Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history)

[matthewh3]

This attack shows how using a myriad of AuXPoW chains could avoid this problem.  As by using a myriad of chains then the attacker would need to attack more than one chain.  While using AuxPoW with the biggest coin on each chain would greatly increase the network hashrate.  I think you should quickly adopt AuxPoW with litecoin how Dogecoin has just done so to help stop any potential future attacks.  Then the myriad with NeoScrypt Feathercoin merge-mining and Lyra2 Vertcoin merged-mining can brought in a later date.  Plus it may be worth including Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW with the myriad.  Plus possibly X11 Darkcoin merge-mining included in the Myriad.  To have a total of three to up to possibly five myriad chains all in AuxPoW with the biggest networked coin on each chain.  As with a myriad of five chains then an attacker would need to control three of the five AuxPoW chains to control the network.

Not being a miner, I am leaning towards Crytponight as my favorite proof-of-work algorithm. It is heavily CPU oriented, which will put off mining centralization for some time.

Perhaps there are similar cpu-oriented algorithms out there, but cryptonight addresses another important point: If we go toward merged mining in the future, which coin would we want to do this with? The only coin that I know of that is putting privacy first, and for which the developers have some integrity, is Monero. Given the new partnership between the two developers in PrivacySolutions.no, if we went in this direction, this choice seems to be a no brainer.

The only other algorithm out there I have some respect for is Peercoin's proof-of-stake (though I would prefer a 100% proof-of-stake system...). A built in inflation of ~1% is something that we could probably live with. No one would get rich mining via POS, which is fine by me. Unfortunately, I don't think that POS will work once Zerocoin is implemented. POS would probably only work with ANC balances (which can be "staked"), and not with zerocoins that are in an anonymous escrow pool. I suspect that about a third of ANC will be locked up in zerocoins, which will limit the number of people mining via POS. It is possible that I am wrong, and that zerocoins could be staked like ANC, but this would probably require some important modifications to the original algorithm, and with zerocoin development going on, combined with the arrival of scrypt asics, I don't think that we will have the time to implement this.

Going with Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW would just be handing all the newly hashed coins over to botnet 'owners'.  Having a GPU friendly hashing algorithm helps to keep the botnets away to a larger extent.  Vertcoin is planning on changing to the Lyra2 hashing algorithm.  Which will be GPU friendly plus the Vertcoin core dev team are committed to do what it takes to avoid ASIC centralisation.  Also there's soon to be Feathercoin's new NeoScrypt algo which should also be GPU friendly.  Then there's Darkcoin's X11 hashing algo which is GPU biased as well.  There's three GPU friendly hashing algorithms.  Scrypt merged-mining with Litecoin would be the quickest and easiest solution for now to secure the network.  While the myriad could be added in later.

Peercoin is interesting in that it promotes the running of full nodes through staking.  Which in turn helps to avoid the dangers of the likes of Sybil attacks.  Although as stated Peercoin is of course inflationary in nature with no hard cap on the total amount of coins to be issued.

[1714053301]

1714053301

[1714053301]

1714053301

[lunokhod2]

This attack shows how using a myriad of AuXPoW chains could avoid this problem.  As by using a myriad of chains then the attacker would need to attack more than one chain.  While using AuxPoW with the biggest coin on each chain would greatly increase the network hashrate.  I think you should quickly adopt AuxPoW with litecoin how Dogecoin has just done so to help stop any potential future attacks.  Then the myriad with NeoScrypt Feathercoin merge-mining and Lyra2 Vertcoin merged-mining can brought in a later date.  Plus it may be worth including Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW with the myriad.  Plus possibly X11 Darkcoin merge-mining included in the Myriad.  To have a total of three to up to possibly five myriad chains all in AuxPoW with the biggest networked coin on each chain.  As with a myriad of five chains then an attacker would need to control three of the five AuxPoW chains to control the network.

Not being a miner, I am leaning towards Crytponight as my favorite proof-of-work algorithm. It is heavily CPU oriented, which will put off mining centralization for some time.

Perhaps there are similar cpu-oriented algorithms out there, but cryptonight addresses another important point: If we go toward merged mining in the future, which coin would we want to do this with? The only coin that I know of that is putting privacy first, and for which the developers have some integrity, is Monero. Given the new partnership between the two developers in PrivacySolutions.no, if we went in this direction, this choice seems to be a no brainer.

The only other algorithm out there I have some respect for is Peercoin's proof-of-stake (though I would prefer a 100% proof-of-stake system...). A built in inflation of ~1% is something that we could probably live with. No one would get rich mining via POS, which is fine by me. Unfortunately, I don't think that POS will work once Zerocoin is implemented. POS would probably only work with ANC balances (which can be "staked"), and not with zerocoins that are in an anonymous escrow pool. I suspect that about a third of ANC will be locked up in zerocoins, which will limit the number of people mining via POS. It is possible that I am wrong, and that zerocoins could be staked like ANC, but this would probably require some important modifications to the original algorithm, and with zerocoin development going on, combined with the arrival of scrypt asics, I don't think that we will have the time to implement this.

Going with Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW would just be handing all the newly hashed coins over to botnet 'owners'.  Having a GPU friendly hashing algorithm helps to keep the botnets away to a larger extent.  Vertcoin is planning on changing to the Lyra2 hashing algorithm.  Which will be GPU friendly plus the Vertcoin core dev team are committed to do what it takes to avoid ASIC centralisation.  Also there's soon to be Feathercoin's new NeoScrypt algo which should also be GPU friendly.  Then there's Darkcoin's X11 hashing algo which is GPU biased as well.  There's three GPU friendly hashing algorithms.  Scrypt merged-mining with Litecoin would be the quickest and easiest solution for now to secure the network.  While the myriad could be added in later.

Peercoin is interesting in that it promotes the running of full nodes through staking.  Which in turn helps to avoid the dangers of the likes of Sybil attacks.  Although as stated Peercoin is of course inflationary in nature with no hard cap on the total amount of coins to be issued.

Could you describe what the problem with botnets is? I am admitedly ignorant here, but from what I understand, this is not a big deal.

[shtako]

This attack shows how using a myriad of AuXPoW chains could avoid this problem.  As by using a myriad of chains then the attacker would need to attack more than one chain.  While using AuxPoW with the biggest coin on each chain would greatly increase the network hashrate.  I think you should quickly adopt AuxPoW with litecoin how Dogecoin has just done so to help stop any potential future attacks.  Then the myriad with NeoScrypt Feathercoin merge-mining and Lyra2 Vertcoin merged-mining can brought in a later date.  Plus it may be worth including Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW with the myriad.  Plus possibly X11 Darkcoin merge-mining included in the Myriad.  To have a total of three to up to possibly five myriad chains all in AuxPoW with the biggest networked coin on each chain.  As with a myriad of five chains then an attacker would need to control three of the five AuxPoW chains to control the network.

Not being a miner, I am leaning towards Crytponight as my favorite proof-of-work algorithm. It is heavily CPU oriented, which will put off mining centralization for some time.

Perhaps there are similar cpu-oriented algorithms out there, but cryptonight addresses another important point: If we go toward merged mining in the future, which coin would we want to do this with? The only coin that I know of that is putting privacy first, and for which the developers have some integrity, is Monero. Given the new partnership between the two developers in PrivacySolutions.no, if we went in this direction, this choice seems to be a no brainer.

The only other algorithm out there I have some respect for is Peercoin's proof-of-stake (though I would prefer a 100% proof-of-stake system...). A built in inflation of ~1% is something that we could probably live with. No one would get rich mining via POS, which is fine by me. Unfortunately, I don't think that POS will work once Zerocoin is implemented. POS would probably only work with ANC balances (which can be "staked"), and not with zerocoins that are in an anonymous escrow pool. I suspect that about a third of ANC will be locked up in zerocoins, which will limit the number of people mining via POS. It is possible that I am wrong, and that zerocoins could be staked like ANC, but this would probably require some important modifications to the original algorithm, and with zerocoin development going on, combined with the arrival of scrypt asics, I don't think that we will have the time to implement this.

Going with Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW would just be handing all the newly hashed coins over to botnet 'owners'.  Having a GPU friendly hashing algorithm helps to keep the botnets away to a larger extent.  Vertcoin is planning on changing to the Lyra2 hashing algorithm.  Which will be GPU friendly plus the Vertcoin core dev team are committed to do what it takes to avoid ASIC centralisation.  Also there's soon to be Feathercoin's new NeoScrypt algo which should also be GPU friendly.  Then there's Darkcoin's X11 hashing algo which is GPU biased as well.  There's three GPU friendly hashing algorithms.  Scrypt merged-mining with Litecoin would be the quickest and easiest solution for now to secure the network.  While the myriad could be added in later.

Peercoin is interesting in that it promotes the running of full nodes through staking.  Which in turn helps to avoid the dangers of the likes of Sybil attacks.  Although as stated Peercoin is of course inflationary in nature with no hard cap on the total amount of coins to be issued.

Could you describe what the problem with botnets is? I am admitedly ignorant here, but from what I understand, this is not a big deal.

Centralization. One entitiy in control of a huge portion of the hashrate. But as long as they don't have insentive to attack the network it will not be any problem. On the other side, botnets will dump the coins so you will get more supply on the exchanges then you might have had with a more desentralised network with more miners wanting to hold their coins.

[lunokhod2]

This attack shows how using a myriad of AuXPoW chains could avoid this problem.  As by using a myriad of chains then the attacker would need to attack more than one chain.  While using AuxPoW with the biggest coin on each chain would greatly increase the network hashrate.  I think you should quickly adopt AuxPoW with litecoin how Dogecoin has just done so to help stop any potential future attacks.  Then the myriad with NeoScrypt Feathercoin merge-mining and Lyra2 Vertcoin merged-mining can brought in a later date.  Plus it may be worth including Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW with the myriad.  Plus possibly X11 Darkcoin merge-mining included in the Myriad.  To have a total of three to up to possibly five myriad chains all in AuxPoW with the biggest networked coin on each chain.  As with a myriad of five chains then an attacker would need to control three of the five AuxPoW chains to control the network.

Not being a miner, I am leaning towards Crytponight as my favorite proof-of-work algorithm. It is heavily CPU oriented, which will put off mining centralization for some time.

Perhaps there are similar cpu-oriented algorithms out there, but cryptonight addresses another important point: If we go toward merged mining in the future, which coin would we want to do this with? The only coin that I know of that is putting privacy first, and for which the developers have some integrity, is Monero. Given the new partnership between the two developers in PrivacySolutions.no, if we went in this direction, this choice seems to be a no brainer.

The only other algorithm out there I have some respect for is Peercoin's proof-of-stake (though I would prefer a 100% proof-of-stake system...). A built in inflation of ~1% is something that we could probably live with. No one would get rich mining via POS, which is fine by me. Unfortunately, I don't think that POS will work once Zerocoin is implemented. POS would probably only work with ANC balances (which can be "staked"), and not with zerocoins that are in an anonymous escrow pool. I suspect that about a third of ANC will be locked up in zerocoins, which will limit the number of people mining via POS. It is possible that I am wrong, and that zerocoins could be staked like ANC, but this would probably require some important modifications to the original algorithm, and with zerocoin development going on, combined with the arrival of scrypt asics, I don't think that we will have the time to implement this.

Going with Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW would just be handing all the newly hashed coins over to botnet 'owners'.  Having a GPU friendly hashing algorithm helps to keep the botnets away to a larger extent.  Vertcoin is planning on changing to the Lyra2 hashing algorithm.  Which will be GPU friendly plus the Vertcoin core dev team are committed to do what it takes to avoid ASIC centralisation.  Also there's soon to be Feathercoin's new NeoScrypt algo which should also be GPU friendly.  Then there's Darkcoin's X11 hashing algo which is GPU biased as well.  There's three GPU friendly hashing algorithms.  Scrypt merged-mining with Litecoin would be the quickest and easiest solution for now to secure the network.  While the myriad could be added in later.

Peercoin is interesting in that it promotes the running of full nodes through staking.  Which in turn helps to avoid the dangers of the likes of Sybil attacks.  Although as stated Peercoin is of course inflationary in nature with no hard cap on the total amount of coins to be issued.

Could you describe what the problem with botnets is? I am admitedly ignorant here, but from what I understand, this is not a big deal.

Centralization. One entitiy in control of a huge portion of the hashrate. But as long as they don't have insentive to attack the network it will not be any problem. On the other side, botnets will dump the coins so you will get more supply on the exchanges then you might have had with a more desentralised network with more miners wanting to hold their coins.

So the problem is that the CPU power of the botnets would be comparable to the CPU power of all normal Anoncoin miners? A lot of miners dump their coins as well, so I don't know if that would really make much of a difference on the price.

[matthewh3]

Going with Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW would just be handing all the newly hashed coins over to botnet 'owners'.  

Could you describe what the problem with botnets is? I am admitedly ignorant here, but from what I understand, this is not a big deal.

If you look at Monero pools you'll see lots of miners with hashrates equivalent to 20,000 CPU cores and more and it wouldn't be profitable for people to buy or rent that many CPU cores.  So they're very likely using stolen processor cycles from infected computers that are controlled within a botnet.  Some large botnets can control the resources of up to a million infected computers without the legal owners of those computers even knowing.  These botnets get to use the spare CPU cycles and memory of the infected computers.  So adopting the cryptonight hashing algo would mean handing over the overwhelming majority of all newly hashed coins to a few small groups of criminals.  Going with a GPU biased hashing algo would give dedicated miners an advantage over the criminal owners of botnets.  Although if Anoncoin or the coins it merge-mines with within a myriad become very valuable.  Then botnets will still target GPU biased coins just that GPU miners will have an upper hand.  As even Bitcoin was still plagued by botnets in its GPU days at times.  The only way to truly avoid the botnet problem is to use ASIC's.  The only thing is though is that GPU's are more readily available to anyone who wishes to contribute to the network.  A lot of people and especially the cryptocoin types will already have GPU's that they can use to hash with.  While someone new to the game would find it a lot easier to buy or build a PC with a GPU fitted.  
PoW is supposed to be about fairly sharing the hashed coins to miners who help secure the network.  While the more individual miners a chain has then the more people who have a stake in that coins future.  So therefore more fanboys to help evangelise the benefits of the coins.  I'd suppose going ASIC would be fairer than going CPU only well at least it's stop criminals controlling the majority of the supply of all new coins.

[gostrol]

Going with Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW would just be handing all the newly hashed coins over to botnet 'owners'.  

Could you describe what the problem with botnets is? I am admitedly ignorant here, but from what I understand, this is not a big deal.

If you look at Monero pools you'll see lots of miners with hashrates equivalent to 20,000 CPU cores and more and it wouldn't be profitable for people to buy or rent that many CPU cores.  So they're very likely using stolen processor cycles from infected computers that are controlled within a botnet.  Some large botnets can control the resources of up to a million infected computers without the legal owners of those computers even knowing.  These botnets get to use the spare CPU cycles and memory of the infected computers.  So adopting the cryptonight hashing algo would mean handing over the overwhelming majority of all newly hashed coins to a few small groups of criminals.  Going with a GPU biased hashing algo would give dedicated miners an advantage over the criminal owners of botnets.  Although if Anoncoin or the coins it merge-mines with within a myriad become very valuable.  Then botnets will still target GPU biased coins just that GPU miners will have an upper hand.  As even Bitcoin was still plagued by botnets in its GPU days at times.  The only way to truly avoid the botnet problem is to use ASIC's.  The only thing is though is that GPU's are more readily available to anyone who wishes to contribute to the network.  A lot of people and especially the cryptocoin types will already have GPU's that they can use to hash with.  While someone new to the game would find it a lot easier to buy or build a PC with a GPU fitted.  
PoW is supposed to be about fairly sharing the hashed coins to miners who help secure the network.  While the more individual miners a chain has then the more people who have a stake in that coins future.  So therefore more fanboys to help evangelise the benefits of the coins.  I'd suppose going ASIC would be fairer than going CPU only well at least it's stop criminals controlling the majority of the supply of all new coins.

Every type of algo has it flaw. What is nice with the myriad is the possibility to include five different algos so the inherent flaws somehow equilibrate.

I think we shall go to one ASIC oriented algo (scrypt), two or three GPU aimed algo such as Lyra2 and Myr Groestl for instance and finally one or two CPU aimed algo such as cryptonight or prime-constellation (http://riecoin.org/faq.html#pow). Five algo is good with 1 pro-ASIC, 2 pro-GPU, 2 pro-CPU.

Also Cuckoo cycle looks interesting for a CPU algo too https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=707879.0

If cuckoo was ready seven algo could even be possible in the myriad: one ASIC (scrypt), three GPU (Lyra2, Myr Groestl, Skein...), three CPU (cryptonight, prime-constellation, cuckoo)... network will be very resistant also meeh like the number 7

I would not put a multi-algo algorithm such as X11 or quark. For once because it is more heavy verification time-wise, second it does not bring anything new over single-POW algorithm (in contrast to a myriad like implementation ofc), third one of the algo can be flawed and the POW will be too, fourth as the miner in public domain are not optimized there are big player that can use custom miner to have more benefit, fifth there are FPGA raping X11 right now, sixth it was made by Eduffield and remind of darkshit.

BTW look what an optimised miner could do to unsuspecting miner using the non-optimized one http://da-data.blogspot.de/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html. I never understood why people prefer to use un-optimized miner thinking it economize their energy bill, this is retarded.

1% POS maybe, I am not sure, but no more. Indeed i am afraid it will incentive people to keep coin in ANC instead of in ZC, reducing anonimity set. This one has to be thought about if it is really needed or if the myriad is enough for network security. I would prefer a pure POW if possible.

CPU-only as to now: http://cpucoinlist.com/cryptocurrency-algorithms/

With the myriad the network will not be down for days anymore even if one of the algo is undergoing an attack

[dewdeded]

If you look at Monero pools you'll see lots of miners with hashrates equivalent to 20,000 CPU cores and more and it wouldn't be profitable for people to buy or rent that many CPU cores.

Can you please show two or three example, where this could/was be seen?

And please define "lots" so we understand, what you mean.

[Gnosis-]

I have some good news: I will be working on Zerocoin full time at least until October 1, and possibly after. Since I started this, I have been working on ZC part time, which meant very slow progress. Also, I underestimated the size of the project, so deadlines got pushed back. Estimating the time to finish a software project is hard in any case, so that partly explains the uncertainty.  I am reluctant to give another deadline, but I know you all are clamoring for trustless anonymous money, so in 2 weeks, I'll give an accurate estimate of when I'm done. I will also give regular updates on my progress (every few days or so). One thing is for certain: this will go much faster now!

Also, we have experienced some blockchain "turbulence" recently. I am working with Meeh and K1773R to address this and make sure that blocks come in regularly and that the network is more resistent to all sorts of attacks.

Lastly, I wanted to give an update on the UFO project: it is ongoing and will finish on September 15, when ANC rewards will be issued and the server source will be published to our Github. The largest factor found so far is 143551628346878317311308640667091515671003679, which is 45 digits (147 bits).  For some perspective, the world record for factors found using this method is 78 digits (though for all we know, the NSA/GCHQ/$spook_agency have factored larger ones...). I'd like to thank all the participants for contributing their CPU core-months (core-years, in some cases) to this project -- this effort was essential for creating a trustless Zerocoin implementation using RSA UFOs.

[matthewh3]

If you look at Monero pools you'll see lots of miners with hashrates equivalent to 20,000 CPU cores and more and it wouldn't be profitable for people to buy or rent that many CPU cores.

Can you please show two or three example, where this could/was be seen?

And please define "lots" so we understand, what you mean.

Check the stats of large Monero pools like this releativelly small Monero pool for example - https://minergate.com - One user with almost 70kH/s and ten users all above 6kH/s.  While large botnets don't even need to use pools as they can solo mine on each node in the botnet while the sum of their work would be enough to solo mine easily.  As ten-thousand nodes hashing at 10H/s (say on a CPU's that could max 100H/s on average if dedicated) will find the same amount of blocks as one node hashing at 100kH/s.

[matthewh3]

Every type of algo has it flaw. What is nice with the myriad is the possibility to include five different algos so the inherent flaws somehow equilibrate.

I think we shall go to one ASIC oriented algo (scrypt), two or three GPU aimed algo such as Lyra2 and Myr Groestl for instance and finally one or two CPU aimed algo such as cryptonight or prime-constellation (http://riecoin.org/faq.html#pow). Five algo is good with 1 pro-ASIC, 2 pro-GPU, 2 pro-CPU.

Also Cuckoo cycle looks interesting for a CPU algo too https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=707879.0

If cuckoo was ready seven algo could even be possible in the myriad: one ASIC (scrypt), three GPU (Lyra2, Myr Groestl, Skein...), three CPU (cryptonight, prime-constellation, cuckoo)... network will be very resistant also meeh like the number 7

I would not put a multi-algo algorithm such as X11 or quark. For once because it is more heavy verification time-wise, second it does not bring anything new over single-POW algorithm (in contrast to a myriad like implementation ofc), third one of the algo can be flawed and the POW will be too, fourth as the miner in public domain are not optimized there are big player that can use custom miner to have more benefit, fifth there are FPGA raping X11 right now, sixth it was made by Eduffield and remind of darkshit.

BTW look what an optimised miner could do to unsuspecting miner using the non-optimized one http://da-data.blogspot.de/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html. I never understood why people prefer to use un-optimized miner thinking it economize their energy bill, this is retarded.

1% POS maybe, I am not sure, but no more. Indeed i am afraid it will incentive people to keep coin in ANC instead of in ZC, reducing anonimity set. This one has to be thought about if it is really needed or if the myriad is enough for network security. I would prefer a pure POW if possible.

CPU-only as to now: http://cpucoinlist.com/cryptocurrency-algorithms/

With the myriad the network will not be down for days anymore even if one of the algo is undergoing an attack

If the coin was to go for a myriad of seven chains then I would prefer two ASIC chains.  With both SHA256 and Scrypt then three GPU chains NeoScrypt, Lyra2 and Myr Groestle or Skein (which ever had a larger networked coin to AuXPoW with).  Then two CPU chains of Cryptonight (Monero) and Primecoin.  An attacker would then need to control four of the AuXPoW chains to cause major problems.

Edit:  Although seven AuxPoW chains may spread new coin distribution too thin on the ground?  In hindsight a myriad of the three AuXPoW chains of Lyra2 (Vertcoin), NeoScrypt (Feathercoin) and either Myr Groestle or Skein (which ever had a larger networked coin to AuXPoW with) is my favorite option.  Although moving over to AuxPoW with Litecoin is probably the quickest and easiest solution for now.  Then possibly just Lyra2 (Vertcoin) and NeoScrypt (Feathercoin) AuXPoW can be added to make a myriad.  As not taking into account X11 then those two networks are probably the largest GPU biased networks.  So more network strength would be gained with the AuxPoW.

[matthewh3]

Zerocoin update!

Hello all, I am Gnosis, the new member of the Anoncoin team; I will be implementing Zerocoin in Anoncoin.  Since an interested party has chosen to support this development financially, I will be able spend a lot more of my time on this.  Expect a release for testing Zerocoin sometime in March!

This will be March 2015?

Several coins a week now are mentioning zerocoin in their pages. Is there anything better about your zerocoin?

And why are Anoncoin devs selling cryptonote? Cryptonote will appeal to approximately 0% of people. It is a deeply flawed and poorly conceived algorithm. Nobody needs or wants the type of secrecy cryptonote pushes and a currency without users, what use is it? All of the cryptonote markets are being artificially inflated. What is wrong with anc?

The ring-signatures technique of Cryptonote coins currently offers the best transaction anonymity available.  While the Zerocoin protocol should potentially offer even stronger anonymity they do say "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".  Also these multiple other Zerocoin attempts are they following Anoncoin's lead with the zero proof of knowledge technique.  Or have they not got to that stage yet and just plan on ripping Anoncoin developments straight off like a script.

[Apraksin]

  Also these multiple other Zerocoin attempts are they following Anoncoin's lead with the zero proof of knowledge technique.  Or have they not got to that stage yet and just plan on ripping Anoncoin developments straight off like a script.

Which makes me think perhaps it would be best to not post developments on github before the definite release of zerocoin, seeing as a lot of moochers will be ready to copy paste the goods.

[gostrol]

Zerocoin update!

Hello all, I am Gnosis, the new member of the Anoncoin team; I will be implementing Zerocoin in Anoncoin.  Since an interested party has chosen to support this development financially, I will be able spend a lot more of my time on this.  Expect a release for testing Zerocoin sometime in March!

This will be March 2015?

Several coins a week now are mentioning zerocoin in their pages. Is there anything better about your zerocoin?

And why are Anoncoin devs selling cryptonote? Cryptonote will appeal to approximately 0% of people. It is a deeply flawed and poorly conceived algorithm. Nobody needs or wants the type of secrecy cryptonote pushes and a currency without users, what use is it? All of the cryptonote markets are being artificially inflated. What is wrong with anc?

We are not selling cryptonote, we are just thinking of AUx-POW with the cryptonight algorithm.

Personally I think cryptonote lack anonymity, better than coinjoin (or dark send) but much inferior to a trustless zerocoin.

[gostrol]

 Also these multiple other Zerocoin attempts are they following Anoncoin's lead with the zero proof of knowledge technique.  Or have they not got to that stage yet and just plan on ripping Anoncoin developments straight off like a script.

Which makes me think perhaps it would be best to not post developments on github before the definite release of zerocoin, seeing as a lot of moochers will be ready to copy paste the goods.

They will need to compute the trustless RSA-UFO first... no intelligent people would accept a zerocoin with a non-UFO straight RSA number calculated by p*q.

BTW for those who needs it here is a list of fresh clearnet nodes replace in anoncoin.conf:

Code:

i2p=0
stfu=1
rpcuser=***username***
rpcpassword=***strong password***
server=1
rpcallowip=127.0.0.1
rpcport=7882
daemon=1
gen=0
maxconnections=100
blockminsize=0
blockmaxsize=1000000
blockprioritysize=1000000
addnode=107.6.122.154
addnode=108.67.53.51
addnode=114.215.168.227
addnode=117.214.71.195
addnode=118.192.77.132
addnode=134.249.144.169
addnode=141.0.73.226
addnode=142.254.24.226
addnode=144.76.166.163
addnode=148.251.19.213
addnode=162.243.149.125
addnode=162.243.227.221
addnode=162.243.239.186
addnode=162.243.57.246
addnode=162.252.242.123
addnode=173.76.153.185
addnode=182.92.183.58
addnode=182.92.183.58:
addnode=182.92.184.107
addnode=186.241.159.184
addnode=188.165.2.147
addnode=188.226.235.34
addnode=189.114.250.219
addnode=192.150.121.63
addnode=192.150.121.66
addnode=192.99.13.126
addnode=192.99.18.63
addnode=192.99.19.24
addnode=192.99.241.164
addnode=192.99.36.200
addnode=193.150.121.24
addnode=193.150.121.28
addnode=193.150.121.37
addnode=193.150.121.66
addnode=193.150.121.69
addnode=198.199.81.74
addnode=198.245.62.191
addnode=198.50.132.84
addnode=198.50.132.98
addnode=198.50.221.150
addnode=198.50.242.32
addnode=198.50.242.33
addnode=198.58.126.7
addnode=209.188.7.222
addnode=209.191.162.24
addnode=211.149.175.37
addnode=212.21.68.55
addnode=216.158.85.123
addnode=23.92.218.130
addnode=27.96.51.14
addnode=37.187.134.204
addnode=37.187.144.36
addnode=37.187.9.53
addnode=37.59.52.171
addnode=46.229.173.230
addnode=46.9.190.169
addnode=54.201.183.106
addnode=54.210.120.31
addnode=67.209.191.4
addnode=69.147.229.226
addnode=69.64.50.226
addnode=71.222.116.8
addnode=72.78.100.3
addnode=74.208.97.13
addnode=74.65.163.191
addnode=75.84.2.151
addnode=76.164.203.26
addnode=76.217.13.84
addnode=76.88.99.124
addnode=80.100.203.169
addnode=80.223.90.146
addnode=84.19.184.96
addnode=85.11.15.92
addnode=86.120.215.146
addnode=86.126.15.165
addnode=86.18.76.197
addnode=91.178.75.205
addnode=91.205.172.223
addnode=94.23.235.201
addnode=95.31.22.195
addnode=95.34.80.172
addnode=95.37.93.38

[lunokhod2]

If you look at Monero pools you'll see lots of miners with hashrates equivalent to 20,000 CPU cores and more and it wouldn't be profitable for people to buy or rent that many CPU cores.

Can you please show two or three example, where this could/was be seen?

And please define "lots" so we understand, what you mean.

Check the stats of large Monero pools like this releativelly small Monero pool for example - https://minergate.com - One user with almost 70kH/s and ten users all above 6kH/s.  While large botnets don't even need to use pools as they can solo mine on each node in the botnet while the sum of their work would be enough to solo mine easily.  As ten-thousand nodes hashing at 10H/s (say on a CPU's that could max 100H/s on average if dedicated) will find the same amount of blocks as one node hashing at 100kH/s.

What is your best estimate for the percentage of work being done by botnets over at Monero?

It sounds like there is potentially ~140 kH/s at minergate. Lets multiply that by 10 to account for other pools and solo miners, which gives about 1.4 MH/s. The network hash rate is about 26 MH/s, so this comes out to about 5% of the total work being done.

Anything that is less than 10% wouldn't bother me at all. Given that there are probably several independent botnets operating, my guess is that Monero is probably very decentralized. In the worst case, you might be able to make the argument that botnets are about as "evil" as asics (in terms of centralization).

[Simcom]

Going with Cryptonight Monero AuxPoW would just be handing all the newly hashed coins over to botnet 'owners'.  

Could you describe what the problem with botnets is? I am admitedly ignorant here, but from what I understand, this is not a big deal.

If you look at Monero pools you'll see lots of miners with hashrates equivalent to 20,000 CPU cores and more and it wouldn't be profitable for people to buy or rent that many CPU cores.  So they're very likely using stolen processor cycles from infected computers that are controlled within a botnet.  Some large botnets can control the resources of up to a million infected computers without the legal owners of those computers even knowing.  These botnets get to use the spare CPU cycles and memory of the infected computers.  So adopting the cryptonight hashing algo would mean handing over the overwhelming majority of all newly hashed coins to a few small groups of criminals.  Going with a GPU biased hashing algo would give dedicated miners an advantage over the criminal owners of botnets.  Although if Anoncoin or the coins it merge-mines with within a myriad become very valuable.  Then botnets will still target GPU biased coins just that GPU miners will have an upper hand.  As even Bitcoin was still plagued by botnets in its GPU days at times.  The only way to truly avoid the botnet problem is to use ASIC's.  The only thing is though is that GPU's are more readily available to anyone who wishes to contribute to the network.  A lot of people and especially the cryptocoin types will already have GPU's that they can use to hash with.  While someone new to the game would find it a lot easier to buy or build a PC with a GPU fitted.  
PoW is supposed to be about fairly sharing the hashed coins to miners who help secure the network.  While the more individual miners a chain has then the more people who have a stake in that coins future.  So therefore more fanboys to help evangelise the benefits of the coins.  I'd suppose going ASIC would be fairer than going CPU only well at least it's stop criminals controlling the majority of the supply of all new coins.

Hi Matt, Cryptonight can be GPU mined - do a google search for "Claymore GPU miner" - I have been mining XMR for a few months with this miner and it works wonderfully (it is about 10-20x faster to GPU mine xmr vs cpu mining it (Per GPU) - this is probably why you see some miners with a really high hashrate.

[Simcom]

I have been out of the loop recently, is there a new estimated time frame for ZC implementation?  I noticed the nice fat buy walls going up on cryptsy and was hoping to hear some good news on here

[TheKoziTwo]

I have been out of the loop recently, is there a new estimated time frame for ZC implementation?  I noticed the nice fat buy walls going up on cryptsy and was hoping to hear some good news on here

In two weeks™ an estimate of when zerocoin impl. will be finished will be given.

[shtako]

There have never been so many shill accounts and sockpuppets posting in this thread before as there is now. That only means that there are bagholders with shitcoins who views anoncoin as a serious threath. Rightfully so. As an advice to those clowns: even if you have lost 50-75% of your investment buying darkscam, vootscam, bytescam, cloakscam etc, its not to late to dump the rest and buy anc. 

[Apraksin]

This place was so much better when the new accounts had to spend some time in
the beginners section before they got to hang with the grownups.