[NEWS] eMunie: Some general news and 100% Anonymity

[smolen]

So "Looks like key wearing problem is solved by eMunie, be it intentionally or accidentally" is VERY intentional.

OK, OK, take no offense Your main concerns are (as I understand your posts) anonymity and ease of use for merchants and customers; I was concerned about key wear problem. So if there was any miscommunication I'm sorry for it.

[1713573739]

1713573739

[1713573739]

1713573739

[1713573739]

1713573739

[Etlase2]

That is strange. I saw him on our forums after this post was made, but nothing here. booo.

Oh I was just double checking that the guy proposing to patent this didn't know what ECIES was a week ago.

There is also prior art, and what looks to be a much better idea than yours and that one here. Time for a rewrite again, lol. Also prior art on using ECDSA to encrypt.

I believe Dan answered your question here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270909.0

Did you have a chance to check that out?

What does ECDSA security have to do with double spending? (Nothing.) This does not answer anything about the viability of the network's security model. It also throws out any notion of your eMugraph, as if it had any viability to begin with. Still working on that AI to determine how much money to create?

[Etlase2]

So "Looks like key wearing problem is solved by eMunie, be it intentionally or accidentally" is VERY intentional.

There is no "key wear" problem with ECDSA as long as k is random, so it's rather odd that you've fixed a vulnerability that doesn't exist.

[mr_random]

I had a major gripe with Bitcoin (and Litecoin and *insert alt here*) with the following use case that will IMO severly hinder mass adoption...

[snip]

Bitcoin v09 will offer significant merchant improvements including recurring payments support - http://thegenesisblock.com/significant-merchant-improvements-planned-for-bitcoin-v0-9

[smolen]

There is no "key wear" problem with ECDSA as long as k is random

Is your opinion based on your own research?

UPD: I saw an odd hint in one of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Courtois publications that some very novel approach is being developed in this area. For me that's enough to start worry.

[mrvegad]

That is strange. I saw him on our forums after this post was made, but nothing here. booo.

Oh I was just double checking that the guy proposing to patent this didn't know what ECIES was a week ago.

There is also prior art, and what looks to be a much better idea than yours and that one here. Time for a rewrite again, lol. Also prior art on using ECDSA to encrypt.

I believe Dan answered your question here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270909.0

Did you have a chance to check that out?

What does ECDSA security have to do with double spending? (Nothing.) This does not answer anything about the viability of the network's security model. It also throws out any notion of your eMugraph, as if it had any viability to begin with. Still working on that AI to determine how much money to create?

From those links u posted it looks similar but it is not the same, also from what I can tell it looks like a lot of talk but no action. Has there been any implication on these ideas? If so please provide links.

[Etlase2]

There is no "key wear" problem with ECDSA as long as k is random

Is your opinion based on your own research?

Actually, I am partially incorrect, it should be (apparently) as long as k is chosen carefully.

Piss-poor implementations of ECDSA such as the thread you linked to earlier is hardly evidence of a problem of key wearing.

[smolen]

There is no "key wear" problem with ECDSA as long as k is random

Is your opinion based on your own research?

Actually, I am partially incorrect, it should be (apparently) as long as k is chosen carefully.

Piss-poor implementations of ECDSA such as the thread you linked to earlier is hardly evidence of a problem of key wearing.

Consider me discussing this on wrong forum Alternate cryptocurrencies are not alt.crypto

[Etlase2]

Whatever, it's hard to take you seriously when you bring up a bad implementation of ECDSA as evidence of a problem with ECDSA. I am always open to learning more about cryptography, but coming out of the blue with implied theoretical attacks requires a bit of exposition, don't you think?

[smolen]

coming out of the blue with implied theoretical attacks requires a bit of exposition, don't you think?

I don't

[Fuserleer]

So "Looks like key wearing problem is solved by eMunie, be it intentionally or accidentally" is VERY intentional.

OK, OK, take no offense Your main concerns are (as I understand your posts) anonymity and ease of use for merchants and customers; I was concerned about key wear problem. So if there was any miscommunication I'm sorry for it.

No problem and no offense taken.  Constructive communication is whats key.

[Fuserleer]

That is strange. I saw him on our forums after this post was made, but nothing here. booo.

Oh I was just double checking that the guy proposing to patent this didn't know what ECIES was a week ago.

There is also prior art, and what looks to be a much better idea than yours and that one here. Time for a rewrite again, lol. Also prior art on using ECDSA to encrypt.

I believe Dan answered your question here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=270909.0

Did you have a chance to check that out?

What does ECDSA security have to do with double spending? (Nothing.) This does not answer anything about the viability of the network's security model. It also throws out any notion of your eMugraph, as if it had any viability to begin with. Still working on that AI to determine how much money to create?

Last time I checked transmission was different to encryption.  Encryption was only the part of it.

I've never attacked anything of yours, your decrits idea is not a bad one, and yet you seem to be hell bent on criticizing me and my work. I aspire to be professional at all times but tbh I'm getting quite royally fucked off with it.

Regardless of if I succeed or not, at least I'm actually attempting it instead of just blabbering on about it for 13 months.

[emerefer]

Regardless of if I succeed or not, at least I'm actually attempting it instead of just blabbering on about it for 13 months.

+1

[Etlase2]

Last time I checked transmission was different to encryption.  Encryption was only the part of it.

omg statements like these... How is this in any way a response to what I said? It doesn't even mean anything.

I've never attacked anything of yours, your decrits idea is not a bad one, and yet you seem to be hell bent on criticizing me and my work. I aspire to be professional at all times but tbh I'm getting quite royally fucked off with it.

Right, criticizing meaning: I asked questions in the initial thread about the security model that are unanswered to this day, and someone asked me to provide thoughts on emunie in my thread to which your puppet army took to task. And the only reason I posted in this thread, because it once again is meaningless if your security model is inept, is because puppet #1 just had to send a pm going "look, it's secure!" when this is clearly no network security model.

The major questions of emunie's viability remain unanswered, thus any proposed bells and whistles are uninteresting. There is nothing for me to criticize except the lack of detail.

[Fuserleer]

If that the case then so be it, and those questions will be answered as and when I am confident that the systems that deal with them are complete and comprehensive.  This post was about anonymity and the security of the transactions themselves, not about double spending, or wallet theft or a multitude of other security related issues.

Your problem is the aggression in your pursuit of answers to these questions, which comes across as acute arrogance and a disrespectful attitude. Both of which I have no patience for.

I am neither an inexperienced developer, or full of hot air, and while I more than have the credentials and experience to back myself up, preaching about these on various forums would make me sound a complete twat, so I refrain from doing so.  The proof is in the pudding so to speak, but that pudding isn't ready yet, so calling bluff on something unfinished is just childish.  That not being your intention matters not, as your execution of it is what causes friction and disgruntlement.

For what its worth, puppets require puppet masters, and I don't influence supports of eMunie on what they post, they have their own minds and the opinions they express are there own.

[Fuserleer]

Additionally to the above, there have been MANY people that have questioned eMunie and what I want to do with it.  Some of which have pointed out potential flaws that have been investigated, others that had concerns that weren't justified when looked at.

Point being, I had zero problem at all with these questions or queries as they were presented in the correct and respectful manner, not "demanded" which is how your queries come across with a hint of ridicule.

[Etlase2]

Your problem is the aggression in your pursuit of answers to these questions, which comes across as acute arrogance and a disrespectful attitude. Both of which I have no patience for.

I gave up that pursuit. You've made it clear that it will bear no fruit by not bothering to respond on your board to some simple, direct questions--this was after encouragement from the emunies to post there.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak, but that pudding isn't ready yet, so calling bluff on something unfinished is just childish.  That not being your intention matters not, as your execution of it is what causes friction and disgruntlement.

I haven't called your bluff on anything. I came here to respond only to those who think that this post somehow answers an unanswered question. It is, however, an ongoing trollfest at this point and I will end it here. The mentions of prior art was a touch over-dramatic, but I did recall the first thread I linked to offhand.

[Etlase2]

Additionally to the above, there have been MANY people that have questioned eMunie and what I want to do with it.  Some of which have pointed out potential flaws that have been investigated, others that had concerns that weren't justified when looked at.

Point being, I had zero problem at all with these questions or queries as they were presented in the correct and respectful manner, not "demanded" which is how your queries come across with a hint of ridicule.

Your cryptography experience is suspect. I am sure you are learning quickly, but you have made some posts that do not sound like someone who understands deeply things like BFT and sybil attacks and double spending.

[Fuserleer]

If you are calling out my cryptography experience then perhaps I should call out your general developer experience, 12 months of an idea and not even an Alpha.

I understand plenty enough to complete this project, and anything that I happen to come across that I don't, I will learn until I do...there's no shame in that!  Perhaps I should expect you up to create a AAA first person shooter, or a mobile phone operating system, or some RFID hardware and when you can't ridicule you for it?  No, that would be immature.  None of us knows everything, sore fact to swallow I know.

There's a saying you know, you might want to take heed to, it taught me a lesson a long time ago....."The greatest mistake that smart people make, is thinking that no one is smarter than them."

[Etlase2]

I understand plenty enough to complete this project, and anything that I happen to come across that I don't, I will learn until I do...there's no shame in that! [...] No, that would be immature.

Was it not you that programmed this somewhere in the background without any review and announced an official release date in your initial post regarding emunie? Was that not somewhat immature? There are not simple solutions to BFT, sybil, and double spending, not to mention scalability, and all this without proof of work--it is a lot to chew on.

There's a saying you know, you might want to take heed to, it taught me a lesson a long time ago....."The greatest mistake that smart people make, is thinking that no one is smarter than them."

Are you not following the same words? Presuming that you can fix all conceivable problems with no peer review? It seems like you've already had to fix an awful lot just based on the few tidbits gleaned here and there.