[neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?

[dEBRUYNE]

I am merely pointing out that initially you were wrong

Incorrect:

Edit: most specifically how afaics the above issue does not apply to important scenarios where corporations would need provable block chain privacy. And other cases of general anonymity are impossible any way due to meta-data (that reaches far beyond just IP obfuscation and besides Tor/I2P are not reliable any way).

Ad hominem, please, this is getting ludicrous.

In addition to erroneously accusing me of making a technical error, you also injected this erroneous claim against my person:

However, for the past few months you seem to be rambling about Monero just everywhere you get the chance to do so.

[1] Did you miss the "at all"? You are currently trying to make up excuses such that it looks like I was incorrect. Also, you edited that post after I made my post.

[2] Just look at your own post history, every post you make which is Monero related gets copied to a dozen threads.

[1715348943]

1715348943

[1715348943]

1715348943

[wpalczynski]

I am merely pointing out that initially you were wrong

Incorrect:

Edit: most specifically how afaics the above issue does not apply to important scenarios where corporations would need provable block chain privacy. And other cases of general anonymity are impossible any way due to meta-data (that reaches far beyond just IP obfuscation and besides Tor/I2P are not reliable any way).

Ad hominem, please, this is getting ludicrous.

In addition to erroneously accusing me of making a technical error, you also injected this erroneous claim against my person:

However, for the past few months you seem to be rambling about Monero just everywhere you get the chance to do so.

[1] Did you miss the "at all"? You are currently trying to make up excuses such that it looks like I was incorrect.

[2] Just look at your own post history, every post you make which is Monero related gets copied to a dozen threads.

He keeps his own blog for fear of censorship from smooth the 'dictator', 10 layers of tinfoil in that hat.  He probably adds a layer or two every day for good measure.

[TPTB_need_war]

[2] Just look at your own post history, every post you make which is Monero related gets copied to a dozen threads.

You said for the "past months". That is erroneous.

We had a flareup when I was discussing my ZKT (which was a competitor to Monero's RingCT) back in afair September and now again recently when I started to discuss user adoption and marketing in the Aeon and subsequently the Monero thread. Actually what brought me to the Monero thread was the post by ArticMine in my thread on Decentralization this month and then I went to the Monero thread to explain why their hubris about fixing the block size economics was mathematically flawed. Then one of your community members posted about Zerocash, and I offered my thoughts and the attacks and venom from your community began in earnest.

Next time stop lying.

And I will never forget how  you manipulated me by pretending you wanted to be an angel investor only to get info for Monero and how you manipulated me in the peer review of your very condescending cryptographer Shen-noether.

OTOH, smooth has been mostly fair, but even he has a limit and it was exceeded. Nevertheless I don't have any ongoing animosity. It is just the nature of the circumstances. Nothing personal.

[dEBRUYNE]

[2] Just look at your own post history, every post you make which is Monero related gets copied to a dozen threads.

You said for the "past months". That is erroneous.

We had a flareup when I was discussing my ZKT (which was a competitor to Monero's RingCT) back in afair September and now again recently when I started to discuss user adoption and marketing in the Aeon and subsequently the Monero thread. Actually what brought me to the Monero thread was the post by ArticMine in my thread on Decentralization this month and then I went to the Monero thread to explain why their hubris about fixing the block size economics was mathematically flawed. Then one of your community members posted about Zerocash, and I offered my thoughts and the attacks and venom from your community began in earnest.

Next time stop lying.

And I will never forget how  you manipulated me by pretending you wanted to be an angel investor only to get info for Monero and how you manipulated me in the peer review of your very condescending Shen-noether.

I don't have time to read all your posts, but to me it seemed like an on-going process. I might be wrong, I have no time, nor the willingness, to check it. I stand corrected on this point.

And I will never forget how  you manipulated me by pretending you wanted to be an angel investor only to get info for Monero and how you manipulated me in the peer review of your very condescending Shen-noether.

You are getting paranoid here. Like I stated earlier, I enjoyed reading your posts, found them insightful, intriguing and learned from them, for which I am grateful. Those were the reasons I wanted to be an angel investor in your project, not to gather information for Monero. Also, your project became a lot less interesting when you dropped the anonymity feature. I also didn't manipulate you into doing peer-review, I appreciated your effort, thanked you for that and stated that the members of the Monero community did so as well.

Next time stop lying.

If you do too 

[TPTB_need_war]

Also, your project became a lot less interesting when you dropped the anonymity feature.

Okay your explanation is accepted. And my apology for being paranoid.

Next time stop lying.

If you do too  

Please do point out where I am lying. At your leisure. Don't feel compelled to do it immediately if you are busy.

[wpalczynski]

You said for the "past months". That is erroneous.

We had a flareup when I was discussing my ZKT (which was a competitor to Monero's RingCT) back in afair September and now again recently when I started to discuss user adoption and marketing in the Aeon and subsequently the Monero thread.

Your ZKT is just an idea in your boastful delusional mind.  I am flabbergasted that even you would be so bold as to claim that some delusion of yours is a competitor to RingCT.  

You truly are a legend in your own mind.

OTOH, smooth has been mostly fair, but even he has a limit and it was exceeded. Nevertheless I don't have any ongoing animosity. It is just the nature of the circumstances. Nothing personal.

Thats right, one can only take so much bullshit, mis-information and un-substantiated claims.  Yes, even Smooth has a limit.  Your words not mine dumbass.

[TPTB_need_war]

Your ZKT is an idea in your delusional mind.  I am flabbergasted that even you would be so bold to claim that some delusion of yours is a competitor to RingCT.  

You are entitled to your (incorrect) opinion. And note I didn't censor your post (not even your "blown fuse" trolling with the flagrant ad hominem images and no content), unlike the manipulative Monero threads where they censor everything they don't want readers to read.

Thats right, one can only take so much bullshit, mis-information and un-substantiated claims.

That is what you think facts, suggestions, and feedback are. Amazing concept of open source you have going on there in that Monero/Aeon echo chamber.

[wpalczynski]

Your ZKT is an idea in your delusional mind.  I am flabbergasted that even you would be so bold to claim that some delusion of yours is a competitor to RingCT.  

You are entitled to your (incorrect) opinion. And note I didn't censor your post (not even your "blown fuse" trolling with the flagrant ad hominem images and no content), unlike the manipulative Monero threads where they censor everything they don't want readers to read.

Thats right, one can only take so much bullshit, mis-information and un-substantiated claims.

That is what you think facts, suggestions, and feedback are. Amazing concept of open source you have going on there in that Monero/Aeon echo chamber.

Your problem is that you constantly conflate your conjecture with reality and state it as fact.

And please take a step back and when you do that and review your actions you have to admit that the memes are great!!

[TPTB_need_war]

Your problem is that you constantly conflate your conjecture with reality and state it as fact.

As I did in 2013 eh:

I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.

A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.

In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.

A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.

If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.

If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.

Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.

If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.

Bitcoin is a broken design.

[wpalczynski]

Your problem is that you constantly conflate your conjecture with reality and state it as fact.

As I did in 2013 eh:

I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.

A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.

In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.

A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.

If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.

If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.

Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.

If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.

Bitcoin is a broken design.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[dEBRUYNE]

Please do point out where I am lying. At your leisure. Don't feel compelled to do it immediately if you are busy.

You portrayed me as a liar when I, according to you, incorrectly stated that you have been going on for past months. I earlier stated that your initial assertation that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation was incorrect. Using the same terminology as you, that makes you a liar as well. Guess it's a matter of how you see it, but I am not going to argue with you about this any further.

[TPTB_need_war]

Please do point out where I am lying. At your leisure. Don't feel compelled to do it immediately if you are busy.

You portrayed me as a liar when I, according to you, incorrectly stated that you have been going on for past months. I earlier stated that your initial assertation that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation was incorrect. Using the same terminology as you, that makes you a liar as well. Guess it's a matter of how you see it, but I am not going to argue with you about this any further.

Well I think you are still (maybe unknowingly) lying about that IP obfuscation point. Realize I predicated my entire posting about Zerocash to the point of driving corporate adoption of block chain privacy, so in that context I don't think the IP obfuscation that is needed for ZC applies. In fact, I think it is a nonsense point that the white paper makes, because in the scenarios where one can't rely on the fact that the meta-data is not correlated to any UTXO (because there is none in ZC!) then one can't realistically attain reliable anonymity any way. So the entire allegation that ZC needs IP obfuscation is bogus. I stated that in my debate with smooth, but I doubt most readers (maybe not even smooth) got my point.

And this shows that the Zerocash developers may also not understand yet the correct marketing strategy they need to pursue. It is also an example of how marketing and technology assessment go together and can't be done piecemeal.

I am trying to tell you guys I am very expert at doing both. Please continue doubting me. Are we done?

[smooth]

Please do point out where I am lying. At your leisure. Don't feel compelled to do it immediately if you are busy.

You portrayed me as a liar when I, according to you, incorrectly stated that you have been going on for past months. I earlier stated that your initial assertation that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation was incorrect. Using the same terminology as you, that makes you a liar as well. Guess it's a matter of how you see it, but I am not going to argue with you about this any further.

Well I think you are still (maybe unknowingly) lying about that IP obfuscation point. Realize I predicated my entire posting about Zerocash to the point of driving corporate adoption of block chain privacy, so in that context I don't think the IP obfuscation that is needed for ZC applies. In fact, I think it is a nonsense point that the white paper makes, because in the scenarios where one can't rely on the fact that the meta-data is not correlated to any UTXO (because there is none in ZC!) then one can't realistically attain reliable anonymity any way. So the entire allegation that ZC needs IP obfuscation is bogus. I stated that in my debate with smooth, but I doubt most readers (maybe not even smooth) got my point.

And this shows that the Zerocash developers may also not understand yet the correct marketing strategy they need to pursue.

I got your point, I just disagree with value of it. The Zerocash writers likely do as well, but I can't speak for them.

I do agree with the point that there are corporate use cases that can benefit from limited privacy, such the Liquid sidechain with CT (value hiding only). Whether those are viable long term I don't know.

[TPTB_need_war]

Please do point out where I am lying. At your leisure. Don't feel compelled to do it immediately if you are busy.

You portrayed me as a liar when I, according to you, incorrectly stated that you have been going on for past months. I earlier stated that your initial assertation that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation was incorrect. Using the same terminology as you, that makes you a liar as well. Guess it's a matter of how you see it, but I am not going to argue with you about this any further.

Well I think you are still (maybe unknowingly) lying about that IP obfuscation point. Realize I predicated my entire posting about Zerocash to the point of driving corporate adoption of block chain privacy, so in that context I don't think the IP obfuscation that is needed for ZC applies. In fact, I think it is a nonsense point that the white paper makes, because in the scenarios where one can't rely on the fact that the meta-data is not correlated to any UTXO (because there is none in ZC!) then one can't realistically attain reliable anonymity any way. So the entire allegation that ZC needs IP obfuscation is bogus. I stated that in my debate with smooth, but I doubt most readers (maybe not even smooth) got my point.

And this shows that the Zerocash developers may also not understand yet the correct marketing strategy they need to pursue.

I got your point, I just disagree with value of it. The Zerocash writers likely do as well, but I can't speak for them.

I do agree with the point that there are corporate use cases that can benefit from limited privacy, such the Liquid sidechain with CT (value hiding only). Whether those are viable long term I don't know.

It is a nuanced issue in some respects, but the bottomline that will come from it all in the end, is that unreliable privacy doesn't get adopted. And so everything will converge over time to the provable End-to-End principled privacy that has no meta-data dependencies.

Any way, that my expert assertion. Feel free to ignore it.

Zerocash is likely very inexperienced on issues that we've been exploring in these forums for the past 2 years. As smart as they are, they are not omniscient.

Edit: trust is an essential issue for humans. Privacy and unreliability is an oxymoronic juxtaposition.

[dEBRUYNE]

Please do point out where I am lying. At your leisure. Don't feel compelled to do it immediately if you are busy.

You portrayed me as a liar when I, according to you, incorrectly stated that you have been going on for past months. I earlier stated that your initial assertation that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation was incorrect. Using the same terminology as you, that makes you a liar as well. Guess it's a matter of how you see it, but I am not going to argue with you about this any further.

Well I think you are still (maybe unknowingly) lying about that IP obfuscation point. Realize I predicated my entire posting about Zerocash to the point of driving corporate adoption of block chain privacy, so in that context I don't think the IP obfuscation that is needed for ZC applies. In fact, I think it is a nonsense point that the white paper makes, because in the scenarios where one can't rely on the fact that the meta-data is not correlated to any UTXO (because there is none in ZC!) then one can't realistically attain reliable anonymity any way. So the entire allegation that ZC needs IP obfuscation is bogus. I stated that in my debate with smooth, but I doubt most readers (maybe not even smooth) got my point.

And this shows that the Zerocash developers may also not understand yet the correct marketing strategy they need to pursue. It is also an example of how marketing and technology assessment go together and can't be done piecemeal.

I am trying to tell you guys I am very expert at doing both. Please continue doubting me. Are we done?

If I you have addressed this earlier, I'll stand corrected on the following point.

Zerocash uses 2 kind of coins, basecoins (which are transparent) and zerocoins (which are anonymous). Users can convert those basecoins to zerocoins, but nothing stops them to make transactions with those basecoins themselves.

From their website:

Zerocash extends the protocol and software underlying Bitcoin by adding new, privacy-preserving payments. In doing so it forms a new protocol that, while using some of the same technology and software as Bitcoin, is distinct from it. This new protocol has both anonymous coins, dubbed zerocoins, and non-anonymous ones, which, for purposes of disambiguation, we call basecoins. In contrast to Bitcoin's transactions, payment transactions using the Zerocash protocol do not contain any public information about the payment's origin, destination, or amount; instead, the correctness of the transaction is demonstrated via the use of a zero-knowledge proof. Users can convert from basecoins to zerocoins, send zerocoins to other users, and split or merge zerocoins they own in any way that preserves the total value. Users may also convert zerocoins back into basecoins, though in principle this is not necessary: all transactions can be made in terms of zerocoins.

Since they are based on Bitcoin's protocol, don't you think it is likely they need IP obfuscation for either the basecoin to basecoin transactions or the basecoin to zerocoin transaction?

[TPTB_need_war]

Since they are based on Bitcoin's protocol, don't you think it is likely they need IP obfuscation for either the basecoin to basecoin transactions or the basecoin to zerocoin transaction?

My interest is in the zerocoins. The IP obfuscation is claimed to be needed for them also, because ZC doesn't hide your meta-data from externalities (how could it, it is only the block chain and not the entire internet). But it does afaik prevent your meta-data from being correlated with any UTXO because UTXO are entirely obfuscated in a blob in ZC (except for one very unlikely attack mentioned in section 6.4 of the white paper which I think can be foiled/detected). But that claimed need is only because you don't want your payer IP address to be revealed to for example the payee. But the payee is likely to know who you are any way. And other nuanced scenarios like that. And not just IP address but browser cookies, etc, etc. I think externalities meta-data is an insoluble issue. Can never be reliable.

Thus I reason that the more certain markets are those where the corporate server is very much in control of its meta-data footprint and the superior provability of the ZC obfuscation (no publicly detectable UTXO!) wins.

Any way, I don't want to spend too much more time on this, because I am not developing in this area any more (unless something changes in my plans). I wasn't impressed that I was banned from the Zerocash forum about 3 minutes after I posted there, lol.

[TPTB_need_war]

Your problem is that you constantly conflate your conjecture with reality and state it as fact.

As I did in 2013 eh:

I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.

A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.

In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.

A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.

If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.

If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.

Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.

If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.

Bitcoin is a broken design.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

More intellect than a non-sentient rotating clock hand is required to produce the insight above.

[TPTB_need_war]

Anyway, I am not going to argue with you any further, like I've already stated in another thread.

Me too. I am done. Hopefully I influenced Monero/Aeon to look into Zerocash seriously. Maybe y'all will work with ZC, fork it, ignore it, or what ever. Advance our needs for truly reliable privacy especially in applications where it can be realistically achieved and thus adopted.

[wpalczynski]

Your problem is that you constantly conflate your conjecture with reality and state it as fact.

As I did in 2013 eh:

I finally had a spare moment to contemplate the variables.

A key factor is the block size. If the block size is unlimited (and bandwidth is an insignificant cost), then unless miners have a monopoly they will accept transactions with fees as low as don't constitute a DoS attack, in order to maximize revenue.

In other words, they would have no pricing power at all (a Tragedy of the Commons) and the system would devolve into a partial-monopoly in order to gain pricing power.

A partial-monopoly in this case is enough % of the network hashrate to delay transactions (by that % of blocks) which do not include a sufficient fee.

If we limit block size, then the system doesn't scale.

If we let the Bitcoin foundation decide when to increase block size, then they control the economic market function, i.e. we've centralized Bitcoin.

Let us assume unlimited block size and partial-monopolies. Thus the transaction fee can always be forced higher in order to generate more revenue for the miners. Thus Bitcoin devolves (as coin rewards diminish) to a system that presents spenders with a choice between include a very high transaction fee or accept an ever increasing delay for confirmation. This will exacerbate as coin rewards diminish and volume of transactions increase.

If we instead assume limited block size, then the Bitcoin foundation will set the transaction fees, not the market.

Bitcoin is a broken design.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

More intellect than a non-sentient rotating clock hand is required to produce the insight above.

I see that one flew right over your head.

[TPTB_need_war]

Meta-data:

Wojtek Palczynski CISSP, CRISC, CISA, CGEIT, CISM

Cyber Security Consultant - Governance, Risk Management, Compliance

    Toronto, Canada Area
    Computer & Network Security

Current   

    Safe IT Inc.,
    Independent

Previous   

    Sentry Metrics,
    ERE Information Security

Education   

    ISACA

Recommendations   5 people have recommended Wojtek Palczynski
Websites   

    isc2
    ISACA

Summary

I have over 12 years of experience and proven success in Enterprise Threat and Risk Management, Audit, Gap Analysis, Project Management, IT Security Governance and Compliance Reporting. I currently hold the CISSP, CRISC, CGEIT and CISA designations.

With over 12 years of experience in diverse environments such as mining and metals, telecom, capital markets, banking, government and high technology development I have worked in roles ranging from Risk Adviser, managing global SIEM deployments, operations and business management to systems and network architecture design as well as auditing, IT governance and compliance reporting.

I focus on delivering IT security solutions in the realms of SIEM (Security Information and Event Management), Governance, Compliance and Auditing for a diverse range of clients and industries. I have a track record of success in delivering projects on time and budget working on both domestic and international enterprise-class projects.

Specialties: Governance, Risk Management and Compliance Reporting, eDiscovery, Gap Analysis, Penetration Testing and Vulnerability Assessments.

Forensic and IT Control Audits measuring control effectiveness and compliance against the ISO 27001, 27002 and NERC CIP standards, COBIT framework and industry best practices.

Mergers and Acquisitions.

Experience

    Cyber Security Consultant - Governance, Risk Management, Compliance Reporting
    Safe IT Inc.
    January 2003 – Present (13 years 1 month)

    Recent Achievements

    • Developed a Information Security Merger and Acquisition (M&A) Handbook for one of Canada`s leading Banks. Deliverables included a framework for the initial Due Diligence assessment of potential targets as well as Deep Dive examination of the targets Information Security governance program.

    • Performed all Threat Risk Assessments in support of a $300 million acquisition of a large American wealth management institution by one of Canada's leading Banks.

    • Global deployment of Log Logic Log Management System (LMS) and integration with Security Information and Event Management System (SIEM) for one of Canada's leading Banks.

    • Conducted Maturity Assessments of Key Technology Controls at a major Canadian Banking Institution.

    • Managed a global SIEM deployment project which helped implement Governance on a $1.2 Billion contract for a world’s leading Mining Corporation.

    • Performed Enterprise Information Security compliance assessments against industry standards such as ISO 27001, ISO 27002, NERC CIP and COBIT, provided recommendations to mitigate the identified control gaps.

    • Conducted vulnerability assessments of IT systems using a broad range of tools and technologies, created comprehensive reports based on the results for clients which included recommendations to remediate the vulnerabilities, resulting in proactive improvement of clients network security posture.
    Blockchain / Cryptocurrency Technology Consultant
    Independent
    October 2013 – Present (2 years 4 months)

    • Blockchain technology strategy consulting.

    • Architectural advice for Blockchain projects.

    • Merchant cryptocurrency payment system integration.

    • Secure Offline cryptocurrency storage solutions including multi-signature ‘deep freeze’ storage.

    • Custom, scalable cryptocurrency mining solutions (SHA-256, Scrypt, Scrypt-N).

    • Security / Risk assessments and audits.

    • Blockchain investigations.

    • Non-technical "Bitcoin 101" style talks to various industries including legal, accounting, financial.
    Sentry Metrics
    Senior Security Auditor
    Sentry Metrics
    2005 – 2007 (2 years)
    Senior Security Auditor
    ERE Information Security
    2005 – 2007 (2 years)

Organizations

    ISACA - Information Systems Audit and Control Association

Certifications

    CISSP Certification (Certified Information System Security Professional)
    ISC2
    CRISC Certification (Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control)
    Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA)
    CISA Certification (Certified Information Systems Auditor)
    Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA)
    CGEIT Certification (Certified in the Governance of Enterprise IT)
    Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA)
    CISM Certification (Certified Information Security Manager)
    Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA)
    October 2014 – Present

Education

    ISACA
    CGEIT
    2011 – 2012
    ISACA
    CRISC
    2011 – 2011
    ISACA
    CISA
    2011 – 2011
    ISC2
    CISSP
    2005 – 2005
    Mohawk College
    Mohawk College
    Advanced Network Security and Connectivity, Information Technology
    2001 – 2003

Languages

    English

    Native or bilingual proficiency
    Polish

    Native or bilingual proficiency