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

[wpalczynski]

Confidential transactions in bitcoin, as a soft fork:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012194.html

Genuinely interested to hear views about this and if it will impact xmr the most, which I think is likely given the ongoing development of xmr and the substantial first mover advantage bitcoin has over every project.

Introducing any anonymity into Bitcoin would be viewed as a breach of the social contract by the majority of the people responsible for the more than Billion dollars in VC money invested up to now.  In addition the soft touch regulation we have seen applied in most parts of the world to this new financial paradigm would surely change drastically.

[dEBRUYNE]

Confidential transactions in bitcoin, as a soft fork:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012194.html

Genuinely interested to hear views about this and if it will impact xmr the most, which I think is likely given the ongoing development of xmr and the substantial first mover advantage bitcoin has over every project.

You might want to read this -> https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/41ktxm/if_bitcoin_adds_confidential_transactions_like/

For the lazy ones:

Question:

If Bitcoin adds confidential transactions like Adam Back has been talking about, what value will Monero really have to offer above and beyond Bitcoin?

Fluffypony's answer:

To paraphrase Greg Maxwell, the creator of Confidential Transactions, CT does nothing to hide the "transaction graph", or "transaction metadata". Unfortunately, cute terminology aside, the transaction metadata is the very thing that reveals your transactions. How much you donated to Terribly Racist Slighly-Left-Wing Party Inc. is irrelevant, the fact that your donation can be traced back to you by your boss, your government, your friends, your coworkers, is a Pretty Big Deal^tm.

About the best Bitcoin could do is implement Confidential Transactions for every transaction, and then implement some sort of exceptionally well designed CoinJoin system (one where participants cannot be revealed even through Sybil attacks) on a protocol layer, enforced for every transaction. And even then, in spite of the terrible blockchain bloat that would occur, they'd still not have solved the issue of transactions being linked to IP addresses...

My additional answer:

First of all, bear in mind that the Confidential Transactions that were proposed for Bitcoin only hide amounts. Thus, sender/receiver addresses are still visible and therefore it doesn't solve linkability nor traceability problems.

Additionally, it doesn't hide metadata. This problem will be mitigated/solved in the future by Monero with I2P integration -> http://podbay.fm/show/1032156854/e/1451151298?autostart=1 & https://github.com/monero-project/kovri

u/fluffyponyza posted a more detailed reply about this a while ago: (which I unfortunately have to post later, I posted it on a site which is down currently and have no other way of finding it).

EDIT: If you want more info regarding untraceability, unlinkability, how Monero works in general and comparing Monero vs Bitcoin, watch this vid -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks. The comparison starts at 13:00.

[coins101]

Confidential transactions in bitcoin, as a soft fork:

One of the credible devs disputed whether it can really be done with a soft fork, though I'm skeptical that it couldn't. I don't remember whether it was on that list or somewhere else.

Anyway, I'll believe it when I see it. Bitcoin is mired in debate over every little thing.

1. I think the issue is too big to be ignored and there is generally cross party support for privacy.

2. The Blockstream devs behind CT are more than competent enough to make it happen, their biggest hurdle was the potential need for a hard fork event.

3. Enabling privacy as an adjunct make things easier.  

The relatively small political hurdles, the reduced technical hurdles and the substantial potential benefits would suggest this could happen this year or next.

[smooth]

Confidential transactions in bitcoin, as a soft fork:

One of the credible devs disputed whether it can really be done with a soft fork, though I'm skeptical that it couldn't. I don't remember whether it was on that list or somewhere else.

Anyway, I'll believe it when I see it. Bitcoin is mired in debate over every little thing.

1. I think the issue is too big to be ignored and there is generally cross party support for privacy.

2. The Blockstream devs behind CT are more than competent enough to make it happen, their biggest hurdle was the potential need for a hard fork event.

3. Enabling privacy as an adjunct make things easier.  

The relatively small political hurdles, the reduced technical hurdles and the substantial potential benefits would suggest this could happen this year or next.

I will wager as much as you want against it happening this year. Extra bonus for you: You can use that wager as a hedge and buy Monero with reduced risk.

Next year is somewhat possible, still a long shot imo.

[coins101]

Confidential transactions in bitcoin, as a soft fork:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012194.html

Genuinely interested to hear views about this and if it will impact xmr the most, which I think is likely given the ongoing development of xmr and the substantial first mover advantage bitcoin has over every project.

You might want to read this -> https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/41ktxm/if_bitcoin_adds_confidential_transactions_like/

For the lazy ones:

Question:

If Bitcoin adds confidential transactions like Adam Back has been talking about, what value will Monero really have to offer above and beyond Bitcoin?

Fluffypony's answer:

To paraphrase Greg Maxwell, the creator of Confidential Transactions, CT does nothing to hide the "transaction graph", or "transaction metadata". Unfortunately, cute terminology aside, the transaction metadata is the very thing that reveals your transactions. How much you donated to Terribly Racist Slighly-Left-Wing Party Inc. is irrelevant, the fact that your donation can be traced back to you by your boss, your government, your friends, your coworkers, is a Pretty Big Deal^tm.

About the best Bitcoin could do is implement Confidential Transactions for every transaction, and then implement some sort of exceptionally well designed CoinJoin system (one where participants cannot be revealed even through Sybil attacks) on a protocol layer, enforced for every transaction. And even then, in spite of the terrible blockchain bloat that would occur, they'd still not have solved the issue of transactions being linked to IP addresses...

My additional answer:

First of all, bear in mind that the Confidential Transactions that were proposed for Bitcoin only hide amounts. Thus, sender/receiver addresses are still visible and therefore it doesn't solve linkability nor traceability problems.

Additionally, it doesn't hide metadata. This problem will be mitigated/solved in the future by Monero with I2P integration -> http://podbay.fm/show/1032156854/e/1451151298?autostart=1 & https://github.com/monero-project/kovri

u/fluffyponyza posted a more detailed reply about this a while ago: (which I unfortunately have to post later, I posted it on a site which is down currently and have no other way of finding it).

EDIT: If you want more info regarding untraceability, unlinkability, how Monero works in general and comparing Monero vs Bitcoin, watch this vid -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks. The comparison starts at 13:00.

Interesting. Thanks.

Although that makes complete privacy just an edge case?  That might sound oxymoronish, as long as general users can't access transaction details, they will probably believe bitcoin is private.

For example people know their Internet habbits are being logged, but generally they don't care, whereas those that do care will use a vpn, Tor, etc.

[smooth]

Although that makes complete privacy just an edge case?  That might sound oxymoronish, as long as general users can't access transaction details, they will probably believe bitcoin is private.

For example people know their Internet habbits are being logged, but generally they don't care, whereas those that do care will use a vpn, Tor, etc.

That's different. Logging at the network level requires physical access or cooperation from ISPs (or the sites you access). More people would very likely care if their Internet access logs were published on a public blockchain.

Analyzing the blockchain is something anyone can do, and there are probably a dozen startup companies doing it on Bitcoin now (and probably some non-startups also doing it internally). Some of those are available to anyone on public web sites (ordinary chain explorers being the crudest example of this).

Do you think they will stop just because CT goes live and (some?) transaction amounts are hidden? I really doubt it. Their systems will become somewhat less effective, but will still work (especially if the proportion of CT transactions is low), and will still be used.

[dEBRUYNE]

Confidential transactions in bitcoin, as a soft fork:

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012194.html

Genuinely interested to hear views about this and if it will impact xmr the most, which I think is likely given the ongoing development of xmr and the substantial first mover advantage bitcoin has over every project.

You might want to read this -> https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/41ktxm/if_bitcoin_adds_confidential_transactions_like/

For the lazy ones:

Question:

If Bitcoin adds confidential transactions like Adam Back has been talking about, what value will Monero really have to offer above and beyond Bitcoin?

Fluffypony's answer:

To paraphrase Greg Maxwell, the creator of Confidential Transactions, CT does nothing to hide the "transaction graph", or "transaction metadata". Unfortunately, cute terminology aside, the transaction metadata is the very thing that reveals your transactions. How much you donated to Terribly Racist Slighly-Left-Wing Party Inc. is irrelevant, the fact that your donation can be traced back to you by your boss, your government, your friends, your coworkers, is a Pretty Big Deal^tm.

About the best Bitcoin could do is implement Confidential Transactions for every transaction, and then implement some sort of exceptionally well designed CoinJoin system (one where participants cannot be revealed even through Sybil attacks) on a protocol layer, enforced for every transaction. And even then, in spite of the terrible blockchain bloat that would occur, they'd still not have solved the issue of transactions being linked to IP addresses...

My additional answer:

First of all, bear in mind that the Confidential Transactions that were proposed for Bitcoin only hide amounts. Thus, sender/receiver addresses are still visible and therefore it doesn't solve linkability nor traceability problems.

Additionally, it doesn't hide metadata. This problem will be mitigated/solved in the future by Monero with I2P integration -> http://podbay.fm/show/1032156854/e/1451151298?autostart=1 & https://github.com/monero-project/kovri

u/fluffyponyza posted a more detailed reply about this a while ago: (which I unfortunately have to post later, I posted it on a site which is down currently and have no other way of finding it).

EDIT: If you want more info regarding untraceability, unlinkability, how Monero works in general and comparing Monero vs Bitcoin, watch this vid -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEVm1dMn5Ks. The comparison starts at 13:00.

Interesting. Thanks.

Although that makes complete privacy just an edge case? That might sound oxymoronish, as long as general users can't access transaction details, they will probably believe bitcoin is private.

For example people know their Internet habbits are being logged, but generally they don't care, whereas those that do care will use a vpn, Tor, etc.

They would still be able to. I think you misunderstood how CT in Bitcoin works. It only hides amounts, nothing else.

I just picked up this transaction from the blockchain -> https://blockchain.info/nl/tx/4f242d2f85b5f13f68ea8bf9eba19626be161b479c5065ddc2b2f202b012d141

Now imagine CT implemented, it merely won't show 0.011234 BTC, 3.258909 BTC and the total 3.270143. All other information will still be there.

[coins101]

Although that makes complete privacy just an edge case?  That might sound oxymoronish, as long as general users can't access transaction details, they will probably believe bitcoin is private.

For example people know their Internet habbits are being logged, but generally they don't care, whereas those that do care will use a vpn, Tor, etc.

That's different. Logging at the network level requires physical access or cooperation from ISPs. Analyzing the blockchain is something anyone can do, and there are probably a dozen startup companies doing it on Bitcoin now (and probably some non-startups also doing it internally). Some of those are available to anyone on public web sites (ordinary chain explorers being the crudest example of this).

Do you think they will stop just because CT goes live and (some?) transaction amounts are hidden? I really doubt it. Their systems will become somewhat less effective, but will still work (especially if the proportion of CT transactions is low), and will still be used.

That's a fair point.

Then, what is the point of confidential transactions?

I can't believe that Adam or Greg are going to release something that is not fit for purpose, by their own very high ideological and we'll intended standards.

[smooth]

Although that makes complete privacy just an edge case?  That might sound oxymoronish, as long as general users can't access transaction details, they will probably believe bitcoin is private.

For example people know their Internet habbits are being logged, but generally they don't care, whereas those that do care will use a vpn, Tor, etc.

That's different. Logging at the network level requires physical access or cooperation from ISPs. Analyzing the blockchain is something anyone can do, and there are probably a dozen startup companies doing it on Bitcoin now (and probably some non-startups also doing it internally). Some of those are available to anyone on public web sites (ordinary chain explorers being the crudest example of this).

Do you think they will stop just because CT goes live and (some?) transaction amounts are hidden? I really doubt it. Their systems will become somewhat less effective, but will still work (especially if the proportion of CT transactions is low), and will still be used.

That's a fair point.

Then, what is the point of confidential transactions?

It helps add some privacy without making fundamental changes in how Bitcoin operates. As fluffypony mentioned, Greg Maxwell's own words on the topic make clear that it isn't intended as a complete solution, just an improvement.

It definitely appeals to larger users of Bitcoin who may not want their large transactions to stick out. In its original purpose (Blockstream's Liquid side chain), it allows transfers between exchanges without anyone being able to determine the amount and use that for a trading advantage.

[coins101]

.....
They would still be able to. I think you misunderstood how CT in Bitcoin works. It only hides amounts, nothing else.

I just picked up this transaction from the blockchain -> https://blockchain.info/nl/tx/4f242d2f85b5f13f68ea8bf9eba19626be161b479c5065ddc2b2f202b012d141

Now imagine CT implemented, it merely won't show 0.011234 BTC, 3.258909 BTC and the total 3.270143. All other information will still be there.

I did look at it a while back, but you are right that I haven't followed it closely enough to understand it yet.

But, I think my general point still stands.

If confidential transactions are good enough and give some level of privacy, then it makes the arguments for a complete anon coin less attractive, except for edge cases.

Actually, that might be a good thing for XMR. Edge cases when seen on a global basis might be worth quite a bit. I think I just talked myself out of a discussion on the threats to XMR - I doubt anyone thinks XMR would ever handle visa levels of transactions, so a successful Bitcoin with some hardened trade going to XMR is likely to be a net gain for the project.

edit

[smooth]

.....
They would still be able to. I think you misunderstood how CT in Bitcoin works. It only hides amounts, nothing else.

I just picked up this transaction from the blockchain -> https://blockchain.info/nl/tx/4f242d2f85b5f13f68ea8bf9eba19626be161b479c5065ddc2b2f202b012d141

Now imagine CT implemented, it merely won't show 0.011234 BTC, 3.258909 BTC and the total 3.270143. All other information will still be there.

I did look at it a while back, but you are right that I haven't followed it closely enough to understand it yet.

But, I think my general point still stands.

If confidential transactions are good enough and give some level of privacy, then it makes the arguments for a complete anon coin less attractive, except for edge cases.

Agree about "less" attractive. Disagree that all that is remaining is "edge cases".

Edge cases when seen on a global basis might be worth quite a bit

Okay I don't necessarily disagree if stated that way.

A broader comment:

There is a certain "academic approach" in Bitcoin from people like Adam Back (an actual academic in a sense) and Greg Maxwell that you have to appreciate. It involves developing small advancements (or small wins if you prefer that phrase) that are extremely well supported with research and mathematics, and is often focused on advancing knowledge in ways that won't even ever be deployed on a large scale.

That is very different from a more commercial approach that often tries to deliver a "solution" to "customers", but often delivers stuff that isn't very well supported or sound, and almost inevitably becomes obsolete and ultimately outcompeted or leapfrogged by some other commercial product.

Monero, by the way, has a somewhat intermediate approach (that is my observation and opinion, not a statement of policy).

[Drhiggins]

So with all the traffic earlier today my daemon was showing 136 incoming connections.  The daemon gave me a warning it was going to shut down.  I exited out myself and restarted.  Is that normal.  I should have taken a screen shoot but my was not thinking at that moment.

Also with the new Helix release is it now taking two minutes per block or is that still set at 1 block per minute?  

[smooth]

The daemon gave me a warning it was going to shut down.

Not familiar with that. If it happens again please save the information and report it.

Also with the new Helix release is it now taking two minutes per block or is that still set at 1 block per minute?  

That will change after the hard fork expected in late March.

[digicoin]

From bitmonerod screen

IP 190.154.236.3 blocked
IP 194.125.224.2 blocked

Why were those IPs blocked?

[smooth]

From bitmonerod screen

IP 190.154.236.3 blocked
IP 194.125.224.2 blocked

Why were those IPs blocked?

Misbehaving or unreachable nodes. Your node will stop trying to connect to them or stop accepting connections from them for 24 hours, then will allow retrying (after which they might get banned again if the problem persists)

[digicoin]

I started my bitmonerod today after several days were off and got this

2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.663571 Core rpc server initialized OK on port: 18081
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.663571 Initializing core...
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.667572 Loading blockchain from folder F:\monero\data\lmdb ...
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.670572 option: fastest
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.671572 option: async
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.673572 option: 1000
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.821587 Attempt to get timestamp from height 914280 failed -- timestamp not in db
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.823587 ERROR C:/msys64/DISTRIBUTION-BUILD/src/daemon/daemon.cpp:146 Uncaught exception! Attempt to get timestamp from height 914280 failed -- timestamp not in db

The daemon quitted right after that.

[fluffypony]

I started my bitmonerod today after several days were off and got this

2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.663571 Core rpc server initialized OK on port: 18081
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.663571 Initializing core...
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.667572 Loading blockchain from folder F:\monero\data\lmdb ...
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.670572 option: fastest
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.671572 option: async
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.673572 option: 1000
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.821587 Attempt to get timestamp from height 914280 failed -- timestamp not in db
2016-Jan-19 13:48:33.823587 ERROR C:/msys64/DISTRIBUTION-BUILD/src/daemon/daemon.cpp:146 Uncaught exception! Attempt to get timestamp from height 914280 failed -- timestamp not in db

The daemon quitted right after that.

Just to check - how did you shut it down previously? Cleanly, by typing "exit", or was it a disruptive shutdown? lmdb is pretty robust, but not impervious to corruption, so I wonder if it's not a corrupt blockchain.

[digicoin]

I opened 2 daemons at the same time by accident and kept them running for a while. Then I discovered my mistake, closed a daemon without saving blockchain and tried to save blockchain with the second one but it did not response (no log displayed on the screen except the command "save"). I had to close it forcefully.

But after that I opened it again and it failed. I think that the blockchain database is corrupted. Is there anyway to truncate some blocks and re-sync again?

[smooth]

I opened 2 daemons at the same time by accident and kept them running for a while. Then I discovered my mistake, closed a daemon without saving blockchain and tried to save blockchain with the second one but it did not response (no log displayed on the screen except the command "save"). I had to close it forcefully.

But after that I opened it again and it failed. I think that the blockchain database is corrupted. Is there anyway to truncate some blocks and re-sync again?

I think your best strategy is to just delete it and resync from scratch (and avoid running two at the the same time).

[farfiman]

I opened 2 daemons at the same time by accident and kept them running for a while. Then I discovered my mistake, closed a daemon without saving blockchain and tried to save blockchain with the second one but it did not response (no log displayed on the screen except the command "save"). I had to close it forcefully.

But after that I opened it again and it failed. I think that the blockchain database is corrupted. Is there anyway to truncate some blocks and re-sync again?

This happened to me as well- 2 daemons running at the same time caused the same error. I just deleted and did resync.