[ANN] Firo (FIRO) - Implementing ZKP privacy without trusted setup

[joblo]

1. When you changed the size test from 128 to 132 you left the byte swap at 128.
2. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.

If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.

https://github.com/djm34/sgminer-msvc2015
https://github.com/djm34/ccminer-msvc2015
enough ?

also getwork and stratum doesn't carry the same information
getwork produce a pre-arranged ascii line with the message for a miner
stratum: full header

No. It uses 128.

Code:

static bool getwork_decode(json_t *res_val, struct work *work)
{
  size_t worklen = 128;
  worklen = ((work->pool->algorithm.type == ALGO_CRE) ? sizeof(work->data) : worklen);
  if (unlikely(!jobj_binary(res_val, "data", work->data, worklen, true))) {
    if (opt_morenotices)
      applog(LOG_ERR, "%s: JSON inval data", isnull(get_pool_name(work->pool), ""));
    return false;
}

[1714200343]

1714200343

[HexxoDev]

Im too tired..

Joblo, right answer!

djm, this time you and zcoin devs cant see what is wrong..



Next episode tomorrow!

[HexxoDev]

Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?

I prefer it here?

[djm34]

1. When you changed the size test from 128 to 132 you left the byte swap at 128.
2. Hexx getwork was broken testing for 132, fixed by testing for 128.
3. The stratum code for zcoin uses 128, why not getwork?
4. 128 is the size used by most algos, stratum and getwork.

If you're so convinced the cpuminer-opt is wrong show me a miner that works.

https://github.com/djm34/sgminer-msvc2015
https://github.com/djm34/ccminer-msvc2015
enough ?

also getwork and stratum doesn't carry the same information
getwork produce a pre-arranged ascii line with the message for a miner
stratum: full header

No. It uses 128.

Code:

static bool getwork_decode(json_t *res_val, struct work *work)
{
  size_t worklen = 128;
  worklen = ((work->pool->algorithm.type == ALGO_CRE) ? sizeof(work->data) : worklen);
  if (unlikely(!jobj_binary(res_val, "data", work->data, worklen, true))) {
    if (opt_morenotices)
      applog(LOG_ERR, "%s: JSON inval data", isnull(get_pool_name(work->pool), ""));
    return false;
}

Indeed, I also use 128 and it works... so something wrong in your code however it use only the first 19 uint32_t the 20 (in 80) being the nonce...
so don't know why you have a problem...   and actually why you are complaining...
here how it is done in ccminer, as you can see we accomodate for the different wallet with what they ask...

Code:

	switch (opt_algo) {
	case ALGO_M7:
		data_size = 122;
		adata_sz = data_size / 4;
		break;
	case ALGO_DECRED:
		data_size = 192;
		adata_sz = 180/4;
		break;
	case ALGO_NEOSCRYPT:
	case ALGO_ZR5:
		data_size = 80;
		adata_sz = data_size / 4;
		break;
	default:
		data_size = 128;
		adata_sz = data_size / 4;
	}

[djm34]

Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?

I prefer it here?

because it is good for your trolling credits ? because noone goes to hexxcoin page and you need to promote somehow your clone ?

[HexxoDev]

Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?

I prefer it here?

because it is good for your trolling credits ? because noone goes to hexxcoin page and you need to promote somehow your clone ?

Just keep in the issue.
No promotions.

data_size = 128 fixed to wallet, works perfectly.

So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?

Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.

Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, vertcoin broke it.
This code is a poor fork of vertcoin, all shit remains there.

-        for(int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
-        {
-            vchData.insert(vchData.begin(), 0);
-        }

Why on earth to break old working rules when not needed?

[djm34]

Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?

I prefer it here?

because it is good for your trolling credits ? because noone goes to hexxcoin page and you need to promote somehow your clone ?

Just keep in the issue.
No promotions.

data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.

So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?

Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.

Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.

that didn't prevent to mine it either.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine zcoin either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)

[HexxoDev]

Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?

I prefer it here?

because it is good for your trolling credits ? because noone goes to hexxcoin page and you need to promote somehow your clone ?

Just keep in the issue.
No promotions.

data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.

So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?

Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.

Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.

that didn't prevent to mine it either.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)

The conclusion

Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.

[djm34]

Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?

I prefer it here?

because it is good for your trolling credits ? because noone goes to hexxcoin page and you need to promote somehow your clone ?

Just keep in the issue.
No promotions.

data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.

So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?

Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.

Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.

that didn't prevent to mine it either.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)

The conclusion

Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.

Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?

I prefer it here?

because it is good for your trolling credits ? because noone goes to hexxcoin page and you need to promote somehow your clone ?

Just keep in the issue.
No promotions.

data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.

So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?

Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.

Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.

that didn't prevent to mine it either.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)

The conclusion

Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.

Well, I am just answering to your claim that the miners weren't working with getwork (which they did as far as I am concerned)
For the rest bring that to dev attentions on the slack channel where they hang around... (please don't use @channel  )

[HexxoDev]

Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?

I prefer it here?

because it is good for your trolling credits ? because noone goes to hexxcoin page and you need to promote somehow your clone ?

Just keep in the issue.
No promotions.

data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.

So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?

Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.

Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.

that didn't prevent to mine it either.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)

The conclusion

Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.

Guys, maybe you want to meet in a chatroom, or so ?

I prefer it here?

because it is good for your trolling credits ? because noone goes to hexxcoin page and you need to promote somehow your clone ?

Just keep in the issue.
No promotions.

data_size = 128 fixed to wallet works perfectly.

So? What we can tell?
Should wallet give false size or use none compatible code?

Why you look at neoscrypt?
It had 84 / 80 issue that was not related to this.

Also they did not tweak the getwork code like vertcoin did, they broke it.

that didn't prevent to mine it either.
and that datasize doesn't prevent it to mine it either... and being the one who asked vertcoin dev to fix their header, it was a lot more serious than here...(when they were still running lyra2)

The conclusion

Why not just ask Zcoin devs to use the old fashion getwork.

Well, I am just answering to your claim that the miners weren't working with getwork (which it did as far as I am concerned)
For the rest bring that to dev attentions on the slack channel where they hang around... (please don't use @channel  )

It is not my concern. Tried just to help.
Never said gpu miner did not..


Read the fucking  code and tell me who the fuck did the trick with rpcmining
it seems like cpuminer solo was prevented in the early phase..

I Have my own work to do, porting code to greater core and POS 3.0.

Thanks..

[djm34]

For the rest bring that to dev attentions on the slack channel where they hang around... (please don't use @channel  )

It is not my concern. Tried just to help.
Never said gpu miner did not..


Read the fucking  code and tell me who the fuck did the trick with rpcmining
it seems like cpuminer solo was prevented in the early phase..

I Have my own work to do, porting code to greater core and POS 3.0.

Thanks..

pool were up from the beginning and none of the cpu miner (especially the big one on aws) ever complained...
So if it hadn't worked, many would have complained here or on slack...
and a testnet wallet was release well in advance to spot any problem...

ps: guess it was your day off in porting the core, since you trolled most of the day here 

[joblo]

This is pointless, there's nothing to change in my code.

Since the zcoin dev was the one who threw the blame on my code without any evidence I feel compelled
to point out that the dev's credibility is already in the toilet with frequent bad business decisions and a near
fatal bug that resulted in a huge theft of coins. Someone in such a precarious position shouldn't be pointing fingers
at others.

[cyberhacker]

This is pointless, there's nothing to change in my code.

Since the zcoin dev was the one who threw the blame on my code without any evidence I feel compelled
to point out that the dev's credibility is already in the toilet with frequent bad business decisions and a near
fatal bug that resulted in a huge theft of coins. Someone in such a precarious position shouldn't be pointing fingers
at others.

join hexx  he is more fun

[djm34]

This is pointless, there's nothing to change in my code.

Since the zcoin dev was the one who threw the blame on my code without any evidence I feel compelled
to point out that the dev's credibility is already in the toilet with frequent bad business decisions and a near
fatal bug that resulted in a huge theft of coins. Someone in such a precarious position shouldn't be pointing fingers
at others.

if I had to complain each time (and I probably did curse a lot in front of my computer... ) I had to accommodate one coin or another.... geez
At some point, you just have to do what it takes to make things work and that's it... (and quite frankly there isn't much to do to make it works)
(the only times I asked a dev to change his code are when I am working with them and it is usually before the release of the wallet and miners not a month after the wallet has been release... )
Also hexxcoin has been trolling since this morning, so not sure what you would expect from the devs (beside pissing them off)

also the fact that other miners work, definitely means it is up to you to fix yours... (the code is everywhere on github... just need to look at it and fix it...), or ask gently... without trolling during a day...

[joblo]

This is pointless, there's nothing to change in my code.

Since the zcoin dev was the one who threw the blame on my code without any evidence I feel compelled
to point out that the dev's credibility is already in the toilet with frequent bad business decisions and a near
fatal bug that resulted in a huge theft of coins. Someone in such a precarious position shouldn't be pointing fingers
at others.

if I had to complain each time (and I probably did curse a lot in front of my computer... ) I had to accommodate one coin or another.... geez
At some point, you just have to do what it takes to make things work and that's it... (and quite frankly there isn't much to do to make it works)
(the only times I asked a dev to change his code are when I am working with them and it is usually before the release of the wallet and miners not a month after the wallet has been release... )
Also hexxcoin has been trolling since this morning, so not sure what you would expect from the devs (beside pissing them off)

also the fact that other miners work, definitely means it is up to you to fix yours... (the code is everywhere on github... just need to look at it and fix it...), or ask gently... without trolling during a day...

So let's ignore the fact that I use standard getwork data size of 128 just like you do and it works with other algos. How does your code work with 128
bit data size when the zcoin wallet tests for 132? How did the size magically grow by 4 bytes to pass the test? Why were those 4 bytes then ignored
if they were so important the wallet would throw an exception? What specifically did you change in the getwork miner code to make it work with zcoin?
You clearly haven't even looked at the code in question, you're just making hollow assertions, just like the zcoin dev.

I'm complaining because zcoin dev claimed my code was broken without any evidence. What do your expect from me, besides pissing me off?
Now you're making those same baseless claims and now I'm pissed at you too.

I've done my testing to back up what I'm saying, it's time for you to step up or back off.

[zcoinofficial]

So let's ignore the fact that I use standard getwork data size of 128 just like you do and it works with other algos. How does your code work with 128
bit data size when the zcoin wallet tests for 132? How did the size magically grow by 4 bytes to pass the test? Why were those 4 bytes then ignored
if they were so important the wallet would throw an exception? What specifically did you change in the getwork miner code to make it work with zcoin?
You clearly haven't even looked at the code in question, you're just making hollow assertions, just like the zcoin dev.

I'm complaining because zcoin dev claimed my code was broken without any evidence. What do your expect from me, besides pissing me off?
Now you're making those same baseless claims and now I'm pissed at you too.

I've done my testing to back up what I'm saying, it's time for you to step up or back off.

Ummm, although djm34 is part of our team as a miner dev, I don't think any other Zcoin devs said anything about your code being broken? Definitely not from me and I don't see Poramin's, Saran's Or Aizensou's comments either. The way you phrased it here:

"you're just making hollow assertions, just like the zcoin dev."

is as if djm34 and there's another zcoin dev that said it was broken which if you look carefully, isn't there. It's only djm34 who is replying.

Even djm34's remarks were more aimed at Hexx who was claiming that our mining via getwork didn't work and that our code was broken I checked with Aizen and djm34 who both confirmed that it was working on theirs on testnet from their own solo mining. However, I genuinely wanted to find out what Hexx was talking about and I don't think I ever commented on your miner but merely stated the fact that it seems to be working on ours so we weren't sure what he was going on about and then it was Hexx who dragged you into the conversation.

In any case I apologize for any misunderstanding. We just wanted to clarify that mining does indeed work with the miners we tested on and I did want to see whether Hexx's concerns were real as it is always good to have other eyes looking at the code. But to claim our getwork mining is broken when afaik it isn't, rubbed some of us the wrong way (especially djm34 which is understandable since he was the one working on the miners with aizensou).

[joblo]

So let's ignore the fact that I use standard getwork data size of 128 just like you do and it works with other algos. How does your code work with 128
bit data size when the zcoin wallet tests for 132? How did the size magically grow by 4 bytes to pass the test? Why were those 4 bytes then ignored
if they were so important the wallet would throw an exception? What specifically did you change in the getwork miner code to make it work with zcoin?
You clearly haven't even looked at the code in question, you're just making hollow assertions, just like the zcoin dev.

I'm complaining because zcoin dev claimed my code was broken without any evidence. What do your expect from me, besides pissing me off?
Now you're making those same baseless claims and now I'm pissed at you too.

I've done my testing to back up what I'm saying, it's time for you to step up or back off.

Ummm, although djm34 is part of our team as a miner dev, I don't think any other Zcoin devs said anything about your code being broken? Definitely not from me and I don't see Poramin's, Saran's Or Aizensou's comments either. The way you phrased it here:

"you're just making hollow assertions, just like the zcoin dev."

is as if djm34 and there's another zcoin dev that said it was broken which if you look carefully, isn't there. It's only djm34 who is replying.

Even djm34's remarks were more aimed at Hexx who was claiming that our mining via getwork didn't work and that our code was broken I checked with Aizen and djm34 who both confirmed that it was working on theirs on testnet from their own solo mining. However, I genuinely wanted to find out what Hexx was talking about and I don't think I ever commented on your miner but merely stated the fact that it seems to be working on ours so we weren't sure what he was going on about and then it was Hexx who dragged you into the conversation.

In any case I apologize for any misunderstanding. We just wanted to clarify that mining does indeed work with the miners we tested on and I did want to see whether Hexx's concerns were real as it is always good to have other eyes looking at the code. But to claim our getwork mining is broken when afaik it isn't, rubbed some of us the wrong way (especially djm34 which is understandable since he was the one working on the miners with aizensou).

I went back and doublechecked the response and you are correct it was DJM34 who first claimed my miner was broken calling it
"your miner" when responding to hexx. It's my turn to apologize to you.

I don't understand the negative reaction to hexx other than maybe he is a competitor. I worked with him to get getwork working
on hexx and that is when we discovered the 132 problem. Reverting that change in the wallet fixed getwork for hexx.
He was simply reporting our findings to you. It's not a bug in DJM's miner so I don't know why he's so defensive.

You really need to get to the bottom of the change to 132 in the wallet. It only takes a quick glance at that code to see it's broken.
My testing with hexx confirms it. When was the last time getwork was tested with an external miner on zcoin? I suggest a retest.

[zcoinofficial]

So let's ignore the fact that I use standard getwork data size of 128 just like you do and it works with other algos. How does your code work with 128
bit data size when the zcoin wallet tests for 132? How did the size magically grow by 4 bytes to pass the test? Why were those 4 bytes then ignored
if they were so important the wallet would throw an exception? What specifically did you change in the getwork miner code to make it work with zcoin?
You clearly haven't even looked at the code in question, you're just making hollow assertions, just like the zcoin dev.

I'm complaining because zcoin dev claimed my code was broken without any evidence. What do your expect from me, besides pissing me off?
Now you're making those same baseless claims and now I'm pissed at you too.

I've done my testing to back up what I'm saying, it's time for you to step up or back off.

Ummm, although djm34 is part of our team as a miner dev, I don't think any other Zcoin devs said anything about your code being broken? Definitely not from me and I don't see Poramin's, Saran's Or Aizensou's comments either. The way you phrased it here:

"you're just making hollow assertions, just like the zcoin dev."

is as if djm34 and there's another zcoin dev that said it was broken which if you look carefully, isn't there. It's only djm34 who is replying.

Even djm34's remarks were more aimed at Hexx who was claiming that our mining via getwork didn't work and that our code was broken I checked with Aizen and djm34 who both confirmed that it was working on theirs on testnet from their own solo mining. However, I genuinely wanted to find out what Hexx was talking about and I don't think I ever commented on your miner but merely stated the fact that it seems to be working on ours so we weren't sure what he was going on about and then it was Hexx who dragged you into the conversation.

In any case I apologize for any misunderstanding. We just wanted to clarify that mining does indeed work with the miners we tested on and I did want to see whether Hexx's concerns were real as it is always good to have other eyes looking at the code. But to claim our getwork mining is broken when afaik it isn't, rubbed some of us the wrong way (especially djm34 which is understandable since he was the one working on the miners with aizensou).

I went back and doublechecked the response and you are correct it was DJM34 who first claimed my miner was broken calling it
"your miner" when responding to hexx. It's my turn to apologize to you.

I don't understand the negative reaction to hexx other than maybe he is a competitor. I worked with him to get getwork working
on hexx and that is when we discovered the 132 problem. Reverting that change in the wallet fixed getwork for hexx.
He was simply reporting our findings to you. It's not a bug in DJM's miner so I don't know why he's so defensive.

You really need to get to the bottom of the change to 132 in the wallet. It only takes a quick glance at that code to see it's broken.
My testing with hexx confirms it. When was the last time getwork was tested with an external miner on zcoin? I suggest a retest.

Cool Glad that cleared things up and thanks for the heads up.

I think it was just the choice of words Hexx said it to say our wallet is broken and 'not to bother' in red fonts when it was working with the 3 miners we tested with as if there was a serious flaw in our getwork mining when if you used the miners we linked it would work. I understand English may not be his first language but yeah. I think it didn't help that the entire Zerocoin portion was taken from us (which is his right this being an open source project). But I think we can all work together and improve the codebase together so hey, maybe we'll be taking from his code too .

Will check with the devs on the reason of the change of that commit but in either case, it's nothing to get worked up about. Small stuff.

[zcoinofficial]

In other news, we've launched our official Zcoin block explorer with Zerocoin stats!

Official Zcoin block explorer launched at https://explorer.zcoin.io with Zerocoin stats feature. $XZC #zcoin

[djm34]

So let's ignore the fact that I use standard getwork data size of 128 just like you do and it works with other algos. How does your code work with 128
bit data size when the zcoin wallet tests for 132? How did the size magically grow by 4 bytes to pass the test? Why were those 4 bytes then ignored
if they were so important the wallet would throw an exception? What specifically did you change in the getwork miner code to make it work with zcoin?
You clearly haven't even looked at the code in question, you're just making hollow assertions, just like the zcoin dev.

I'm complaining because zcoin dev claimed my code was broken without any evidence. What do your expect from me, besides pissing me off?
Now you're making those same baseless claims and now I'm pissed at you too.

I've done my testing to back up what I'm saying, it's time for you to step up or back off.

Ummm, although djm34 is part of our team as a miner dev, I don't think any other Zcoin devs said anything about your code being broken? Definitely not from me and I don't see Poramin's, Saran's Or Aizensou's comments either. The way you phrased it here:

"you're just making hollow assertions, just like the zcoin dev."

is as if djm34 and there's another zcoin dev that said it was broken which if you look carefully, isn't there. It's only djm34 who is replying.

Even djm34's remarks were more aimed at Hexx who was claiming that our mining via getwork didn't work and that our code was broken I checked with Aizen and djm34 who both confirmed that it was working on theirs on testnet from their own solo mining. However, I genuinely wanted to find out what Hexx was talking about and I don't think I ever commented on your miner but merely stated the fact that it seems to be working on ours so we weren't sure what he was going on about and then it was Hexx who dragged you into the conversation.

In any case I apologize for any misunderstanding. We just wanted to clarify that mining does indeed work with the miners we tested on and I did want to see whether Hexx's concerns were real as it is always good to have other eyes looking at the code. But to claim our getwork mining is broken when afaik it isn't, rubbed some of us the wrong way (especially djm34 which is understandable since he was the one working on the miners with aizensou).

I went back and doublechecked the response and you are correct it was DJM34 who first claimed my miner was broken calling it
"your miner" when responding to hexx. It's my turn to apologize to you.

I don't understand the negative reaction to hexx other than maybe he is a competitor. I worked with him to get getwork working
on hexx and that is when we discovered the 132 problem. Reverting that change in the wallet fixed getwork for hexx.
He was simply reporting our findings to you. It's not a bug in DJM's miner so I don't know why he's so defensive.

You really need to get to the bottom of the change to 132 in the wallet. It only takes a quick glance at that code to see it's broken.
My testing with hexx confirms it. When was the last time getwork was tested with an external miner on zcoin? I suggest a retest.

Hexxcoin dev first claimed that no miner were working on getwork hence telling I didn't test anything and that my miners were broken while all the test were done on testnet in the early stage due to the absence of a pool at that time.
A problem was discovered in the early time which was forbidding getwork to work and a fix was applied (which was similar to what was done by vtc dev to fix their getwork between the switch from lyra2re to lyra2rev2.
Once this fix has been applied, it was possible to mine block through getwork and have them accepted by the wallet.
(this fix was applied before the hardfork to lyra2Z while it was still in development).

As for my code it reads 128bytes and submit 128bytes like for any standard wallet without any problem.
Aizen tested yesterday again on testnet and didn't find any problem (except for your miner... sorry)