[2016-08-29] Bloomburg.com| New Digital Currency Spikes as Drug Dealers Get

[eye4bd]

New Digital Currency Spikes as Drug Dealers Get More Secrecy

Forget bitcoin. There’s a new digital currency that is surging as online drug-dealers begin adopting it to conduct business with more anonymity.
The two-year-old currency Monero has more than quadrupled this month after gaining support from prominent websites that anonymously peddle drugs....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-29/new-digital-currency-spikes-after-giving-criminals-more-secrecy

[1715165786]

1715165786

[1715165786]

1715165786

[1715165786]

1715165786

[1715165786]

1715165786

[1715165786]

1715165786

[1715165786]

1715165786

[TraderTimm]

I know alt-coin supporters and specifically Monero supporters are ecstatic over a wiggle in their value, but there are larger problems such visibility raises. Without getting into technical details, lets just focus on the collective hashpower of the Monero network.

http://minexmr.com/pools.html

There's a graph near the bottom that shows the average collective hashing power of the major pools - 24.1 Megahashes/sec. This is a laughable minority, which brings to fore another potential threat. Lets say you're law enforcement or some other actor. All of these people doing things you perceive as illegal have adopted a poorly-defended alt-coin as their method of trade (Citation needed - extremely dubious).

So, as a LEO you work on how to disrupt this network.

If this was Bitcoin, well, you have a lot of work to do if you're trying to be a majority miner and make your chain the "correct" one. Bitcoin's collective hashpower stands at an estimated 1,798,050 Terahashes/sec, magnitudes higher than a paltry 24.1 that Monero offers.

Guess which is easier to attack?

The point is, I'm extremely doubtful that anyone would jump on the Monero train and not have their network severely disrupted by law enforcement if it indeed became the "currency of the darknet". Its simply too small and too poorly secured.

[Kprawn]

Hey, this might be the opportunity for Bitcoin to get rid of all the negative influences that has been a plague on the community from the start. The

people using it legally has received the same label as the people using it for drugs. The security for Monero is a joke, and I would not invest large

amounts into something that can be taken down with little effort. Let those who wants to follow this, go and burn their fingers. 

[coinzat]

so now will people stop calling bitcoin a criminal currency as criminals are using other coins ? :-D
this proves that everything can be used in good and evil. it is the user who decide what to do

[eye4bd]

so now will people stop calling bitcoin a criminal currency as criminals are using other coins ? :-D
this proves that everything can be used in good and evil. it is the user who decide what to do

Hi
Thanks for making that hard point. 
I Think that might happen, if  Monero story continue for next few months!
Actually after seeing the article on twitter i was also start to feeling that way.
Now, we have to wait to see final outcome!

 

[gentlemand]

The point is, I'm extremely doubtful that anyone would jump on the Monero train and not have their network severely disrupted by law enforcement if it indeed became the "currency of the darknet". Its simply too small and too poorly secured.

I'd say the odds of that are zero. LE doesn't have any deputised hash power lying around and screwing with a currency just means everyone'll switch to something else.

If XMR really did get some momentum then you can count on Bitcoin maximalists to attack them. They'll attack other Bitcoin iterations so a whole, and much smaller, rival would be too much to resist.

[TraderTimm]

The point is, I'm extremely doubtful that anyone would jump on the Monero train and not have their network severely disrupted by law enforcement if it indeed became the "currency of the darknet". Its simply too small and too poorly secured.

I'd say the odds of that are zero. LE doesn't have any deputised hash power lying around and screwing with a currency just means everyone'll switch to something else.

If XMR really did get some momentum then you can count on Bitcoin maximalists to attack them. They'll attack other Bitcoin iterations so a whole, and much smaller, rival would be too much to resist.

Right, just like the odds are zero that LEO's would have mirrored traffic sent to routers at peering points all over North America. Except it did happen, and was verified later. If they want to fuck up Monero, trust me, they'll get the proper resources to do just that.

[Carlton Banks]

If XMR really did get some momentum then you can count on Bitcoin maximalists to attack them. They'll attack other Bitcoin iterations so a whole, and much smaller, rival would be too much to resist.

What is all this "Bitcoin maximalists" and "Bitcoin iterations" language? Anyone self-identifying that way, or attacking "Bitcoin iterations" sound like yet more deluded armchair software engineers. So, is this your pejorative label for some Bitcoin perspective or something that people actually identify with? It seems like very strong language coming from someone who only ever claims little-to-no interest in Bitcoin's technical aspects.

[okae]

so now will people stop calling bitcoin a criminal currency as criminals are using other coins ? :-D

Forget about that, this will never happen, bitcoin will be always on the edge for some reasons, also this could be taken as a good symptom

this proves that everything can be used in good and evil. it is the user who decide what to do

yep, let's hope that the final user become more intelligent, but that's the point that i doubt xD

[NewLiberty]

I know alt-coin supporters and specifically Monero supporters are ecstatic over a wiggle in their value, but there are larger problems such visibility raises. Without getting into technical details, lets just focus on the collective hashpower of the Monero network.

http://minexmr.com/pools.html

There's a graph near the bottom that shows the average collective hashing power of the major pools - 24.1 Megahashes/sec. This is a laughable minority, which brings to fore another potential threat. Lets say you're law enforcement or some other actor. All of these people doing things you perceive as illegal have adopted a poorly-defended alt-coin as their method of trade (Citation needed - extremely dubious).

So, as a LEO you work on how to disrupt this network.

If this was Bitcoin, well, you have a lot of work to do if you're trying to be a majority miner and make your chain the "correct" one. Bitcoin's collective hashpower stands at an estimated 1,798,050 Terahashes/sec, magnitudes higher than a paltry 24.1 that Monero offers.

Guess which is easier to attack?

The point is, I'm extremely doubtful that anyone would jump on the Monero train and not have their network severely disrupted by law enforcement if it indeed became the "currency of the darknet". Its simply too small and too poorly secured.

What do they gain from such an attack against Monero?
They do not learn anything about the transactions from mining, and how to determine what transactions to attack?   The most they could do would be to mine empty blocks and delay transactions by two minutes or so.
This sort of attack is not effective verses block-chains where the transactions are private, not public.

In fact they could already be doing this, no one would know, because it wouldn't matter.

And comparing the hash rate of a CPU mined chain to an ASIC mined chain is a false comparison.  You should know better, sir.  FUD rejected.

If the majority of bitcoin wallets implemented ring-signatures and required the use of BIP47 addresses (aka stealth), then Bitcoin could stop worrying about this sort of thing also, but too many do not care about their privacy until after it is violated, (and they find out).

[Carlton Banks]

The real issue with Monero is, ironically, the same thing that people like about it: the signature scheme. While being very good at protecting tx privacy, it's not very resource efficient. Projections about the long-term growth of the Monero blockchain sounded unsustainable 12-18 months ago, when it wasn't popular at all. Now it's picking up users (and apparently real economic activity), the sustainability of the resource model Monero uses is on public trial. If crypto-vandals set their sights on Monero, the same could happen to it's tx throughput as happened to Bitcoin; spammed into permanent 100% saturation. That could put real strain on the feasibility of running a Monero node (and more so than it does Bitcoin, of course).

[Assanger]

so now will people stop calling bitcoin a criminal currency as criminals are using other coins ? :-D
this proves that everything can be used in good and evil. it is the user who decide what to do

With the surge of the use of Monero in the criminal world, that could divert atttention of the illegal usage of bitcoin.

[NewLiberty]

The real issue with Monero is, ironically, the same thing that people like about it: the signature scheme. While being very good at protecting tx privacy, it's not very resource efficient. Projections about the long-term growth of the Monero blockchain sounded unsustainable 12-18 months ago, when it wasn't popular at all. Now it's picking up users (and apparently real economic activity), the sustainability of the resource model Monero uses is on public trial. If crypto-vandals set their sights on Monero, the same could happen to it's tx throughput as happened to Bitcoin; spammed into permanent 100% saturation. That could put real strain on the feasibility of running a Monero node (and more so than it does Bitcoin, of course).

Monero is prepared. 
Dynamic block size.
Drops mic.

[NewLiberty]

so now will people stop calling bitcoin a criminal currency as criminals are using other coins ? :-D
this proves that everything can be used in good and evil. it is the user who decide what to do

With the surge of the use of Monero in the criminal world, that could divert atttention of the illegal usage of bitcoin.

This is real.

Did folks forget that Bitcoin's last All Time High was right after Silk Road was popped?
Bitcoin insiders are working hard to legitimize it.  BitFury writes anti-anon code.  Coinbase is the man in bitcoin clothing.  Even Roger Ver is pushing Monero for the Dark Net Markets.  Why?  Because it benefits bitcoin valuation to have something else be the bad boy of crypto.

If Monero does succeed as a dark net currency, look for a new ATH in Bitcoin right around the corner.  Bitcoin is king, and for its next phase of adoption, it can dust itself off, put on a suit, and walk down Main Street as if its misspent youth never happened.  It is finally getting enough market cap to be useful to a larger segment of business cases.  Bitcoin no longer needs the dark net the way it once did.

[TraderTimm]

What do they gain from such an attack against Monero?
They do not learn anything about the transactions from mining, and how to determine what transactions to attack?   The most they could do would be to mine empty blocks and delay transactions by two minutes or so.
This sort of attack is not effective verses block-chains where the transactions are private, not public.

In fact they could already be doing this, no one would know, because it wouldn't matter.

And comparing the hash rate of a CPU mined chain to an ASIC mined chain is a false comparison.  You should know better, sir.  FUD rejected.

If the majority of bitcoin wallets implemented ring-signatures and required the use of BIP47 addresses (aka stealth), then Bitcoin could stop worrying about this sort of thing also, but too many do not care about their privacy until after it is violated, (and they find out).

You must've skipped over the entire post, which considering your history of posting slap-dash pseudobabble, isn't surprising.

It was a theoretical attack vector based on the farcical fabrications of an e-journalist that Monero is replacing Bitcoin somehow with darknet/black market transactions.

Now follow very closely here, because I know attention to detail isn't your forte, but the amount of computing power (regardless of algorithm, my dear chum-filled chum) is TRIVIAL compared to what is needed for Bitcoin to execute an attack. That was the point. I know you're working it through your goldbergian-meatworks-of-a-frontal-lobe right now trying to make it twist to your reality, but that is the unvarnished truth of it.

Go back to writing about your Bitcoin "religion", its more suited to your obfuscated and gordian-knot-like thinking skills.

[opennux]

What do they gain from such an attack against Monero?
They do not learn anything about the transactions from mining, and how to determine what transactions to attack?   The most they could do would be to mine empty blocks and delay transactions by two minutes or so.
This sort of attack is not effective verses block-chains where the transactions are private, not public.

In fact they could already be doing this, no one would know, because it wouldn't matter.

And comparing the hash rate of a CPU mined chain to an ASIC mined chain is a false comparison.  You should know better, sir.  FUD rejected.

If the majority of bitcoin wallets implemented ring-signatures and required the use of BIP47 addresses (aka stealth), then Bitcoin could stop worrying about this sort of thing also, but too many do not care about their privacy until after it is violated, (and they find out).

You must've skipped over the entire post, which considering your history of posting slap-dash pseudobabble, isn't surprising.

It was a theoretical attack vector based on the farcical fabrications of an e-journalist that Monero is replacing Bitcoin somehow with darknet/black market transactions.

Now follow very closely here, because I know attention to detail isn't your forte, but the amount of computing power (regardless of algorithm, my dear chum-filled chum) is TRIVIAL compared to what is needed for Bitcoin to execute an attack. That was the point. I know you're working it through your goldbergian-meatworks-of-a-frontal-lobe right now trying to make it twist to your reality, but that is the unvarnished truth of it.

Go back to writing about your Bitcoin "religion", its more suited to your obfuscated and gordian-knot-like thinking skills.

I don't think your point was missed. Everyone is aware that the hashing power and subsequently the cost of attacking the chain is much cheaper. It would just behoove to compare apples to apples.

First of all it's not about the hashing power, it's about the cost of the hashing power, and thus the cost of the attack.

Second of all, you could compare the price of the coin and attack to bitcoin when bitcoin had the same price or hashrate. (And btw. note that most of the DNM stuff is still denominated predominantly in btc)

Thirdly, it was mentioned that the attack vector - though acknowledged as a genuine attack vector - would be moot in the application you're describing (snooping, transaction withholding etc.).

Fourthly, it's doubtful an agency is going to blow a budget of now millions of $USD with the aim of maybe stopping some crimes they could solve better in other ways. Gaining more power? Perhaps, yes. But stopping/catching bad guys? Very doubtful.  Very very doubtful. What kind of manager would approve a budget on now more than $100m (I haven't done any calcs, I just assume it's up there..) to do what exactly? I realise that there's golden toilets and nefarious dealings, sure, but how much normal detective work (which is FAR MORE effective) could you deploy for the same budget?

Fifthly, as we have seen, as the currency grows, so does the hashrate. In late 2010 the hashrate is comparable to monero's today. Look how fast the bitcoin hashrate grew from there on.

There are many other attack vectors and reasons for them, and a large number of reasons why the whole project could fail. The reasons for this attack vector just seems implausible. Then again, more implausible things have happened.