child_harold
|
|
March 05, 2015, 02:36:53 AM |
|
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 gameEDIT: 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
|
|
|
|
GingerAle
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
|
|
March 05, 2015, 02:38:11 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Joshuar
|
|
March 05, 2015, 04:02:27 AM |
|
Thanks! Very organized and a great read.
|
❱❱ | | ██ █║█ ║║║ ║║║ █║█ ██ | | | | | ▄██▄ ▄██████▄ ▄██████████ ▄██████████▀ ▄▄ ▄██████████▀ ▄████▄ ▄██████████▀ ████████▄ ██████████▀ ▀████████ ▀███████▀ ▄███▄ ▀████▀ ▄█▄ ▄███▄ ▀███▀ ▄███████▄ ▀▀ ▄█████▄ ▄███████▄ ▄██████████ ▄█████████ █████████ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀█████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀▀▀ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀███████▀ █████████▀ ▀███▀ ▄██▄ ▀█████▀ ▄██████▄ ▀▀▀ █████████ ▀█████▀ ▀▀▀ | | e i d o o ██
| | ▄██▄ ▄██████▄ ▄██████████ ▄██████████▀ ▄▄ ▄██████████▀ ▄████▄ ▄██████████▀ ████████▄ ██████████▀ ▀████████ ▀███████▀ ▄███▄ ▀████▀ ▄█▄ ▄███▄ ▀███▀ ▄███████▄ ▀▀ ▄█████▄ ▄███████▄ ▄██████████ ▄█████████ █████████ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀█████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀▀▀ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀███████▀ █████████▀ ▀███▀ ▄██▄ ▀█████▀ ▄██████▄ ▀▀▀ █████████ ▀█████▀ ▀▀▀ | | | | | ██ █║█ ║║║ ║║║ █║█ ██ | | ❰❰ | | |
|
|
|
opennux
|
|
March 05, 2015, 04:10:43 AM |
|
Good work GingerAle. Keep it up.
|
|
|
|
Joshuar
|
|
March 05, 2015, 04:14:31 AM |
|
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)
|
❱❱ | | ██ █║█ ║║║ ║║║ █║█ ██ | | | | | ▄██▄ ▄██████▄ ▄██████████ ▄██████████▀ ▄▄ ▄██████████▀ ▄████▄ ▄██████████▀ ████████▄ ██████████▀ ▀████████ ▀███████▀ ▄███▄ ▀████▀ ▄█▄ ▄███▄ ▀███▀ ▄███████▄ ▀▀ ▄█████▄ ▄███████▄ ▄██████████ ▄█████████ █████████ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀█████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀▀▀ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀███████▀ █████████▀ ▀███▀ ▄██▄ ▀█████▀ ▄██████▄ ▀▀▀ █████████ ▀█████▀ ▀▀▀ | | e i d o o ██
| | ▄██▄ ▄██████▄ ▄██████████ ▄██████████▀ ▄▄ ▄██████████▀ ▄████▄ ▄██████████▀ ████████▄ ██████████▀ ▀████████ ▀███████▀ ▄███▄ ▀████▀ ▄█▄ ▄███▄ ▀███▀ ▄███████▄ ▀▀ ▄█████▄ ▄███████▄ ▄██████████ ▄█████████ █████████ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀█████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀▀▀ ▄██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ██████████▀ ▄██████████▀ ▀███████▀ █████████▀ ▀███▀ ▄██▄ ▀█████▀ ▄██████▄ ▀▀▀ █████████ ▀█████▀ ▀▀▀ | | | | | ██ █║█ ║║║ ║║║ █║█ ██ | | ❰❰ | | |
|
|
|
GTO911
|
|
March 05, 2015, 05:01:33 AM |
|
Like I said bring it on… I did inform you… A qt wallet with html 5 gui. Bahahahahaha
|
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 05, 2015, 05:10:10 AM |
|
Good read. Thanks for that! No links to me directly but I see some links to the results of some of my antics .
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
Anon136
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 05, 2015, 05:24:55 AM Last edit: March 05, 2015, 05:38:08 AM by 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"?
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
generalizethis
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
|
|
March 05, 2015, 05:44:53 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
March 05, 2015, 05:51:12 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 05, 2015, 05:54:15 AM |
|
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.
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
GTO911
|
|
March 05, 2015, 06:13:03 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
|
|
March 05, 2015, 06:34:00 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 05, 2015, 06:59:15 AM |
|
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.
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
generalizethis
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
|
|
March 05, 2015, 07:12:22 AM |
|
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
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
|
|
March 05, 2015, 07:31:25 AM |
|
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?
|
Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
|
|
|
slavo
|
|
March 05, 2015, 01:54:18 PM |
|
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
|
|
March 05, 2015, 02:00:41 PM |
|
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
|
|
March 05, 2015, 02:06:06 PM |
|
i don't so i just give it up?
|
|
|
|
GTO911
|
|
March 05, 2015, 02:27:58 PM |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|