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

[child_harold]

I am only the messenger.

Call me Hermes.

EDIT:yup

You see that you shouldn't take this (too) personally. As I told DRK before: Its all in the game

EDIT: I c i have delivered 4 posts without response. I dont wanna be labelled a troll - so I'll desist

Good evening gentlmen

* child_harold bows

[1714807091]

1714807091

[GingerAle]

MoneroWorld Digest #4

https://forum.getmonero.org/20/general-discussion/200/moneroworld-digest-4-3-4-2015

[Joshuar]

MoneroWorld Digest #4

https://forum.getmonero.org/20/general-discussion/200/moneroworld-digest-4-3-4-2015

Thanks! Very organized and a great read.

[opennux]

MoneroWorld Digest #4

https://forum.getmonero.org/20/general-discussion/200/moneroworld-digest-4-3-4-2015

Good work GingerAle. Keep it up.

[Joshuar]

I didnt think mymonero was a revenue generating business.  How do they make money?

If someone wants to buy shares of mymonero, just contact me.

Is there a prospectus?

They can make money through ads(adsense etc), selling ad space/clicks, etc etc. (Just replying to what I saw in the moneroworld digest)

[GTO911]

Like I said bring it on…
I did inform you…

A qt wallet with html 5 gui. Bahahahahaha

[Anon136]

MoneroWorld Digest #4

https://forum.getmonero.org/20/general-discussion/200/moneroworld-digest-4-3-4-2015

Good read. Thanks for that! No links to me directly but I see some links to the results of some of my antics .

[Anon136]

We're mainly interested in an improvement in overall complexity, and both schemes here are O(n). There is a sublinear ring signature paper that in O(log n) in size that we're looking at more closely.

No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?

[generalizethis]

No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?

Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased?

[smooth]

No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?

Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased?

It means the blue line instead of the green line



Context: http://sites.tufts.edu/comp15/

[Anon136]

No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?

Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased?

No its just O(log(n)). Every additional mixin partner increases the size of your signature but less than the one before it.



look at O(log(n)) compared to other big o notations on this chart. Particularly look at it in comparison to O(n). Its a big difference. For example: If the limit(log(n)) < some reasonable signature size that can be affordably stored on the blockchain than you can use every single other key ever published on the entire blockchain to produce your ring signature. Infact if this were the case we could set a mixin minimum of like 1000 or something crazy.

[GTO911]

We're mainly interested in an improvement in overall complexity, and both schemes here are O(n). There is a sublinear ring signature paper that in O(log n) in size that we're looking at more closely.

No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?

Dont get me excited

[generalizethis]

No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?

Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased?

No its just O(log(n)). Every additional mixin partner increases the size of your signature but less than the one before it.



look at O(log(n)) compared to other big o notations on this chart. Particularly look at it in comparison to O(n). Its a big difference. For example: If the limit(log(n)) < some reasonable signature size that can be affordably stored on the blockchain than you can use every single other key ever published on the entire blockchain to produce your ring signature. Infact if this were the case we could set a mixin minimum of like 1000 or something crazy.

So in cost terms: if this is implemented, the costs of a 99 level mix-in would be less than the cost of a 99 mix-in as it currently stands? Correct?

[Anon136]

No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?

Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased?

No its just O(log(n)). Every additional mixin partner increases the size of your signature but less than the one before it.



look at O(log(n)) compared to other big o notations on this chart. Particularly look at it in comparison to O(n). Its a big difference. For example: If the limit(log(n)) < some reasonable signature size that can be affordably stored on the blockchain than you can use every single other key ever published on the entire blockchain to produce your ring signature. Infact if this were the case we could set a mixin minimum of like 1000 or something crazy.

So in cost terms: if this is implemented, the costs of a 99 level mix-in would be less than the cost of a 99 mix-in as it currently stands? Correct?

Probably. It's possible that this wouldn't be the case if n=2 in the new scheme were sufficiently more resource intensive than n=2 in the old scheme. But its highly unlikely that the difference between n=2 in the current scheme vs n=2 in the new scheme would be great enough to make mixin 99 in the new scheme cost more than mixin 99 in the old. Its a complicated way of saying that O(log(n)) only talks about the shape of the curve, it doesnt say anything about where that curve is placed on the graph.

*edit* sorry that was needlessly complicated. yes. the answer is yes. i cant imagine that the authors of that paper would have even bothered to produce it if the answer were no.

[generalizethis]

No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?

Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased?

No its just O(log(n)). Every additional mixin partner increases the size of your signature but less than the one before it.



look at O(log(n)) compared to other big o notations on this chart. Particularly look at it in comparison to O(n). Its a big difference. For example: If the limit(log(n)) < some reasonable signature size that can be affordably stored on the blockchain than you can use every single other key ever published on the entire blockchain to produce your ring signature. Infact if this were the case we could set a mixin minimum of like 1000 or something crazy.

So in cost terms: if this is implemented, the costs of a 99 level mix-in would be less than the cost of a 99 mix-in as it currently stands? Correct?

Probably. It's possible that this wouldn't be the case if n=2 in the new scheme were sufficiently more resource intensive than n=2 in the old scheme. But its highly unlikely that the difference between n=2 in the current scheme vs n=2 in the new scheme would be great enough to make mixin 99 in the new scheme cost more than mixin 99 in the old. Its a complicated way of saying that O(log(n)) only talks about the shape of the curve, it doesnt say anything about where that curve is placed on the graph.

*edit* sorry that was needlessly complicated. yes. the answer is yes. i cant imagine that the authors of that paper would have even bothered to produce it if the answer were no.

Thank you for the answer--enjoyed the complication. I was assuming a 99 mix-in would be located in latter parts of the O(log n) line for the sake of simplicity. Probably should have stated that.

[Anon136]

No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?

Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased?

No its just O(log(n)). Every additional mixin partner increases the size of your signature but less than the one before it.



look at O(log(n)) compared to other big o notations on this chart. Particularly look at it in comparison to O(n). Its a big difference. For example: If the limit(log(n)) < some reasonable signature size that can be affordably stored on the blockchain than you can use every single other key ever published on the entire blockchain to produce your ring signature. Infact if this were the case we could set a mixin minimum of like 1000 or something crazy.

So in cost terms: if this is implemented, the costs of a 99 level mix-in would be less than the cost of a 99 mix-in as it currently stands? Correct?

Probably. It's possible that this wouldn't be the case if n=2 in the new scheme were sufficiently more resource intensive than n=2 in the old scheme. But its highly unlikely that the difference between n=2 in the current scheme vs n=2 in the new scheme would be great enough to make mixin 99 in the new scheme cost more than mixin 99 in the old. Its a complicated way of saying that O(log(n)) only talks about the shape of the curve, it doesnt say anything about where that curve is placed on the graph.

*edit* sorry that was needlessly complicated. yes. the answer is yes. i cant imagine that the authors of that paper would have even bothered to produce it if the answer were no.

Thank you for the answer--enjoyed the complication. I was assuming a 99 mix-in would be located in latter parts of the O(log n) line for the sake of simplicity. Probably should have stated that.

Ill need to look over that paper and see if i can understand any of it. Didn't bother yet because its too late tonight. Anyone have link?

[slavo]

hi;

i created a wallet on mymonero a while ago; saved the 13 words and now i have something like "wallet doesn't exist".

I have the word incline in it i tried to change it for inline without success.

I don't think i screwed up the copy paste of the seed and i mined around 60 xmr on it so if there's a solution that'd be great cheers

[GTO911]

hi;

i created a wallet on mymonero a while ago; saved the 13 words and now i have something like "wallet doesn't exist".

I have the word incline in it i tried to change it for inline without success.

I don't think i screwed up the copy paste of the seed and i mined around 60 xmr on it so if there's a solution that'd be great cheers

Always save your view key and spend key also. If you have them, then there is no problem

[slavo]

i don't so i just give it up?

[GTO911]

i don't so i just give it up?

Wait for devs reply. Sometimes i had problems logging in when typing the seed than pasting it