[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency

[fluffypony]

Dear Monero devs, please answer this stuff.

My English is not well to understand what does AnonyMint speak about. I just feel, he sheds light on possible fundamental vulnerability that says unlinkability is not compatible with longest chain rule of proof-of-work. I may mistake.

Key images are a unique property of the CryptoNote protocol that prevent double spends.

To quote gmaxwell and andytoshi, one of which is a core Bitcoin developer and the other is someone who truly understands both mathematics and cryptography:

Double-spending is prevented using a so-called "key image", a novel feature of BRS. The key image is a component of a BRS signature which is determined entirely by the private key used to produce the signature. This means that two signatures which use the same private key, i.e. which try to spend the same coin twice, will have the same key image. Thus preventing double-spending is as easy as ensuring that the same key image never appears twice. (On the other hand, the key image cannot be inverted to obtain the original private key; thus in the absense of double-spending attempts it cannot be used to deanonymize the signature.)

That is the end of this discussion, and I would suggest we not get caught up in random and nonsensical panic attacks just because someone claims a particular flaw exists when it doesn't.

[btell]

Dear Monero devs, please answer this stuff.

My English is not well to understand what does AnonyMint speak about. I just feel, he sheds light on possible fundamental vulnerability that says unlinkability is not compatible with longest chain rule of proof-of-work. I may mistake.

Key images are a unique property of the CryptoNote protocol that prevent double spends.

To quote gmaxwell and andytoshi, one of which is a core Bitcoin developer and the other is someone who truly understands both mathematics and cryptography:

Double-spending is prevented using a so-called "key image", a novel feature of BRS. The key image is a component of a BRS signature which is determined entirely by the private key used to produce the signature. This means that two signatures which use the same private key, i.e. which try to spend the same coin twice, will have the same key image. Thus preventing double-spending is as easy as ensuring that the same key image never appears twice. (On the other hand, the key image cannot be inverted to obtain the original private key; thus in the absense of double-spending attempts it cannot be used to deanonymize the signature.)

That is the end of this discussion, and I would suggest we not get caught up in random and nonsensical panic attacks just because someone claims a particular flaw exists when it doesn't.

Thank you very much for answer, fluffypony;
smooth, could you add this to FAQ too, as you are likely a thread owner?

[Luschtiha]

Poloniex is considering to add a XMR market.

Just some Trollbox news.

coinup: busoni@poloniex, XMR and poloniex... it's a love story now. Why don't you drop LTC parity for XMR one?

busoni@poloniex: coinup, it's definitely an idea I'm considering.

[Luschtiha]

Poloniex is considering to add a XMR market.

Poloniex is experiencing problems right now. I have been unable to access in the last 20 minutes.

I have no problems, trollbox and trading works like it should.

[thefunkybits]

After taking a good look at this coin I'm really wondering why this hasn't been picked up by Cryptsy yet...

[Patel]

After taking a good look at this coin I'm really wondering why this hasn't been picked up by Cryptsy yet...

They probably don't know how to implement it

[cAPSLOCK]

After taking a good look at this coin I'm really wondering why this hasn't been picked up by Cryptsy yet...

They probably don't know how to implement it

It is most certainly the fact the CN coins require implementation as well as the fact they are currently a support drain.

Seems Poloniex and HitBTC are battling it out in the CN space.  HitBTC added ALL the other CN coins.

[binaryFate]

Poloniex is considering to add a XMR market.

Just some Trollbox news.

coinup: busoni@poloniex, XMR and poloniex... it's a love story now. Why don't you drop LTC parity for XMR one?

busoni@poloniex: coinup, it's definitely an idea I'm considering.

coinup was me. Busoni said the LTC market is currently pretty useless to them. From a very practical perspective, they would make more money by switching to XMR.
This is kind of "boom" event if it happens I think, as many newcomers would realize XMR is indeed something big.

[AceCobra1]

Why is the coin suddenly rebounding back today ?

[fluffypony]

Why is the coin suddenly rebounding back today ?

Because of the news. Didn't you read the news? The market only ever moves on the news.

/thread

[pookielax31]

Why is the coin suddenly rebounding back today ?

Because of the news. Didn't you read the news? The market only ever moves on the news.

/thread

Get ready for ....(INSERT FUD HERE)

[rpietila]

Why is the coin suddenly rebounding back today ?

Because of the news. Didn't you read the news? The market only ever moves on the news.

/thread

Get ready for ....(INSERT FUD HERE)

Wtf are you even talking about? It's up +27.4% from yesterday.

[owlcatz]

Why is the coin suddenly rebounding back today ?

Because of the news. Didn't you read the news? The market only ever moves on the news.

/thread

Get ready for ....(INSERT FUD HERE)

Wtf are you even talking about? It's up +27.4% from yesterday.

http://www.coinssource.com/monero-interview/

[Nathonas]

Why is the coin suddenly rebounding back today ?

No particular reason, it's always been a solid coin, it just has pump/dump periods like any other popular coin.

[DogTheHunter]

Monero is doing quite well lately. Slow growth... that is what we need. I hope we stay above 3 mBTC now

feels nice and warm all of a sudden  

Warm like our plush version of Luke the Moonshot? ;-)

warmer 

[Primitive]

doesnt it make ya'll a little uneasy when it goes up THIS fast?

XMR owner, not troll

[TeeBone]

Where are the rocket/train pics ? I demand some NOW !  

[twistelaar]

My feeling is that Monero will hit 100$+ next year, Bitcoin will be at least around 2000$ so 100$ for Monero is defintly realistic

[AnonyMint]

I haven't had time to read the intervening posts, but here are a couple of followups to posts before I decided to leave this thread yesterday.

Ok so im reading the mini blockchain whitepaper. It appears to be a marginal improvement in some ways but it doesnt address the fundemental difficulty in scaling blockchains. The scalability problem doesn’t have anything to do with the size of the blockchain. It comes from the fact that each actor's transactions must be verified by all other network participants. Its the same math as network effects, except its a negative network effect.

Suppose actors make 1 transaction per minute.

1 actors = 0 verifications because he doesnt need to verify his own transactions.
2 actors = 2 transactions per minute. 2 * 2 actors = 4 transactions verifications. They dont need to verify their own so 4 - 2 = 2.  
3 actors = 3 transactions per minute. 3 * 3 = 9 verifications. they dont need to verify their own so 9 - 3 = 6.
4 actors = (4*4)-4=12
5 actors = (5*5)-5=20
ect...

0,2,6,12,20,30,42,56,72

This very quickly gets out of hand when you consider that there is a cost associated with verifying a transaction. even if that cost is infinitesimal.

Actors (users) are not verifying nodes, so you math is slightly incorrect in that respect.

However, your point remains valid that transactions scale O(NxN) by Metcalf or Reed's law. And verifying nodes probably don't scale by N actors.

However, Metcalf's law doesn't tell you the frequencies at which actors do transactions. Visa is currently at about 6000 transactions per second, so this can be verified with a single Intel CPU, so no problem for verifying nodes.

Scaling up to 6 billion people and micro transactions (more frequent transactions) might present a scaling problem. I've looked at Lamport signatures schemes that can verify 100,000+ transactions per second on a single i7 cpu. Since verifying nodes tend to be pools with considerably more resources (amortized over a large amount of hashrate), then a 10 - 100 cpu farm (or a Tilera 64 core cpu) is not unfathomable without destroying decentralization of pools.

Long-term the solution is simple. An ASIC for verification will scale sufficiently to 6 billion and micro transactions.

In short, no problem! Mini-block chain addresses the problem of block chain size and its impact on decentralization of mining. Cryptonite does not include anonymity however.

The real scaling issue.

He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

This is not at all what I read.  I understood him to mean he favored a fixed constant block reward (ie 1 coin) as opposed to the exponential growth from a percent inflation (ie 1% total coins per x time).

The "1 coin per" scenario keeps rewards flowing while effectively reducing the value of the reward via the greater total coins while the percent ends up ramping up the coin supply on an exponential curve.

Was it not clear?

I see now that he was referring to an exponential growth of the money supply, and not an exponential growth of the rewards relative to the money supply.

I see no divergence problem with an exponential growth of the money supply if you are distributing it to yourselves (i.e. the broad usership). The money supply has been growing exponentially since the beginning of human history.

For one thing exponentially growing money supply is necessary to be consistent with the issuance of debt, because otherwise there is no means of paying the aggregately accumulated exponential growth in money needed due to interest compounding.

If we want to consider divergent outcomes and resilient strategies, note that any strategy might have a divergent outcome, e.g. even a feedback loop might carry with it some game theory for manipulation.

Note the alternative of a fixed nominal rate of emission means asymptotically the money supply stops growing (an exponential decline) which also has pathological divergence, e.g. you have to use transaction fees to fund mining which I had pointed out has pathological failure modes.

[RentaMouse]

I haven't had time to read the intervening posts, but here are a couple of followups to posts before I decided to leave this thread yesterday.


Note the alternative of a fixed nominal rate of emission means eventually the money supply stops growing which also has pathological divergence, e.g. you have to use transaction fees to fund mining which I had pointed out has pathological failure modes.

I'll sum up my rambling paragraph about tx fees funding decentralized mining which I posted yesterday then: I think Monero has even less chance than Bitcoin of funding decentralised mining from tx fees only, but there are other potential means of funding it which don't require a significant emission of coins if that is not desirable (I dont have an opinion on that). This is not necessarily a lesser of two evils problem, other solutions may be possible.