[BCN] Bytecoin. Secure, private, untraceable since 2012

[sorryforthat]

Pool is ok with me, but I will then loose all these interesting mysteries solving with blocks? Secret messages etc... ?

I was under the impression that the codes were intertwined with the blockchain which you can get at regardless. Considering that you did by chance stumple upon something, the odds that you will be at your computer the time it happens is slim, especially seeing how you have so much to give to the network.

Also, there are plenty of mystery to this from all the clue they have left so far, a new on was posted on their site just a day ago.

[Lamalicious]

Pool is ok with me, but I will then loose all these interesting mysteries solving with blocks? Secret messages etc... ?

I was under the impression that the codes were intertwined with the blockchain which you can get at regardless. Considering that you did by chance stumple upon something, the odds that you will be at your computer the time it happens is slim, especially seeing how you have so much to give to the network.

Also, there are plenty of mystery to this from all the clue they have left so far, a new on was posted on their site just a day ago.

I wonder who was the first one to solve it and did he/she receive a reward. And what is it. Yes, I'm curious guy

[EndlessWin]

Pool is ok with me, but I will then loose all these interesting mysteries solving with blocks? Secret messages etc... ?

I was under the impression that the codes were intertwined with the blockchain which you can get at regardless. Considering that you did by chance stumple upon something, the odds that you will be at your computer the time it happens is slim, especially seeing how you have so much to give to the network.

Also, there are plenty of mystery to this from all the clue they have left so far, a new on was posted on their site just a day ago.

I wonder who was the first one to solve it and did he/she receive a reward. And what is it. Yes, I'm curious guy

well, it definitely wasn't me. Sent a BCN address to the wyw... user on centos.org - no luck

[Rias]

I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

[uteroulin]

I have a 50+ i5 cpus that could work on this. Do I need to install wallet on each of the machines? Or there is a miner to point out to single server wallet/comp ?

Best decision for you will be 1 wallet and 50 daemon's. Use start mining command with your wallet's address. Using this setup on 3 PC's - no problems detected for now.

[ndonnard]

I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

Well BCN's popularity has grawn mach so may be it's time. BCN became distinct enough not to mention "not BTE".

[uteroulin]

I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

Well BCN's popularity has grawn mach so may be it's time. BCN became distinct enough not to mention "not BTE".

Well BTE looks dead for a while now anyways. So I think it won't be a problem.

[Wanesst]

I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

I agree that bytecoin is necessary to promote as BCN. But I found this thread when did search BTE in the forum.

[uteroulin]

I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

I agree that bytecoin is necessary to promote as BCN. But I found this thread when did search BTE in the forum.

Why do you search for such thing ?

[eizh]

What's the current block reward? I finally have a non-zero balance. It's about 153k BCN and I don't know if I got it because my solo miner finally succeeded or if I got a handout from DStrange's giveaway.

[centosuser]

There is no point in posting private messages to that user on the CentOS forums because I have deleted it. Those that have already done so should know that:

a) it was first registered on the 11th April 2014 so probably has nothing whatsoever to do with the place you've allegedly decoded it from
b) I have also deleted all users who have posted private messages to it and will do so again if it comes back
c) I suspect you've all been had.

Without knowing details of how this works, anyone who has posted anything to that user should carefully review if the information that they have posted there is of any sort of security concern. The user you posted to is almost certainly a fake and may just be there to harvest your details.

[tromp]

As it' s said in their whitepaper CryptoNight is "a new memory-bound algorithm for the proof-of-work pricing function. It relies on random access to a slow memory and emphasizes latency dependence. As opposed to scrypt every new block (64 bytes in length) depends on all the previous blocks. As a result a hypothetical "memory-saver" should increase his calculation speed exponentially".
More info you can get by yourself here.

So scrypt gives us ASIC-resistance, but this algo is much better at this field.

From 128KB (scrypt) to 2MB (CryptoNight) is a factor 16 increase in memory usage.

To improve ASIC-resistance further, you'd like to require hundreds of MB,
but that would make verification even slower than it already is.

Other memory-bound proofs-of-work avoid this problem (at the cost of introducing more parrallellism)
by having an asymmetry between computation and verification.
E.g. Momentum, memory-coin 2, my own Cuckoo Cycle, or Coelho's scheme
( "An (Almost) Constant-Effort Solution-Verification Proof-of-Work Protocol based on Merkle Trees" AfriCrypt 2008, Fabien Coelho)

[tromp]

As it' s said in their whitepaper CryptoNight is "a new memory-bound algorithm for the proof-of-work pricing function. It relies on random access to a slow memory and emphasizes latency dependence. As opposed to scrypt every new block (64 bytes in length) depends on all the previous blocks. As a result a hypothetical "memory-saver" should increase his calculation speed exponentially".
More info you can get by yourself here.

So scrypt gives us ASIC-resistance, but this algo is much better at this field.

From 128KB (scrypt) to 2MB (CryptoNight) is a factor 16 increase in memory usage.

To improve ASIC-resistance further, you'd like to require hundreds of MB,
but that would make verification even slower than it already is.

Other memory-bound proofs-of-work avoid this problem (at the cost of introducing more parrallellism)
by having an asymmetry between computation and verification.
E.g. Momentum, memory-coin 2, my own Cuckoo Cycle, or Coelho's scheme
( "An (Almost) Constant-Effort Solution-Verification Proof-of-Work Protocol based on Merkle Trees" AfriCrypt 2008, Fabien Coelho)

Nice to see you took note of this, that's good news!

Would you mind going over some of the parallels/differences between some of these PoW's compared to this one? I'd especially like a comparison between this one and yours, as I've read some of your posts about it and have a little bit of an understanding.

I'm not really familiar with MMC2 (I know it uses AES, but not much more) or Coelho's scheme though.

I'll stick with         CryptoNight      vs      Cuckoo Cycle, assuming a size 2^{32} for the latter
memory                2MB                         512MB
memoy-hardness   solid                         can run twice as slow in 384MB, or 50% faster in 768MB
                                                          hardness hypothesized; not proven
parallellizable        not                          at least 20+ threads (probably less than 100)
access pattern       random                     random
latency                 low (cache)                high (main memory)
verification            slow                         instant
%computation       probably > 90%          33%
%memory             probably < 10%          67%

[Cheesus]

So has anyone gotten this one?

This came up in the How-To topic I assume it's some kind of bug. Did you encounter it multiple times?

[Patejl]

Still no official exchange?

[Cheesus]

Still no official exchange?

Google doc is not good enough for you?

[Cheesus]

This came up in the How-To topic I assume it's some kind of bug. Did you encounter it multiple times?

I'm not sure if it's happened before (on my comp), but it was going on for at least half hour to an hour.

My comp was due for a reinstall/flash anyways . . actually I was going to do it today oddly enough. Will update if it continues after fresh installs.

Probably I've confused this problem with something else. Actually your problem looks like a double spend attempt.

[Cheesus]

This came up in the How-To topic I assume it's some kind of bug. Did you encounter it multiple times?

I'm not sure if it's happened before (on my comp), but it was going on for at least half hour to an hour.

My comp was due for a reinstall/flash anyways . . actually I was going to do it today oddly enough. Will update if it continues after fresh installs.

Probably I've confused this problem with something else. Actually your problem looks like a double spend attempt.

Yeah, just stopped being lazy and looked at the source . .

Code:

    if(!kept_by_block)
    {
      if(have_tx_keyimges_as_spent(tx))
      {
        LOG_ERROR("Transaction with id= "<< id << " used already spent key images");
        tvc.m_verifivation_failed = true;
        return false;
      }
    }

Seems like a transaction that's already in a block is being tried to be spent?

Question is . . would this be a legit attack or is it a bug due to ring signature usage/tx collisions? Guess i'll be looking more.

That variable looks like a boolean that's determined by comparing the tx to I assume the chain.

Currently there is a transaction in transaction pool that won't go away even when the block is found. Maybe this problem is some how connected.

[Wanesst]

I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

I agree that bytecoin is necessary to promote as BCN. But I found this thread when did search BTE in the forum.

Why do you search for such thing ?

I wanted to know BTE is dead or alive  

[Cheesus]

Currently there is a transaction in transaction pool that won't go away even when the block is found. Maybe this problem is some how connected.

Actually now that I'm thinking about it . . my computer was connecting to a lot of different addresses and then rejected and then it carried on to the next. So it would seem that my computer was trying to cash a transaction that had already been spent . . or was being used to try and verify one.

Maybe someone is trying to use the transaction pool to do double spends and failing? Or maybe they're just trying to make a lot of traffic? Was anyone else getting this?

Looked at the source again, I see that there's a note above that code block . . so I would guess this has happened before because a description isn't on every block of code. Heres the description: //check key images for transaction if it is not kept by block.

Maybe there was some glitch in the system which caused this odd connecting behavior.

Idea about using transaction pool for double spend is unclear to me. How would you do it? As far as I understood once transaction is in the pool it will be taken in the block if it fits in terms of acceptance. And there is no way to doulbe spend it.