Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history)

[mullick]

Anoncoin Mining

Guys do you know good cloud mining services on which I can get some mining power on the Anoncoin network?
Remember this is scrypt.

Mintsy will offer this soon

https://mintsy.co

dont fall for cloud mining services, they are all scam and ripoff. no wonder craptsy now offer such a service too... its getting pathetic.

Yesterday , we had cryptsy developer in this forum. Please communicate with him to solve the cryptsy issue.

I agree fixing this issue with anc should be a priority. Nothing else needs to be done on cryptsys end. The issue seems to be getting sidelined.... Ill continue to merge inputs to reduce tx sizes until they get it resolved

[1714835043]

1714835043

[1714835043]

1714835043

[1714835043]

1714835043

[1714835043]

1714835043

[1714835043]

1714835043

[1714835043]

1714835043

[Simcom]

Anoncoin Mining

Guys do you know good cloud mining services on which I can get some mining power on the Anoncoin network?
Remember this is scrypt.

Mintsy will offer this soon

https://mintsy.co

dont fall for cloud mining services, they are all scam and ripoff. no wonder craptsy now offer such a service too... its getting pathetic.

Yesterday , we had cryptsy developer in this forum. Please communicate with him to solve the cryptsy issue.

I agree fixing this issue with anc should be a priority. Nothing else needs to be done on cryptsys end. The issue seems to be getting sidelined.... Ill continue to merge inputs to reduce tx sizes until they get it resolved

We still don't really know what's going on right?  Transactions are not being incorporated into blocks for some unknown reason?  Are you sure it's related to transaction size?  If so what is the largest txn you can make before it becomes an issue?

[LucyLovesCrypto]

Thank you for merging inputs.

Over what transaction size is there an issue? Is the size (in terms of # of ANC involved) at all relevant for the deposits or withdrawals getting stuck? Or is it purely a matter of transaction size?

Anoncoin Mining

Guys do you know good cloud mining services on which I can get some mining power on the Anoncoin network?
Remember this is scrypt.

Mintsy will offer this soon

https://mintsy.co

dont fall for cloud mining services, they are all scam and ripoff. no wonder craptsy now offer such a service too... its getting pathetic.

Yesterday , we had cryptsy developer in this forum. Please communicate with him to solve the cryptsy issue.

I agree fixing this issue with anc should be a priority. Nothing else needs to be done on cryptsys end. The issue seems to be getting sidelined.... Ill continue to merge inputs to reduce tx sizes until they get it resolved

[AnonCoinTwitter]

I think it is fine to ask technical questions in this forum. However please be respectful of others whenever possible.

New potential investors will read this page (especially as we approach Zerocoin launch) and we want to give the best possible impression.

Many questions can already be answered by the Wiki page:
https://wiki.anoncoin.net/Anoncoin_Wiki

[Gnosis-]

Anoncoin Mining

Guys do you know good cloud mining services on which I can get some mining power on the Anoncoin network?
Remember this is scrypt.

Mintsy will offer this soon

https://mintsy.co

dont fall for cloud mining services, they are all scam and ripoff. no wonder craptsy now offer such a service too... its getting pathetic.

Yesterday , we had cryptsy developer in this forum. Please communicate with him to solve the cryptsy issue.

I agree fixing this issue with anc should be a priority. Nothing else needs to be done on cryptsys end. The issue seems to be getting sidelined.... Ill continue to merge inputs to reduce tx sizes until they get it resolved

Hi, it looks like none of us replied to you yet. Sorry about that.

So the problem is that some Cryptsy transactions are not being relayed, but they are valid if in a block, correct?

I can look at the transaction relaying logic in the Anoncoin code to see what exactly is responsible for this. Could you please give me a transaction that is relayed and a transaction that is not relayed (both hex-encoded)?

[GroundRod]

@Gnosis - wow quick response & sounded to me, like the right place to look too.

@AnonCoinTwitter - Ya agree, it's just difficult when more than 1/2 the posts are from those whom wish the project to fail.

[Gnosis-]

Recently, I received 250 ANC from yoyo and a matching 250 ANC from TheKoziTwo, so this lets me work full time through October 18.  Since I am scheduled to start the testnet with Zerocoin on October 15 at the latest, this means I can work full time until the testnet launch and for 3 days after, to fix any problems that may appear. Thanks!!!

Anyway, I just wanted to clear up some confusion here about the RSA UFOs: users will be able to know that I do not have the complete factorization because the UFOs were produced by hashing with a cryptographically secure hash function (SHA-256, which is used everywhere in Bitcoin, Litecoin, Anoncoin, etc.). Small factors were found and removed in the UFO project. So the procedure to generate the complete RSA UFOs is 1) create the 13 "raw" UFOs by hashing, and 2) divide out the small factors found in the UFO project. This is performed not only by the UFO clients and server, but also will be performed on startup by all Anoncoin wallet software. The code is already there to do this.

Also, there is not one UFO, but 13 UFOs; to be valid, a coin must be accumulated in all of them. Using Monte Carlo simulations, I have found that there is a ~20% chance that any one of them can be factored by an extremely powerful attacker. This means that the probability of all 13 UFOs being factored by an extremely powerful attacker is about 1 in a billion -- and note that it would take factoring all of them to be able to forge zerocoins. My definition of "extremely powerful attacker" is one that can remove factors by the Elliptic Curve Method (ECM) up to 768 bits and can factor numbers up to 2048 bits using the Generalized Number Field Sieve (GNFS). This is far beyond what anybody is likely to be able to do for many decades.

[alincoln]

Recently, I received 250 ANC from yoyo and a matching 250 ANC from TheKoziTwo, so this lets me work full time through October 18.  Since I am scheduled to start the testnet with Zerocoin on October 15 at the latest, this means I can work full time until the testnet launch and for 3 days after, to fix any problems that may appear. Thanks!!!

Anyway, I just wanted to clear up some confusion here about the RSA UFOs: users will be able to know that I do not have the complete factorization because the UFOs were produced by hashing with a cryptographically secure hash function (SHA-256, which is used everywhere in Bitcoin, Litecoin, Anoncoin, etc.). Small factors were found and removed in the UFO project. So the procedure to generate the complete RSA UFOs is 1) create the 13 "raw" UFOs by hashing, and 2) divide out the small factors found in the UFO project. This is performed not only by the UFO clients and server, but also will be performed on startup by all Anoncoin wallet software. The code is already there to do this.

Also, there is not one UFO, but 13 UFOs; to be valid, a coin must be accumulated in all of them. Using Monte Carlo simulations, I have found that there is a ~20% chance that any one of them can be factored by an extremely powerful attacker. This means that the probability of all 13 UFOs being factored by an extremely powerful attacker is about 1 in a billion -- and note that it would take factoring all of them to be able to forge zerocoins. My definition of "extremely powerful attacker" is one that can remove factors by the Elliptic Curve Method (ECM) up to 768 bits and can factor numbers up to 2048 bits using the Generalized Number Field Sieve (GNFS). This is far beyond what anybody is likely to be able to do for many decades.

Can you ellaborate how you concluded the chance of factorization of a single UFO by an extremely powerful attacker is ~20%? To me a probability only makes sense if you take the variable time into account. How can a powerful attacker have a ~20% chance of factorization spending either 1 day or 1 year of computing power trying to factorize the number?

[Simcom]

Recently, I received 250 ANC from yoyo and a matching 250 ANC from TheKoziTwo, so this lets me work full time through October 18.  Since I am scheduled to start the testnet with Zerocoin on October 15 at the latest, this means I can work full time until the testnet launch and for 3 days after, to fix any problems that may appear. Thanks!!!

Anyway, I just wanted to clear up some confusion here about the RSA UFOs: users will be able to know that I do not have the complete factorization because the UFOs were produced by hashing with a cryptographically secure hash function (SHA-256, which is used everywhere in Bitcoin, Litecoin, Anoncoin, etc.). Small factors were found and removed in the UFO project. So the procedure to generate the complete RSA UFOs is 1) create the 13 "raw" UFOs by hashing, and 2) divide out the small factors found in the UFO project. This is performed not only by the UFO clients and server, but also will be performed on startup by all Anoncoin wallet software. The code is already there to do this.

Also, there is not one UFO, but 13 UFOs; to be valid, a coin must be accumulated in all of them. Using Monte Carlo simulations, I have found that there is a ~20% chance that any one of them can be factored by an extremely powerful attacker. This means that the probability of all 13 UFOs being factored by an extremely powerful attacker is about 1 in a billion -- and note that it would take factoring all of them to be able to forge zerocoins. My definition of "extremely powerful attacker" is one that can remove factors by the Elliptic Curve Method (ECM) up to 768 bits and can factor numbers up to 2048 bits using the Generalized Number Field Sieve (GNFS). This is far beyond what anybody is likely to be able to do for many decades.

If in 10 years we are worried about someone breaking the all of the UFOs is it possible to upgrade the ZC implementation to use a new larger set of UFOs?

[Gnosis-]

Can you ellaborate how you concluded the chance of factorization of a single UFO by an extremely powerful attacker is ~20%? To me a probability only makes sense if you take the variable time into account. How can a powerful attacker have a ~20% chance of factorization spending either 1 day or 1 year of computing power trying to factorize the number?

Okay, you're right. Pick any timespan you want, say, one year. A powerful attacker would be one that can find factors by ECM up to 768 bits and factor numbers up to 2048 bits by GNFS in one year. Such an attacker would then have a ~20% chance of factoring any one of those UFOs in that timespan. Assuming the capacity does not change, in 13 years, the attacker would have had a 1 in a billion chance of factoring all of them, because the attacker would have had enough time to be able to try all 13 in that time. Does that make sense?

Again, I should point out that this attacker would be far beyond what even the NSA is likely to be able to do for decades.

If in 10 years we are worried about someone breaking the all of the UFOs is it possible to upgrade the ZC implementation to use a new larger set of UFOs?

Yes, with a software upgrade (a hard fork). The new software would require that all newly minted zerocoins use the new UFO set. We give everyone, say, a one year deadline to mint all zerocoins in the old UFO set back into ANC (obviously it should be announced repeatedly, in as many places online as possible), and after that year, zerocoins can only be spent from the new UFO set.

[flagshipbtc]

Can you ellaborate how you concluded the chance of factorization of a single UFO by an extremely powerful attacker is ~20%? To me a probability only makes sense if you take the variable time into account. How can a powerful attacker have a ~20% chance of factorization spending either 1 day or 1 year of computing power trying to factorize the number?

Okay, you're right. Pick any timespan you want, say, one year. A powerful attacker would be one that can find factors by ECM up to 768 bits and factor numbers up to 2048 bits by GNFS in one year. Such an attacker would then have a ~20% chance of factoring any one of those UFOs in that timespan. Assuming the capacity does not change, in 13 years, the attacker would have had a 1 in a billion chance of factoring all of them, because the attacker would have had enough time to be able to try all 13 in that time. Does that make sense?

Again, I should point out that this attacker would be far beyond what even the NSA is likely to be able to do for decades.

If in 10 years we are worried about someone breaking the all of the UFOs is it possible to upgrade the ZC implementation to use a new larger set of UFOs?

Yes, with a software upgrade (a hard fork). The new software would require that all newly minted zerocoins use the new UFO set. We give everyone, say, a one year deadline to mint all zerocoins in the old UFO set back into ANC (obviously it should be announced repeatedly, in as many places online as possible), and after that year, zerocoins can only be spent from the new UFO set.

Was going to stay out of this bickering but something is definitely rotten here.

A lot of anonymous coins are coming out.
Most of the newer ones are both 'trustless' and do not involve introducing new variables that could serve as back doors.

So many people here are trying to force others to trust Anoncoin and Zerocoin. I do not trust it. I do not trust the pushy people trying to confuse others with big words. It looks like a tag team wrestling show. A lot of fake arguments to sell tickets.

Some expert needs to look into this and find out what is going on. And by expert I don't mean the bs experts on this thread.

[robinson5]

Recently, I received 250 ANC from yoyo and a matching 250 ANC from TheKoziTwo, so this lets me work full time through October 18.  Since I am scheduled to start the testnet with Zerocoin on October 15 at the latest, this means I can work full time until the testnet launch and for 3 days after, to fix any problems that may appear. Thanks!!!

Anyway, I just wanted to clear up some confusion here about the RSA UFOs: users will be able to know that I do not have the complete factorization because the UFOs were produced by hashing with a cryptographically secure hash function (SHA-256, which is used everywhere in Bitcoin, Litecoin, Anoncoin, etc.). Small factors were found and removed in the UFO project. So the procedure to generate the complete RSA UFOs is 1) create the 13 "raw" UFOs by hashing, and 2) divide out the small factors found in the UFO project. This is performed not only by the UFO clients and server, but also will be performed on startup by all Anoncoin wallet software. The code is already there to do this.

Also, there is not one UFO, but 13 UFOs; to be valid, a coin must be accumulated in all of them. Using Monte Carlo simulations, I have found that there is a ~20% chance that any one of them can be factored by an extremely powerful attacker. This means that the probability of all 13 UFOs being factored by an extremely powerful attacker is about 1 in a billion -- and note that it would take factoring all of them to be able to forge zerocoins. My definition of "extremely powerful attacker" is one that can remove factors by the Elliptic Curve Method (ECM) up to 768 bits and can factor numbers up to 2048 bits using the Generalized Number Field Sieve (GNFS). This is far beyond what anybody is likely to be able to do for many decades.

Thanks for clearing all that up!

[Simcom]

I do not trust it. I do not trust the pushy people trying to confuse others with big words. It looks like a tag team wrestling show. A lot of fake arguments to sell tickets.

Some expert needs to look into this and find out what is going on. And by expert I don't mean the bs experts on this thread.

Oh god, another day-old trolling account.  :/

[sorrros]

Was going to stay out of this bickering but something is definitely rotten here.

A lot of anonymous coins are coming out.
Most of the newer ones are both 'trustless' and do not involve introducing new variables that could serve as back doors.

So many people here are trying to force others to trust Anoncoin and Zerocoin. I do not trust it. I do not trust the pushy people trying to confuse others with big words. It looks like a tag team wrestling show. A lot of fake arguments to sell tickets.

Some expert needs to look into this and find out what is going on. And by expert I don't mean the bs experts on this thread.

Great, it seems you already know where not to invest; it's half the problem solved.
Now you only need to figure out what anonymous coin is right for you. Feel free to PM me for a 101 introduction and some investment tips; i can help you !

[niteglider]

Can you ellaborate how you concluded the chance of factorization of a single UFO by an extremely powerful attacker is ~20%? To me a probability only makes sense if you take the variable time into account. How can a powerful attacker have a ~20% chance of factorization spending either 1 day or 1 year of computing power trying to factorize the number?

Okay, you're right. Pick any timespan you want, say, one year. A powerful attacker would be one that can find factors by ECM up to 768 bits and factor numbers up to 2048 bits by GNFS in one year. Such an attacker would then have a ~20% chance of factoring any one of those UFOs in that timespan. Assuming the capacity does not change, in 13 years, the attacker would have had a 1 in a billion chance of factoring all of them, because the attacker would have had enough time to be able to try all 13 in that time. Does that make sense?

Again, I should point out that this attacker would be far beyond what even the NSA is likely to be able to do for decades.

If in 10 years we are worried about someone breaking the all of the UFOs is it possible to upgrade the ZC implementation to use a new larger set of UFOs?

Yes, with a software upgrade (a hard fork). The new software would require that all newly minted zerocoins use the new UFO set. We give everyone, say, a one year deadline to mint all zerocoins in the old UFO set back into ANC (obviously it should be announced repeatedly, in as many places online as possible), and after that year, zerocoins can only be spent from the new UFO set.

Was going to stay out of this bickering but something is definitely rotten here.

A lot of anonymous coins are coming out.
Most of the newer ones are both 'trustless' and do not involve introducing new variables that could serve as back doors.

So many people here are trying to force others to trust Anoncoin and Zerocoin. I do not trust it. I do not trust the pushy people trying to confuse others with big words. It looks like a tag team wrestling show. A lot of fake arguments to sell tickets.

Some expert needs to look into this and find out what is going on. And by expert I don't mean the bs experts on this thread.

Welcome to the forum.... if you are genuinely interested and not like some others who are new here.

Actually the opposite is true.  Shrill posters are attempting to force us to not trust in ANC/ZC in spite of the fact that they are not reading the readily available info, and in spite of contradicting themselves while searching for potential weak points to exploit in what seem to be childishly repetitive arguments.

Mostly we have let them harp on the points they have chosen, until the have enough rope to hang themselves, and then we show how they are wrong/misinformed/lying.

Most of us here who have been posting for a year or more have read what's out there... many have contributed in fact, as they are able. 

The trolls therefore seem to be focused on the new arrivals and those with casual interest in ANC.  First they argued against holding the posting of code until ZC is live on the main net; then they tried to harp on the missed deadlines; they have attacked devs directly; now they are trying to exploit a slightly complicated implementing of the method of blind encryption the devs have chosen to create the anonymous mixing of coins.

Stick around all who are interested.  All will be made clear very soon, and then all the fakes and fakers will be forced to sit down and shut up.  Personally, I'm looking forward to that.

[varun555]

Can you ellaborate how you concluded the chance of factorization of a single UFO by an extremely powerful attacker is ~20%? To me a probability only makes sense if you take the variable time into account. How can a powerful attacker have a ~20% chance of factorization spending either 1 day or 1 year of computing power trying to factorize the number?

Okay, you're right. Pick any timespan you want, say, one year. A powerful attacker would be one that can find factors by ECM up to 768 bits and factor numbers up to 2048 bits by GNFS in one year. Such an attacker would then have a ~20% chance of factoring any one of those UFOs in that timespan. Assuming the capacity does not change, in 13 years, the attacker would have had a 1 in a billion chance of factoring all of them, because the attacker would have had enough time to be able to try all 13 in that time. Does that make sense?

Again, I should point out that this attacker would be far beyond what even the NSA is likely to be able to do for decades.

If in 10 years we are worried about someone breaking the all of the UFOs is it possible to upgrade the ZC implementation to use a new larger set of UFOs?

Yes, with a software upgrade (a hard fork). The new software would require that all newly minted zerocoins use the new UFO set. We give everyone, say, a one year deadline to mint all zerocoins in the old UFO set back into ANC (obviously it should be announced repeatedly, in as many places online as possible), and after that year, zerocoins can only be spent from the new UFO set.

Was going to stay out of this bickering but something is definitely rotten here.

A lot of anonymous coins are coming out.
Most of the newer ones are both 'trustless' and do not involve introducing new variables that could serve as back doors.

So many people here are trying to force others to trust Anoncoin and Zerocoin. I do not trust it. I do not trust the pushy people trying to confuse others with big words. It looks like a tag team wrestling show. A lot of fake arguments to sell tickets.

Some expert needs to look into this and find out what is going on. And by expert I don't mean the bs experts on this thread.

Welcome to the forum.... if you are genuinely interested and not like some others who are new here.

Actually the opposite is true.  Shrill posters are attempting to force us to not trust in ANC/ZC in spite of the fact that they are not reading the readily available info, and in spite of contradicting themselves while searching for potential weak points to exploit in what seem to be childishly repetitive arguments.

Mostly we have let them harp on the points they have chosen, until the have enough rope to hang themselves, and then we show how they are wrong/misinformed/lying.

Most of us here who have been posting for a year or more have read what's out there... many have contributed in fact, as they are able. 

The trolls therefore seem to be focused on the new arrivals and those with casual interest in ANC.  First they argued against holding the posting of code until ZC is live on the main net; then they tried to harp on the missed deadlines; they have attacked devs directly; now they are trying to exploit a slightly complicated implementing of the method of blind encryption the devs have chosen to create the anonymous mixing of coins.

Stick around all who are interested.  All will be made clear very soon, and then all the fakes and fakers will be forced to sit down and shut up.  Personally, I'm looking forward to that.

I am too!!!!

[matthewh3]

Anoncoin's Zerocoin protocol is by far the most difficulty anonymous transaction technique to implement.  It's not a matter of using 'big' words to try and confuse people.  It's very complex and that's why no one else has managed to date to implement Zerocoin.  Although if implemented successfully it will offer by far the most anonymous transaction technique.

[gunzeon]

More infos: http://blog.agilebits.com/2014/04/01/large-even-prime-number-discovered/

read down a bit my friend:

What to trust in this article says:

This article was posted on April 1, 2014. The claim that an even prime number other than two has been found is bogus. The notion of odd and even holds for all integers, no matter how large. The fictitious University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople is the creation of the real Peter Schickele. The fictitious mathematician Paul Forester is my resurrection of the great 20th century mathematician, Pál Erdős. Everything else here is actually meant to be reliable information. Including those bits that are un-ee-cue in all the world.

Joke's on you !!! so be careful or you'll become laughing stock !

[lunokhod2]

We've made some progress on the wiki article Anonymity of cryptocurrencies, but is still needs some work. Who is up for a challenge?

[ToxicDartFrog]

There is a big mistake with your probability and timespan to broke the 13 RSA keys. You take in consideration that the attacker will do only one attack per key. If the attacker do multiple attacks on the 13 keys at the same time, the timespan to broke them decrease considerably.

For someone who clearly doesn't understand probability you sure have a lot to say. I'd recommend if you don't believe in ZC go find a different coin to invest in or possibly contribute something useful to this project. I doubt the latter as you're obviously here to post pre-written wall-of-text talking points by someone who funds you. It's kind of weak trolling. You may have been more convincing if you wrote less and didn't post with the name "rsa_ufo_attack" LOL