is sound. Or use my idea above of having multiple mixers and timing them out. I believe there is a solution, yet I will agree the current organization of their plans seems legally and structurally flawed.

That is why I say we can transition and beat them. But the technology is real anonymity. If you want real anonymity, you have to find a way to use their technology. Period. (and I have been studying this for a long time)

This does not answer my question which is cut and dry and goes to the heart of the trust issue.

If you apply that line of thinking, then every anonymity is insecure because operating systems and computers are never 100% secure.

I already proposed how to spread the risk out and make it non-systemic.

Note that Monero (Cryptonote one-time rings and every other kind of anonymity technology) also has systemic risk due to combinatorial analysis cascade as more and more users are unmasked with meta-data and overlapping mixes.

Proprietary software solutions have by their very nature a centralized systemic risk that Free Libre Open Source software solutions do not. The type of risks you describe in Monero are trivial compared to the risk of the DRM in the operating system used to generate master key in a centralized proprietary solution such as the one you propose. Furthermore I still do not have an answer to what is a straight forward yes or no question.  

The masterkey is generated once and only the public key is retained. As long as no one saw nor can recover the private key before it was discarded, then there is nothing proprietary remaining in the use of the Zerocash open source. The Zerocash open source code requires a public key to be pasted in. It is the public (ceremony) generation of that key, which determines whether anyone had access to the private key when the public key was created.

DRM has nothing to do with it all. Thus I assume you don't understand the issue.

The only issue is whether the public key can be computed at a public ceremony and the private key was securely discarded. So for example, they could use any computer, encase it in lead before running the computation, and no external connection to the computer other than the screen which reads out the public key.

Then slide the computer into a barrel of acid so that it is permanently destroyed. All done at a public ceremony so there can be no cheating.

Of course one could envision elaborate/exotic means of cheating, such as using radio waves to communicate the private key out to external actor, but again that is why I wrote encase it in lead. There is the issue of how to destroy it while not momentarily removing it from its communication barrier. But I am confident these physics issues can be worked out to a sufficient level of trust.

As for trust, not even the Elliptic Curve Cryptography and other math we use for crypto can be 100% trusted. So if you start arguing silly about 100% trust, then it is safe to ignore as loony.

...
I am imagining that the type of people designing such a technology would do better than generate a masterkey on Windows et al. I'm actually imagining purpose-built, auditable software and maybe even hardware.

Auditable by whom?

It comes down to Free Software vs Proprietary software. The same is true for the hardware. There is a reason why my question is being avoided here.

By the attendees of said masterkey-generation ceremony.

Actually by anyone who uses the currency. The role of the attendees is to verify that all the software has not changed between what was used and what is released to the public.

Edit: The minute one tries to protect "intellectual property" at any level the trust is gone.

FUD. The ceremony is only to computer a public key, nothing else. No other software has to be audited. Only need to confirm that the private key was not communicated from the computer to any one. Period.



...
FUD. The ceremony is only to computer a public key, nothing else. No other software has to be audited. Only need to confirm that the private key was not communicated from the computer to any one. Period.

How do you know that the public key you see on the screen is the one that was computed and not one that was pre computed before the computer was "placed in lead"?

Edit: DRM in the OS has everything to do with this since it is the perfect place to hide the private key. That is what DRM is designed to do hide private keys.

The hardware has to be audited. But we also have to audit our hardware that we use to run Cryptonote. If Intel is planting spies in the hardware, then we are screwed.

100% trust is impossible. And this is another reason I deprioritized anonymity. It is a clusterfuck.

Also I think perhaps Zerocash was working on a way to generate the public key decentralized, but I haven't kept up with progress on that.

Indeed Zerocash could end up being a Trojan Horse (a way to get fiat in the back door) and that is why I made my proposal to use them only as ephemeral mixes that die periodically, so then we will know if the key was compromised or not.

The result of my proposal is:

  • Stolen coins isn't systemic to the overall coin (same as losing some coins to Mt. Gox and Cryptsy isn't), and at least participants get ongoing ceremonies to get better and better at auditing the hardware.
  • No anonymity is ever lost.
  • No NET coin supply is ever created out-of-thin-air (instead some people lose coins if they chose an insecure mixer that had a compromised key), which is also the case for both Zerocash and RIngCT where coin supply could be created out of thin air and we would never know it due to a bug in cryptography.

That will kick ass on Monero, because if I pass through the mixer, I know my anonymity is provable and I know I didn't lose my coins. It is only people who still sitting inside the mixer who risk losing coins. Everything has a risk. I would much rather the microscopic risk of a compromised key (causing me to lose some coins) to the sure risk of meta-data correlation in Monero which can send me to jail! Surely I would be judicious about not mixing all my coins at the same time and not all in the same mixer.



TPTB said that not even math can be trusted 100%, then how can we put 100% trust on any device for fair start of a trustless currency

If can't trust the math, throw Monero in the garbage can too.

My point is that nothing is 100%. We have to weigh the reasonable risks and benefits.



Quote
But I am confident these physics issues can be worked out to a sufficient level of trust.

Only need to confirm that the private key was not communicated from the computer to any one.

I find this kinda weak against your general absolutism. "So Simple Yet So Complex".


After all, what stops all 3 letter agencies, who can own blockchains and can do analysis and attacks etc, to stage the whole thing? Will i be allowed to check that computer?

I mean, i have near to zero understanding of cryptography, but your search for the perfect/ideal solution looks like making you ready to take a huge and dangerous bet.  

I proposed ephemeral mixers based on Zerocash technology. They will be ferreted out if they are doing this, because it will be known that the key was compromised when the mixer expires and everyone has to cash out of the mixer back into the public coin. The bastards can't keep doing it over and over again. The participants will get wise as to the methods the attackers are using.

I am not absolutist. Rather I think correctly and realistically when I weigh marketing, tradeoffs, and delusion as follows:

That will kick ass on Monero, because if I pass through the mixer, I know my anonymity is provable and I know I didn't lose my coins. It is only people who still sitting inside the mixer who risk losing coins. Everything has a risk. I would much rather the microscopic risk of a compromised key (causing me to lose some coins) to the sure risk of meta-data correlation in Monero which can send me to jail! Surely I would be judicious about not mixing all my coins at the same time and not all in the same mixer.

Marketing and design are holistically joined at the hip. Those fools who said the marketing can come later are clueless.



One more point I considered in my holistic analysis is that for most transactions we can't be anonymous. Thus anonymity is more suited to those who want to receive some payment anonymously and hide the funds there and extract them only to public funds in small morsels or to spend in other rare anonymous transactions (e.g. buying some gold bars from someone you trust won't reveal your identity).

In that case one might think you can just use Stealth Addresses (unlinkability) and run a full node to confirm receipt of funds anonymously. No need for Cryptonote, RingCT, nor ZeroCash. But the problem is the payer can be identified and be pressured to reveal your identity.

So this is why we need Zerocash to make the untraceability impervious to meta-data correlation.

But the problem with my proposal for ephemeral Zerocash mixers is that when we take the coins out of the mixer they can now be correlated to our meta-data (e.g. IP address, etc). So thus it seems to hide large funds and only take out small portions publicly as needed, will incur risk of losing those coins in my proposal, but at least they will be provably anonymous.

Anonymity is a clusterfuck. If we can't make trusted hardware, then anonymity is unprovable. Period.

So just give up on anonymity, or get busy trying to make hardware we can trust?

(or if Zerocash has developed a provably secure way to generate a master public key, which I doubt)



DRM has nothing to do with it all. Thus I assume you don't understand the issue.

You are not giving him due credit. (AM is not a typical BTCT slouch.)  It is an allusion to "reflections on trusting trust" https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf

I think I did correct my myopia in the subsequent reply to him. And I think the points reached sort of a stalemate. I don't dismiss his point, but if that white paper above is our concern, then none of the software we use is trustworthy. Okay I understand the point that doing something once and we all have to rely on that, is different than we all each download our software and run diverse hardware. But is it? Seems we all are running the hardware made by Intel and all the download links run through routers controlled by TPTB.

So all-in-all, I accepted his point. I think anonymity is a clusterfuck. Given the way Zerocash's forum treated me (they removed all my posts after they realized I was explaining serious flaws and challenges), I don't expect any success from them either.

I'd like to move on away from anonymity. Maybe one day in the future we could make some mixers based on Zerocash (long after their effort has faded into the dust) and maybe use it for some few esoteric uses for anonymity. But reliable anonymity on a widescale is unfortunately a delusion that even I had to finally come to grips with. Sad to say.

As for unreliable anonymity, I can do that now with Bitcoin. I just go use an unregistered wireless network connection. Eventually that will be impossible, but for now it is available in some jurisdictions.

If someone could identify a use for ring mixing that applied to businesses who don't mind if the NSA is tracking their privacy, then perhaps I could be convinced there is a market. But as I wrote before, the NSA has employees and those employees can't be trusted to not sell your privacy to your competitors. Corruption is the rule, not the exception. A mouse will always eat the cheese.

I start to comprehend now how it might be true when Martin Armstrong says we might descend into a Dark Age.

The only way I can think to fight back now is go for popularity and control in the hands of the people. Win the political war.



Is there a better alternative for anonymous transactions currently working and available?

There is nothing available for reliable anonymous transactions. For unreliable anonymity, I might as well just use Bitcoin and jump over to my local McDonalds on the unregistered WiFi connection. So yes there is a better alternative, Bitcoin. And it is more widely accepted.

I would not entrust not receiving jail time on the assumption my meta-data can't be correlated, neither with Monero nor Bitcoin. The only anonymous things I would do would be legal things I want to hide from for example the public, but not from the NSA (and the employees of the NSA). In that case, I can do this reasonably well using Bitcoin.

I can't make the sources of my transaction untraceable with Bitcoin (unless I use some unreliable mixer, CoinJoin, or CoinShuffle), i.e. if someone wanted to premine and then make it impossible to connect them to the premined coins. So maybe we can argue that Cryptonote/Monero would help people who want to create scams. But decentralized exchanges might accomplish the same (not sure about that yet, still analyzing them).

In short, I just can't see what is the large market for this unreliable anonymity in Cryptonote as compared to the unreliable anonymity in Bitcoin?

Hey I am not happy it worked out that way. As much as I don't like the boastfulness of some Monero's community (not all the devs), I still would prefer if anonymity was realistic. I am saddened. And especially pissed off to have expended so much effort on anonymity and not have realized sooner.

Actually the market for Monero might be criminals. They may have the incentive to study how to guard their meta-data and willing to take the risk on the combinatorial unmasking (since a criminal mind seems to ignore the prospect of jail time). But they need to be mixed with regular users, otherwise their anonymity sets may not be large enough. I don't want to be in a project who sole main use case is criminals.

Please confine yourself to that question.

Hitler claiming to support Libertarian principles (e.g. anonymity).  Cheesy

Have you ever heard of the concept of respecting the freedom of others. I am flabberghast that you think you can tell me what I can write about. Do I tell you what you can write about.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 20, 2016, 08:22:46 PM
 #678

a waste of my reading time reading

That is either a lie or a serious delusion.

This is precisely what I mean by a circle jerk that does not value the expertise and effort we need to win. In other words, not a meritocracy.

Okay I will leave the thread.

What ever happened  to this?

I didn't introduce the Zerocash discussion. Apparently some in your community think it is relevant to this thread. You blame me for everything because you just want a circle jerk here because you are mining each other. Who knows you are probably behind some scheme to take money from other investors here. There is always a reason that people act irrationally towards truth.

So much for your idealistic delusions about open source and doing it as a community for the common good. That is all bullshit.

Devs who want to change the world and make a lot of money should wake up and join with a better leadership.

Yeah I believe in open source, but it applies in refinement scenarios. Not in design scenarios. Groups are filled with game theory. Design requires focused intent and focused profit.

The narcissism is palpable.

The game theory politics of pulling the wool over the eyes and mining each other is palatable.

You confuse a desire for capitalism and meritocracy with your scam here. So then you try to frame my pleas for meritocracy as me being in love with myself. Of fuck, just go on masturbating here.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 21, 2016, 12:37:43 AM
 #679

Other than the prior post, the Zerocash forum has begun removing and censoring my posts. So yet another attempt to pull the wool over speculator eyes and not open source on factual discussion.

So many deluded folks in crypto who get offended when they realize they aren't even close to understanding all the issues I understand about crypto currency, and the ramnifications that their projects are ill-focused and not ready for prime time.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 255


View Profile
January 21, 2016, 01:15:15 AM
 #680

I would encourage you to use the thread for its intended purpose.

What is the intended purpose? I didn't start the discussion about Zerocash, I just added to it substantively.

Well don't worry, seems the forum moderator over at the Zerocash forum has similar difficulties accepting reality:

Other than the prior post, the Zerocash forum has begun removing and censoring my posts. So yet another attempt to pull the wool over speculator eyes and not open source on factual discussion.

So many deluded folks in crypto who get offended when they realize they aren't even close to understanding all the issues I understand about crypto currency, and the ramnifications that their projects are ill-focused and not ready for prime time.

If everyone around you seems crazy and cannot accept reality maybe its you that is crazy.  Just saying.

Lots of ad hominem in this thread against me and no posts refuting my technical points. I have been correct on every technical point.

So who is crazy? The factual one, or the ones who attack politically?

And then we have smooth censoring my rebuttals to your ad hominem attacks and leaving your ad hominem attacks in the thread.

Which is totally unfair and thus unfortunately straining my former respect of smooth's fairness.

I did not censor any of your posts from my thread. I am not afraid of the truth. Some of you are. And your controlling behavior will just leave you in a failed circle jerk echo chamber after all. Mark my word.

Hope those of you in a position to do so are enjoying the extraction of wealth from the other bagholders in your community, before the entire thing comes crashing down (which I guarantee it will).

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!