WARNING scammer r0ach now shilling for the Monero hoax

[ArticMine]

Readers please note that I don't have anything against Monero as an open source experiment in crypto-currency. I support their experimentation. I don't like (bordering on hate although I don't allow myself be consumed by hate) the community of Monero. And I don't support when someone writes that Monero is the only altcoin that is serious or worthy. They have not yet earned that, and if ever they do earn that, they won't need to state it because such truths are self-evident.

There is something foul smell in the community of Monero. I'd rather not try to explain what that smell is, as others have already explored that. Ethereum has its idolizing fanboiz and Monero has its delusion-of-superiority, pack-dog-attacking bagboiz. Something like that.

...

I am quoting this post as insurance for the future. Why? Because, in the unlikely event that Monero becomes "the only altcoin that is serious or worthy" those who bought Monero early and held, could become very successful financially and human nature being what it is also become targets of hate on the grounds that "only a few benefited".  This is the flip side to the "Monero has its delusion-of-superiority" comment.

[1714811098]

1714811098

[1714811098]

1714811098

[1714811098]

1714811098

[iamnotback]

Readers please note that I don't have anything against Monero as an open source experiment in crypto-currency. I support their experimentation. I don't like (bordering on hate although I don't allow myself be consumed by hate) the community of Monero. And I don't support when someone writes that Monero is the only altcoin that is serious or worthy. They have not yet earned that, and if ever they do earn that, they won't need to state it because such truths are self-evident.

There is something foul smell in the community of Monero. I'd rather not try to explain what that smell is, as others have already explored that. Ethereum has its idolizing fanboiz and Monero has its delusion-of-superiority, pack-dog-attacking bagboiz. Something like that.

...

I am quoting this post as insurance for the future. Why? Because, in the unlikely event that Monero becomes "the only altcoin that is serious or worthy" those who bought Monero early and held, could become very successful financially and human nature being what it is also become targets of hate on the grounds that "only a few benefited".  This is the flip side to the "Monero has its delusion-of-superiority" comment.

I wish you the best luck on that.

If we all can just be more honest about the flaws and strengths of our projects, I will be copacetic. And that doesn't mean berating them, but more so it means not pumping claims that aren't true at the expense of all the other ongoing experiments in CC.

I want to see action, not words.

You are welcome to hold me to that same standard, as long as you are cordial and coherent when you come into my official project thread. Feel free to quote me in the future on this point.

But if you come into my thread doing political manipulation (and turning my thread into a noise box that no one can read), I'll censor you. You can make as many uncensored threads about my vaporware (or launched) project, as you wish. I won't fight back.

Our attitude+capabilities will carry us forward. The shit hits the fan on those realities. Talk is cheap. I am working on mine.

The problem with monero is that it is not used much as a currency https://getmonero.org/getting-started/merchants the same thing happened to peercoin, hardly used for anything besides speculation.

It is hardly profitable for me to mine it desipite having 2x r9 290 and it is likely to get even worse as the blockreward continues to decrease, i am afraid the coin will end up in the hands of botnets.

Not used much as a currency? Did you miss all the post where people are talking about buying things with xmr.to? To make it short in that sense every shop that accepts bitcoin also accepts monero.

That was the main marketing innovation I saw from Monero's ecosystem. Even someone used that once to fund me.

It is befitting that Shapeshift.io copied you, given one of the threats Monero used to make when ever I would explain I wanted to work on my own experiments, was they being open source could just copy any thing that was valuable.

Btw, I was pitching the conceptual idea of XMR.to back in 2013 on BCT. It was one of the rebuttals I had for the Bitcoin maximalists. And yet again one of my ideas becomes a blockbuster success. You think I don't have a lot more of those ideas in my back pocket.

Hmm, i guess I didn't make my point clear, sorry.  My point was that your previously linked article (why there are no such thing as cryptocurrenciies)  assumed that hashpower is fungible across altcoin networks when in fact it isn't.  I only listed the coins as examples of coins secured with different hash functions, which are not mineable with SHA256 hardware. 

I wasn't aware that the original source was making that presumption (well I vaguely remember an allusion to Bitcoin copy coins). It makes sense though, as it is a lot more practical to attack with ASICs you already have.

But the reason I don't think the original source means what you think it means, is because the author linked to that article again in the recent discussion of his DAO hack. So it seems he thinks it is still applicable to relevant altcoins (i.e. worth even attacking), of which none that I know of use SHA256.

Any way, it is sometimes difficult to know what that author thinks because he is cryptic.

[TravelsAsia]

just noticed that r0ach has started to indulge in heavy pro-Momero propaganda beginning today

most likely bribed/paid - the usual deceptive game by momero community managers

however! this won't do well as r0ach is literally known as a roach on Bitcointalk. he's a bad investor

MOMERO please use better shills, TRY HARDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Care more about random anonymous people on a forum.

[iamnotback]

I was too sleepy at the tail end of that marathon day yesterday when this debate heated up at the end with 4 against one sleepy one.

smooth et al, you forgot another key point. You argued the high difficulty would only cause the miners to win a block every day ~200 minutes instead 2 mins (assuming the more plausible 100X hashrate attack), but the miners will leave because they become unprofitable (as the block reward doesn't increase but the length of time they need to mine for the same reward increases by 100).

So the your mining hashrate actually drops to 0 also under the attack scenario.

Duh!

PWNED.

You need to accept the fact smooth just woke you up, fed you breakfast, got you dressed, put you in your little car seat, and TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL.   

PWNED. REKTD.

[ArticMine]

I was too sleepy at the tail end of that marathon day yesterday when this debate heated up at the end with 4 against one sleepy one.

smooth et al, you forgot another key point. You argued the high difficulty would only cause the miners to win a block every day ~200 minutes instead 2 mins (assuming the more plausible 100X hashrate attack), but the miners will leave because they become unprofitable (as the block reward doesn't increase but the length of time they need to mine for the same reward increases by 100).

So the your mining hashrate actually drops to 0 also under the attack scenario.

Duh!

PWNED.

You need to accept the fact smooth just woke you up, fed you breakfast, got you dressed, put you in your little car seat, and TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL.   

PWNED. REKTD.

I say this whole debate should be tabled until Monero reaches the tail emission.

[smooth]

I was too sleepy at the tail end of that marathon day yesterday when this debate heated up at the end with 4 against one sleepy one.

smooth et al, you forgot another key point. You argued the high difficulty would only cause the miners to win a block every day ~200 minutes instead 2 mins (assuming the more plausible 100X hashrate attack), but the miners will leave because they become unprofitable (as the block reward doesn't increase but the length of time they need to mine for the same reward increases by 100).

This may happen but a lot of miners are just on autopilot and won't stop. The hash rate will never literally go to zero. People mine on broken abandoned forks for months if not years. So maybe the 200 minutes becomes 500 or 1000 or whatever. It doesn't really matter because the longer the spiked block times, the faster the difficulty will drop once it starts dropping.

You earlier mentioned that the attacker can keep driving the difficulty up, and this is true, but it changes it from a one time attack to an ongoing attack. If you're going to do that, probably a regular 51% is at least as effective.

The in-progress Surae Noether difficulty algorithm (its somewhere on github) might also be more resistant to these types of attacks. It is designed to resist changes in hash rate that are "unnatural". I haven't looked carefully at this particular scenario though.

I know of one other way to improve resistance against this attack.

[iCEBREAKER]

I was too sleepy at the tail end of that marathon day yesterday when this debate heated up at the end with 4 against one sleepy one.

smooth et al, you forgot another key point. You argued the high difficulty would only cause the miners to win a block every day ~200 minutes instead 2 mins (assuming the more plausible 100X hashrate attack), but the miners will leave because they become unprofitable (as the block reward doesn't increase but the length of time they need to mine for the same reward increases by 100).

So the your mining hashrate actually drops to 0 also under the attack scenario.

Duh!

PWNED.

You need to accept the fact smooth just woke you up, fed you breakfast, got you dressed, put you in your little car seat, and TOOK YOU TO SCHOOL.   

PWNED. REKTD.

Monero's block reward subsidy gets smaller every block, and may be traded off in exchange for larger blocks.

By the time Monero's market cap gets to the $1 billion magnitude you claim would trigger Bitcoin's nuclear counterattack, we would expect to see heavy actual use accompanied by appropriate fees that cumulatively dwarf the (by then tiny) subsidy.

Those unclaimed fees would pile up if no blocks were found for 200 minutes or whatever, providing economic incentive (in addition to static background social/ideological) motivation for miners to operate.

smooth already explained this to you.  Please don't skip nap time.  You get cranky, incoherent, and unteachable when you do that.

You started talking about $1 billion Future Monero, but then used assumptions from $10 million Present Monero in the ensuing rambling and ranting.

Not sure if intellectual dishonesty, analytical schizophrenia, or both.  IE par for the Crazy Uncle Shelby course.   

[iamnotback]

Monero's block reward subsidy gets smaller every block, and may be traded off in exchange for larger blocks.

You entirely didn't understand the issue, because the quoted is irrelevant to the issue I pointed out.

PWNED again.

This confirms that everyone in Monero is a clueless idiot, since none of them have yet admitted that what I pointed out in my prior post, totally REKTED Monero and all other proof-of-work altcoins. Actually the author of dao attack is the one who pointed this issue out, but I also remember being aware of this issue in the past. It is one of the reasons I invented unprofitable proof-of-work.

Smooth your damage-control-lies are not what I expected from you. What ever you do to adjust the algorithm to compensate in one way, will open a vulnerability in another way. It is absolutely insoluble for to defend against even a 10X attack, not to mention a 100X attack. Arguing that any significant number of miners will indefinitely mine at 0 income is disingenuous. The difference between the 51% attack and the 10X burst attack is not that the total hashrate expended by the attacker is less, but that it is 10X less income for the other miners.

Note I don't enjoy having to say this against smooth. I respect smooth, but this is out-of-character for him.

[From Above]

Amazing how the Monero gang is getting destroyed in this thread LOL

Not that they ever had any argumentz in first place.  Anyway very interesting to read this stuff

ThX Shelby

~CfA~

[iamnotback]

The problem is not that you may not be correct on this vector but assuming that a $1 bi Monero or even a $100 mi Monero would have the same hashrate as a $10 mi Monero waiting for a suppose attack.

I am not discouraging them from gaining more adoption. but you don't get there by lying.

And also there is still the issue that the block reward is declining eventually to the tail reward which is (estimated roughly) 1/10 of the current.

And when they launched Monero, they argued against smooth and I as we were arguing for a tail reward back in 2014.

Btw, I am sure smooth knows all of this and he is merely caught by the politics of it. I hate politics!

[iCEBREAKER]

Monero's block reward subsidy gets smaller every block, and may be traded off in exchange for larger blocks.

You entirely didn't understand the issue, because the quoted is irrelevant to the issue I pointed out.

PWNED again.

This confirms that everyone in Monero is a clueless idiot, since none of them have yet admitted that what I pointed out in my prior post, totally REKTED Monero and all other proof-of-work altcoins. Actually the author of dao attack is the one who pointed this issue out, but I also remember being aware of this issue in the past. It is one of the reasons I invented unprofitable proof-of-work.

Smooth your damage-control-lies are not what I expected from you. What ever you do to adjust the algorithm to compensate in one way, will open a vulnerability in another way. It is absolutely insoluble for to defend against even a 10X attack, not to mention a 100X attack. Arguing that any significant number of miners will indefinitely mine at 0 income is disingenuous. The difference between the 51% attack and the 10X burst attack is not that the total hashrate expended by the attacker is less, but that it is 10X less income for the other miners.

Note I don't enjoy having to say this against smooth. I respect smooth, but this is out-of-character for him.

The problem is not that you may not be correct on this vector but assuming that a $1 bi Monero or even a $100 mi Monero would have the same hashrate as a $10 mi Monero waiting for a suppose attack.

smooth already explained why, in terms of hashrate and tx fees, More Is Different when it comes to a 1000X botnet attack on a billion dollar proof of work ecosystem vs our current $10 mi one.

Shelby is unteachable.  He can't understand basic economic concepts of marginalism, or at least cannot apply them properly.

His Dunning Kruger affliction is overwhelming, but not uncommon.  Many codemonkeys fail at understanding messy-but-robust complex dynamic systems such as economics and law, which are utterly unlike the pristine-but-brittle digital reality where they are natives.

OTOH, a physicist like Articmine has spend a career studying the subtle intricacies of self-organization, scale invariance, and phase transition, so grasping an idea like supply and demand equilibrium is easy.

[iamnotback]

smooth already explained why, in terms of hashrate and tx fees, More Is Different when it comes to a 1000X botnet attack on a billion dollar proof of work ecosystem vs our current $10 mi one.

Excuse me. The discussion was about what Monero is now (a <$10m mcap), not your projections of what you hope it will become.

Moving the goal posts is doubly REKTED.

As for the rest of your theories that you attribute to ArticMine, please provide the white paper that explains all this theory allegedly baked into Monero. No white paper, means you are just blowing hot air out your ass as usual.

[iCEBREAKER]

The discussion was about what Monero is now (a <$10m mcap)

How many guys in the GCHQ basement are working the Shelby persona?

You all need better coordination to keep track of what the previous shift wrote.

EG:

If Monero starts to approach $1 billion market cap (or perhaps much less if the liquidity is very high, which it is for Monero), this attacker will destroy Monero

R. E. K. T.   

[smooth]

smooth already explained why, in terms of hashrate and tx fees, More Is Different when it comes to a 1000X botnet attack on a billion dollar proof of work ecosystem vs our current $10 mi one.

Excuse me. The discussion was about what Monero is now (a <$10m mcap), not your projections of what you hope it will become.

Um, its actually >$20 mil as I write this. Not sure where anyone is getting <$10 mil.

[iamnotback]

http://btcbase.org/log/2016-06-23#1487906

mircea_popescu: https://archive.is/HOMve re missing luke chadwick / vertis.io thing
asciilifeform: ah lel that was in the logz
asciilifeform: somebody crawled shithub for aws creds and cashed in
mircea_popescu: aha
asciilifeform: hit each chump for 4fig usd of ding , for a few bux return each
asciilifeform: because why the fuck not.
mircea_popescu: litecoin of all things.
asciilifeform: at the time there was no scrypt asic.
thestringpuller: wow. maybe theymos has something with his r/bitcoin moderation: "Please, never ever turns Bitcoin into a democracy sh** thing. Be strong."
asciilifeform: hence litecoin.
mircea_popescu: anyway, talk about "botnet market" bla bla : imagine if guy had where to use this, recoup closer to the 4fig.

[smooth]

Arguing that any significant number of miners will indefinitely mine at 0 income is disingenuous.

It isn't only not disingenuous, it is based on real world empirical observation, which always trumps theories. For example, when Monero did our planned hardfork to upgrade to v2 blocks, there significant hashrate that didn't upgrade and continued mining worthless blocks for days if not weeks. AEON's planned hard fork was similar (though with less advance notice and perhaps less well-publicized). I didn't really pay attention to when the v1 fork stopped growing on either coin (or has it ever?). This was not a spontaneous attack catching-unaware miners by surprise either, it was an upgrade that was announced and well-publicized for weeks to months.

Since you have now downgraded (or one might say upgraded, in terms of plausibility) to 10x attacks, that only requires 20 minutes to start to produce blocks at the pre-attack hashrate. IF 90% of the hash rate abandons mining, then it would still only take 200 minutes. Either way there will still be high-fee transactions stacked to mine, blocks being produced with larger block sizes, and the hash rate will start to drop.

On the topic of the tail reward, the eventual reward is about 1/20 of the current reward. So at 20x the current price you would expect a similar hash rate. That only brings us to about 600 million market USD market cap (factoring in increased supply). At 1 billion USD or more the hash rate would be higher.

The difference between the 51% attack and the 10X burst attack is not that the total hashrate expended by the attacker is less, but that it is 10X less income for the other miners.

This is wrong. In a 51% attack other miners get no income since their blocks are rejected.

What ever you do to adjust the algorithm to compensate in one way, will open a vulnerability in another way.

No. Note that I didn't say attacks could be completely prevented. I said resistance could be improved.

[iamnotback]

Arguing that any significant number of miners will indefinitely mine at 0 income is disingenuous.

It isn't only not disingenuous, it is based on real world empirical observation, which always trumps theories. For example, when Monero did our planned hardfork to upgrade to v2 blocks, there significant hashrate that didn't upgrade and continued mining worthless blocks for days if not weeks.

Okay so it is not disingenuous but rather your lack of reading comprehension. Thanks.

Since you have now downgraded (or one might say upgraded, in terms of plausibility) to 10x attacks, ...

No I didn't:

It is absolutely insoluble for to defend against even a 10X attack, not to mention a 100X attack.

...that only requires 20 minutes to start to produce blocks at the pre-attack hashrate. IF 90% of the hash rate abandons mining, then it would still only take 200 minutes. Either way there will still be high-fee transactions stacked to mine, blocks being produced with larger block sizes, and the hash rate will start to drop.

A reading comprehension issue again:

Arguing that any significant number of miners will indefinitely mine at 0 income is disingenuous. The difference between the 51% attack and the 10X burst attack is not that the total hashrate expended by the attacker is less, but that it is 10X less income for the other miners.

On the topic of the tail reward, the eventual reward is about 1/20 of the current reward. So at 20x the current price you would expect a similar hash rate. That only brings us to about 600 million market USD market cap (factoring in increased supply). At 1 billion USD or more the hash rate would be higher.

And Monero is not secure at the current hashrate against a sufficiently capable attacker such as the the Chinese State, which btw will be growing more and more wealthy as the West falls into its socialism abyss collapse underway. Ditto Russia is rising (even Germany outlawed their nuclear generation plants and mandated all electric cars, yet all the energy will then have to come from Russia).

The difference between the 51% attack and the 10X burst attack is not that the total hashrate expended by the attacker is less, but that it is 10X less income for the other miners.

This is wrong. In a 51% attack other miners get no income since their blocks are rejected.

I'm not wrong.

Because if the minority are on static IPs, then it may be possible for the minority to form a whitelist with the 51% attack scenario, so they reject any blocks from IPs that always appear the longest chain and not in orphaned chains, i.e. they fork away from the attacker's chain. The attacker can't waste blocks in the orphan chains with only 51% hashrate. Whereas, with the 10X attack, the attacker can allow allow all blocks without significantly awarding the minority any revenue.

Another key difference is that the effective block period is 10X slower in the 10X attack (after the initial burst of 10X faster and periodic bursts of being not 10X slower to maintain the high difficulty), which makes it more clear the coin is broken potentially amplifying the gains from shorting.

Another advantage of the 10X attack is the attacker doesn't have to be continuously active and can popup with new IPs periodically, to frustrate attempts to trace him.

What ever you do to adjust the algorithm to compensate in one way, will open a vulnerability in another way.

No. Note that I didn't say attacks could be completely prevented. I said resistance could be improved.

White paper or it didn't happen.

[smooth]

And Monero is not secure at the current hashrate against a sufficiently capable attacker such as the the Chinese State

You're right we don't have e nuclear deterrence force either. Maybe someday we can create a DAO that contracts for one though.

White paper or it didn't happen.

Irony much?

[iamnotback]

White paper or it didn't happen.

Irony much?

Remember the title of this thread.

I am not buying Monero, then telling everyone it is the only altcoin that is worth investing in (and that Zcash is inferior in every way), trying to dump my bagholding on others. Nor am I even selling any tokens nor investing in any tokens yet.

I stated very clearly upthread, that my reason for posting in this thread is because of r0ach's behavior, not because of Monero per se. But then it became a Monero community issue because of the way your community interacts in this thread.

Note I edited my prior post to make my technical rebuttal more logically coherent.

Re: The Monero Gang : G T F O

The Monero Gang is a dangerous team of criminals ready to destroy your altcoin picks and turn you into a Monero believer by the force.
The Monero Gang: You will be assimilated, resistance is futile. Buy Monero or die like the rest.
Coming to theaters in 2017.

[smooth]

White paper or it didn't happen.

Irony much?

Remember the title of this thread.

I am not buying Monero, then telling everyone it is the only altcoin that is worth investing in (and that Zcash is inferior in every way), trying to dump my bagholding on others. Nor am I even selling any tokens nor investing in any tokens yet.

I stated very clearly upthread, that my reason for posting in this thread is because of r0ach's behavior, not because of Monero per se. But then it became a Monero community issue because of the way your community interacts.

Note I edited my prior post to make my technical rebuttal more logically coherent.

Okay, if you are pushing back against r0ach shilling, you'll get no argument from me. He is entitled to his opinion though.

Though, I don't think you've made a particularly good case why someone might not want to buy Monero now. Arguments about boogeyman attacks by the Chinese State or someone with 100x the hash rate, are likely not too persuasive. If that's the best you can come up with, it kind of implies that the Monero is pretty secure against the issues people are more likely to be actually concerned about.