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

[saddambitcoin]

Could anyone explain why am I getting this error and how to go about resolving it? http://imgur.com/a/xRfxk
I am running the latest wallet, which was synchronised from scratch on Linux 64bit.

Try that "sweep unmixable" button.

[1713555046]

1713555046

[1713555046]

1713555046

[1713555046]

1713555046

[1713555046]

1713555046

[Hueristic]

ther are some rumors in polo trollbox about moneros not anon: see here
http://monerolink.com/monerolink.pdf
https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/852918816455655425

true?

Read the paper, results are legit.

Anyone who has used Monero on the dmns time to scrub!

It's based on 2 year old research, when the Monero minimum mandatory mix-in count was 0. Today Monero requires a bare minimum of 2-mixins (for a total of 3 participants) in each transaction.

E.g. What this paper written by ZCash people alludes to was a problem that was fixed one or two hard forks ago.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-transactions-history-can-be-revealed-and-exposed-research

LOL  FUD and lies continue

Save 30 seconds of your life and skip to the last paragraph, if you think you can get the stink of cointelegraph off of your browser.  Otherwise treat it like anything else they publish, and don't bother at all.

That last paragraph is what demonstrates that the article ISN'T FUD.

But you didn't stop to think before your knee jerk reaction, did you?

It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less, both sides of the coin, and with so much talk here about the subject and nobody having posted the article, I thought I'd throw it out there for you, without predisposed bias and to be treated as objectively as was written.

Next time try being civil and thinking a bit.

Sensationalizing old, and increasingly irrelevant 'news' IS FUD.

Published 10 hours ago.

Hey, everyone's got their own opinion - the trick is knowing how to express it in civilized terms.

Best of luck to you.

Peoples Kee jerk reaction are because this issue was fixed over a year ago and was reported by the Monero Lab 2 years ago. don't forget this code was inherited just like all the bitcoin clones inherited bitcoins failures.

That paper is nothing more than saying what Monero Labs had already found and repaired.

THAT is why it is FUD. Put your reading glasses on.

[HR]

ther are some rumors in polo trollbox about moneros not anon: see here
http://monerolink.com/monerolink.pdf
https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/852918816455655425

true?

Read the paper, results are legit.

Anyone who has used Monero on the dmns time to scrub!

It's based on 2 year old research, when the Monero minimum mandatory mix-in count was 0. Today Monero requires a bare minimum of 2-mixins (for a total of 3 participants) in each transaction.

E.g. What this paper written by ZCash people alludes to was a problem that was fixed one or two hard forks ago.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-transactions-history-can-be-revealed-and-exposed-research

LOL  FUD and lies continue

Save 30 seconds of your life and skip to the last paragraph, if you think you can get the stink of cointelegraph off of your browser.  Otherwise treat it like anything else they publish, and don't bother at all.

That last paragraph is what demonstrates that the article ISN'T FUD.

But you didn't stop to think before your knee jerk reaction, did you?

It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less, both sides of the coin, and with so much talk here about the subject and nobody having posted the article, I thought I'd throw it out there for you, without predisposed bias and to be treated as objectively as was written.

Next time try being civil and thinking a bit.

Sensationalizing old, and increasingly irrelevant 'news' IS FUD.

Published 10 hours ago.

Hey, everyone's got their own opinion - the trick is knowing how to express it in civilized terms.

Best of luck to you.

Peoples Kee jerk reaction are because this issue was fixed over a year ago and was reported by the Monero Lab 2 years ago. don't forget this code was inherited just like all the bitcoin clones inherited bitcoins failures.

That paper is nothing more than saying what Monero Labs had already found and repaired.

THAT is why it is FUD. Put your reading glasses on.

You know what aggressive responses to impartial and objective reporting signal, don't you?

Case closed.

[Hueristic]

...

You know what aggressive responses to impartial and objective reporting signal, don't you?

Case closed.

Not really, if you were actually asking that question then all you had to do was check back a few pages. Did you expect everyone to continue to repeat themselves for you?

Looks to me like you were just Dogpiling the FUD but this is one coin it doesn't work on so GG. Case Closed.

[HR]

ther are some rumors in polo trollbox about moneros not anon: see here
http://monerolink.com/monerolink.pdf
https://twitter.com/random_walker/status/852918816455655425

true?

Read the paper, results are legit.

Anyone who has used Monero on the dmns time to scrub!

It's based on 2 year old research, when the Monero minimum mandatory mix-in count was 0. Today Monero requires a bare minimum of 2-mixins (for a total of 3 participants) in each transaction.

E.g. What this paper written by ZCash people alludes to was a problem that was fixed one or two hard forks ago.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-transactions-history-can-be-revealed-and-exposed-research

LOL  FUD and lies continue

Save 30 seconds of your life and skip to the last paragraph, if you think you can get the stink of cointelegraph off of your browser.  Otherwise treat it like anything else they publish, and don't bother at all.

That last paragraph is what demonstrates that the article ISN'T FUD.

But you didn't stop to think before your knee jerk reaction, did you?

It is what it is, nothing more and nothing less, both sides of the coin, and with so much talk here about the subject and nobody having posted the article, I thought I'd throw it out there for you, without predisposed bias and to be treated as objectively as was written.

Next time try being civil and thinking a bit.

Sensationalizing old, and increasingly irrelevant 'news' IS FUD.

Published 10 hours ago.

Hey, everyone's got their own opinion - the trick is knowing how to express it in civilized terms.

Best of luck to you.

Peoples Kee jerk reaction are because this issue was fixed over a year ago and was reported by the Monero Lab 2 years ago. don't forget this code was inherited just like all the bitcoin clones inherited bitcoins failures.

That paper is nothing more than saying what Monero Labs had already found and repaired.

THAT is why it is FUD. Put your reading glasses on.

You know what aggressive responses to impartial and objective reporting signal, don't you?

Case closed.

Not really, if you were actually asking that question then all you had to do was check back a few pages. Did you expect everyone to continue to repeat themselves for you?

Looks to me like you were just Dogpiling the FUD but this is one coin it doesn't work on so GG. Case Closed.

I didn't even ask a question. I posted a link to a recent article (5 hours old at the time) that hadn't be posted here before.

Your responses are what they are.

You can't even handle a Coin Telegraph article.

BTW, are you so threatened that you felt the need to clip the original post so that my reply is now out of context?

Let me put it back together for you.

Cheers nitwit

[iloveBTCtomuch]

It's not an easy read and prehaps people that have greater knowgled about this perticulair subject to clear things up for me and for prehaps others as well
http://monerolink.com/monerolink.pdf

Comparison with related work on Monero linkability.
We note that earlier reports from Monero Research Labs
(MRL-0001 [10] and MRL-0004 [7]) have previously discussed
concerns about such deduction, called a “chainreaction,”
based on similar insights as described above.
However, our results paint a strikingly different picture
than these.
First, the MRL reports suggested that the vulnerability
would require the participation of an attacker, who must
at least must have owned some coins used in previous
transactions (in their terms, even a “passive” attacker is one
that owns prior coins and creates subsequent transactions):

The article clearly states that they have read the Monero Research Lab

Q: So why is Fluffy calling this article out as if they did not read the articles produced by Monero Research Lab publications  ?

Found an answer myself:  Fluffy did not read it ( just read a couple message's down)
https://twitter.com/fluffyponyza/status/852932608577155072

I'll leave standing, because I find it quite remarkable, that lot of in independent people with mostlikely far limited skilled do take the time to read it but he does not.

Cross-validation with Deducible Transactions. In order
to quantify the effect of these mismatched distributions,
we examine the rank order of the transactions with 1 or
more mixins for which we have ground truth (i.e., the deducible
transactions from Section 3). Table 3 shows the
percentages of deducible transaction inputs for which the
real (deduced) reference is also the “newest” reference. It
turns out that overall, 92% of the deducible inputs could
also be guessed correctly this way.
We note that transactions with more mixins are only
slightly less vulnerable to this analysis: even among transaction
inputs with 4 mixins (which is currently the default,
and planned to become the required minimum in September
2017) the Guess-Newest heuristic still applies to 81%
of these transactions.

Q: this article  Clearly state that the understand that and incorporate the newest version yet to launchee in September 2017, than how is this FUD and old news ?

Also
This part:

... a malicious party with a large number of
transaction outputs can cause a chain reaction in
traceability by sacrificing their own anonymity.
(Mackenzie et al. [7])

Q: why is okay to attack Dash on the idea that  Masternodes can be a malicious party, yet in this case it can not be the case ?

Thank you in advance

[Mrbates]

Its an interesting read, but it really kind of just says more mixins = better.

Seems like common sense but I'm sleepy.

[smooth]

Also
This part:

... a malicious party with a large number of
transaction outputs can cause a chain reaction in
traceability by sacrificing their own anonymity.
(Mackenzie et al. [7])

Q: why is okay to attack Dash on the idea that  Masternodes can be a malicious party, yet in this case it can not be the case ?

Thank you in advance

The issue of chain reactions was mitigated in early 2016. There are no longer any significant chain reactions as stated in the monerolink paper.

Furthermore even when the issue existed the economics are quite different. Masternodes are paid to spy on you. Someone wanting to spy on you by creating many outputs would have to pay to do so.

[Sjacmur]

Why my button in GUI wallet "send" its not active ?
I wanted already send some coins to Polo and paste polo adress but button "send" its not active ... I first time want send not only receive so dont know why


EDIT: NVM. I was stupid and blind I copy Poloniex payment ID as my deposit adress. I dont read description

[iloveBTCtomuch]

The issue of chain reactions was mitigated in early 2016. There are no longer any significant chain reactions as stated in the monerolink paper.

Furthermore even when the issue existed the economics are quite different. Masternodes are paid to spy on you. Someone wanting to spy on you by creating many outputs would have to pay to do so.

First off all how was it mitigated ?

Secondly That's the same argument your using goes for DASH masternodes as well, you have to pay, actually you have to pay big time. As no real masternode owners going to do it willingly, only does that are willing to buy up at the very least a minimum 20% of the DASH network just to be able to spy a very small portion of it, that whole strategy is self defeating
DASH masternodes Get paid to spy on it ? Who do you get now that sounds like FUD to me ! please explain how the get paid for that service it's no where to be found.

Than why are you making this argument ?

[smoothie]

The issue of chain reactions was mitigated in early 2016. There are no longer any significant chain reactions as stated in the monerolink paper.

Furthermore even when the issue existed the economics are quite different. Masternodes are paid to spy on you. Someone wanting to spy on you by creating many outputs would have to pay to do so.

First off all how was it mitigated ?

Secondly That's the same argument your using goes for DASH masternodes as well, you have to pay, actually you have to pay big time. As no real masternode owners going to do it willingly, only does that are willing to buy up at the very least a minimum 20% of the DASH network just to be able to spy a very small portion of it, that whole strategy is self defeating
DASH masternodes Get paid to spy on it ? Who do you get now that sounds like FUD to me ! please explain how the get paid for that service it's no where to be found.

Than why are you making this argument ?

The "large number tx outputs" owned by a single entity would need to be in the 80% range to have any sort of effect on unraveling transactions/history.

Meaning the attacker would need to own 80% of all of the transaction outputs. (I can't remember the exact %) but it is all probabilities when you do the math.

Let's just say "a large percent of the total transaction outputs" would need to be owned by the attacker.

To keep up such a large set by one person they would need to be constantly making transactions forever to keep pace with current demand for transactional/speculative demand for monero from then (early 2016) until now...and much farther into the future to keep that 80% as still 80%.

So the attack would be an ongoing thing and not only that, it wouldn't be guaranteed as if the monero user base grows that attacker would need to either compromise many other people's transactions by brute force (via government intervention) and even then there is no guarantee that the attack would be successful.

The attacker can be viewed as a person running after a bullet train but as the train starts to accelerate more and more the person running on foot gets further and further from catching the train.

This is how I view the scenario of such an attack at this point in time.


...

It was mitigated by requiring users and all transactions to use a mixing minimum of 2. This makes the attack much more difficult as the more mixing used the more information is required to unravel a transaction (or transactions) and their respective histories.

The more layers deep these mixed outputs get in new transactions the harder it is to unravel because more information is always required the larger the mixing set of transactions get over time.

Kind of like layers of transaction obfuscation over time.

[Hueristic]

....


I didn't even ask a question. I posted a link to a recent article (5 hours old at the time) that hadn't be posted here before.

Your responses are what they are.

You can't even handle a Coin Telegraph article.

BTW, are you so threatened that you felt the need to clip the original post so that my reply is now out of context?

Let me put it back together for you.

Cheers nitwit

OK, First off I'm sniping the monstrous amount of quotes because they have been quoted more than enough and am addressing you on a different issue altogether. Let me repeat my self, you were answered in that fashion because that link had already been posted and debunked. I'm amazed that your searching skills are so inept that you cannot find that.

I personally did not hold any XMR until this morning when the price dipped enough I felt it was a good position for entry again and even though have only bought a few so you thinking I feel threatened is laughable.

My responses to you has nothing to do about the article, they have been as to why people were calling you a fudder. if that was not your intent then I apologize for those that did.

But to be perfectly honest you look like a fudder that is trying the soft troll and we are not so foolish as to take the bait. And as you said just dropping a link of fud by extension makes you a spreader of FUD, so maybe you would care to VET your posts or maybe even try to check with a simple search whether a subject has been addressed before starting the same exact one again.

Edited for my shitty ars grammar.

[Hueristic]

For any of you guys that don' know Bitfinex has frozen all fiat deposits are frozen. Me thinks that exchange is a real gamble and it also is the owner of USDT token and that has been losing value so be careful and forewarned.

https://twitter.com/bitfinex?lang=en

[melea]

The market XMR very calm rigth now , 


Despite the old news given as new 

.....

however the new wallet  run fine on linux debian and ubuntu distributions 64bits  ,  nice work again devs, thanks for that, and for whats its coming too. 

[grzem]

How to solve:

Code:

2017-Apr-18 09:51:56.060693 [P2P7]----- BLOCK ADDED AS ALTERNATIVE ON HEIGHT 1288636
id:	<96924ba78f58ccdc3ef9f69687b9f7ab7ffa1d52fba2e3732769f8c43689a0f8>
PoW:	<9fb75824311f45c947af757d861ef4ee98d4f277eb4a04689d515e1300000000>
difficulty:	9569110055
2017-Apr-18 09:51:56.550497 [P2P7]###### REORGANIZE on height: 1288616 of 1288636 with cum_difficulty 1927062081307683
 alternative blockchain size: 22 with cum_difficulty 1927071649304103
2017-Apr-18 09:52:03.068272 [P2P7]WARNING: batch transaction mode already enabled, but asked to enable batch mode
2017-Apr-18 09:52:10.146816 [P2P7]WARNING: batch transaction mode already enabled, but asked to enable batch mode
2017-Apr-18 09:52:12.574313 [P2P7][209.58.160.23:18080 OUT]Sync data returned a new top block candidate: 1288637 -> 1291061 [Your node is 2424 blocks (3 days) behind] 

[smooth]

Not a bug. Those messages can be ignored.

The reorg message is normal and the batch transaction message is a known issue by the db developer and he says it is harmless.

[grzem]

Not a bug. Those messages can be ignored.

The reorg message is normal and the batch transaction message is a known issue by the db developer and he says it is harmless.

But not synced since 3 days.
Wrong balance, how is that not bug?

[AngryDwarf]

Not a bug. Those messages can be ignored.

The reorg message is normal and the batch transaction message is a known issue by the db developer and he says it is harmless.

But not synced since 3 days.
Wrong balance, how is that not bug?

Have you upgraded to the latest software? Monero hard forked 3 days ago.

[grzem]

Not a bug. Those messages can be ignored.

The reorg message is normal and the batch transaction message is a known issue by the db developer and he says it is harmless.

But not synced since 3 days.
Wrong balance, how is that not bug?

Have you upgraded to the latest software? Monero hard forked 3 days ago.

This is announcement? Who, where informed about it?

[bitebits]

Congratulations with your third birthday Monero, man you are growing up quickly!