|
pozmu
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 12:44:37 AM |
|
Somebody is attemping to relaunch == steal Monero  bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599580.0 I advise against posting in his topic at the moment to avoid bumping
|
|
|
|
surfer43
Sr. Member
  

Activity: 560
Merit: 250
"Trading Platform of The Future!"
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 12:45:33 AM |
|
Don't post it here either. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 12:48:14 AM Last edit: May 08, 2014, 01:04:16 AM by AnonyMint |
|
Zerocash will be announced soon (May 18 in Oakland? but open source may not be ready then?).
Here is a synopsis of the tradeoffs compared to CyptoNote:
1. Zerocash hides everything, even the money supply so if the master key was compromised or if the highly complex bleeding edge crypto is cracked, no one will know.
2. They will claim to generate the master key at a ceremony or devise a way to compute in parts, but nothing they can do will insure it isn't compromised. CPUs even have special firmware that allows the NSA to reprogram them remotely, and even computation can be intercepted wireless with RF signals. Whereas we have to place all trust in a single party with Zerocash, with CN the trusted parties are changing on each transaction. Compromising the master key doesn't compromise the anonymity, but does compromise the money supply which could be expanded invisibly. Cracking the highly complex bleeding edge crypto which has not been sufficiently vetted over years, could compromise the anonymity ex post facto (it is all on the block chain).
3. Both CN and Zerocash use a form of cryptography which is not immune to quantum computation attack, if that becomes a reality in the future.
4. Zerocash transactions add up to 3 minutes of additional transaction delay which is much worse than Zerocoin. Zerocash (full node computation and block chain) resource requirements are centralizing but much improved over Zerocoin.
5. Zerocash hides everything so it is not necessary to obscure your IP address.
Thus on balance I prefer CN, but I like to see it altered to use a quantum computer resistant algorithm. And then we need to add IP address obfuscation as well that is superior to Tor and I2P.
Darkcoin (CoinJoin innovation) is really not at the level of the two above. You can review my comments in the Darkcoin thread to see why.
|
|
|
|
|
eizh
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 12:53:08 AM |
|
Main post now updated to the latest builds. Changes put in today:
- Source code change in slow_hash.c that doubles hashrate in both Linux and Windows. - Windows from the same source + compiler optimization that puts Windows on par with Linux. - 32-bit Windows binaries released. Please test these and report back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 12:55:25 AM |
|
Thus on balance I prefer CN, but I like to see it altered to use a quantum computer resistant algorithm.
LOL There is research demonstrating ring signatures with quantum computing resistant formulations.
|
|
|
|
|
eizh
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 12:56:04 AM |
|
Thus on balance I prefer CN, but I like to see it altered to use a quantum computer resistance algorithm. And then we need to add IP address obfuscation as well that is superior to Tor and I2P.
Darkcoin (CoinJoin innovation) is really not at the level of the two above. You can review my comments in the Darkcoin thread to see why.
Thanks for the overview. What do you recommend that's superior to Tor?
|
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 12:56:39 AM |
|
Thus on balance I prefer CN, but I like to see it altered to use a quantum computer resistance algorithm. And then we need to add IP address obfuscation as well that is superior to Tor and I2P.
Darkcoin (CoinJoin innovation) is really not at the level of the two above. You can review my comments in the Darkcoin thread to see why.
Thanks for the overview. What do you recommend that's superior to Tor? What I envision isn't available yet.
|
|
|
|
|
AnonyMint
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 01:10:23 AM |
|
Somebody is attemping to relaunch == steal Monero  bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599580.0 I advise against posting in his topic at the moment to avoid bumping I would strongly suggest partial closed source until market dominance is achieved. Having the best developers will likely mean others can't readily fill in the gaps to release clones early in the ramp up.
|
|
|
|
blaaaaacksuit
Sr. Member
  

Activity: 280
Merit: 250
Who cares?
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 01:14:15 AM |
|
Somebody is attemping to relaunch == steal Monero  bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599580.0 I advise against posting in his topic at the moment to avoid bumping I would strongly suggest partial closed source until market dominance is achieved. Having the best developers will likely mean others can't readily fill in the gaps to release clones early in the ramp up. Source is already out there. Could make the pool software closed source when it comes out though. That would give monero an edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ivan166
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 01:25:26 AM |
|
Main post now updated to the latest builds. Changes put in today:
- Source code change in slow_hash.c that doubles hashrate in both Linux and Windows. - Windows from the same source + compiler optimization that puts Windows on par with Linux. - 32-bit Windows binaries released. Please test these and report back.
Russian thread also updated as well.
|
|
|
|
surfer43
Sr. Member
  

Activity: 560
Merit: 250
"Trading Platform of The Future!"
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 01:26:50 AM |
|
Somebody is attemping to relaunch == steal Monero  bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599580.0 I advise against posting in his topic at the moment to avoid bumping I would strongly suggest partial closed source until market dominance is achieved. Having the best developers will likely mean others can't readily fill in the gaps to release clones early in the ramp up. Source is already out there. Could make the pool software closed source when it comes out though. That would give monero an edge. Not going to happen. A condition of the pool software bounty is that it is open source.
|
|
|
|
|
|
eizh
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 01:35:51 AM Last edit: May 09, 2014, 08:11:20 PM by eizh |
|
Altcoin history shows that except in the case of premine (Tenebrix), the first implementation stays the largest by a wide margin. We're repeating that here by outpacing Bytecoin (thanks to its 80% mine prior to surfacing). No other CN coin has anywhere near the hashrate or trading volume. Go check diff in Fantom for example or the lack of activity in BCN trading.
The only CN coin out there doing something valuable is HoneyPenny, and they're open source too. If HP develops something useful, MRO can incorporate it as well. Open source gives confidence. No need for any further edge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
eizh
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 01:37:02 AM |
|
Not going to happen. A condition of the pool software bounty is that it is open source.
Yep, that was the entire point of the bounty.
|
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary

Activity: 2982
Merit: 1203
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 01:45:08 AM |
|
Altcoin history shows that except in the case of premine (Tenebrix), the first implementation stays the largest by a wide margin. We're repeating that here by outpacing Bytecoin (thanks to its 80% mine prior to surfacing). No other CN coin has anywhere near the hashrate or trading volume. Go check diff in Fantom for example or the lack of activity in BCN trading. Tomorrow you can watch this Monero "relaunch" troll coin fail when it goes live.
Fantom will likely catch up in terms of difficulty due to merged mining but will still likely be a shitcoin that miners just dump for a little extra income (like the BTC merged coins). I personally find it a bit irratating that they went ahead and did merged mining even though this coin's community specifically said we didn't want it. I would really like to see the ability to merge mine coins against MRO removed. Let them build their own network.
|
|
|
|
|
MINIGO
Member


Activity: 78
Merit: 10
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 02:51:36 AM |
|
strange when none of these accounts were around for the discussions that took place 3 weeks ago. Such vested interests with no prior indications. Hmm..
|
|
|
|
|
Johnny Mnemonic
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 03:21:55 AM |
|
Could you remind me of these flaws you perceived? I honestly don't remember.
A bitcoin style emission means the circulating money supply will continue to decrease. As block reward decreases miners will become more and more dependent on tx fees. Eventually the transaction fees will be so expensive the transaction won't be worth conducting. You must have a steady debasement or even the smallest currency unit will eventually be too valuable. Ideally, there shouldn't be any tx fees at all. Bitcoin is only maintaining its circulating supply because new coins are still being created. However, with mining becoming more and more privileged and block reward decreasing, the circulating wealth will dry up and a tx fees will spiral out of control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
huhliki.k
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 07:17:57 AM |
|
Is it possible to use daemon and wallet across proxy?
?
|
|
|
|
|
|
skybot13x
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 07:46:21 AM |
|
Whats the benefit of these new ones?
|
|
|
|
|
eizh
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 09:28:13 AM |
|
Is it possible to use daemon and wallet across proxy?
? Nothing within the code provides this yet. You would have to configure your connections on your own. Whats the benefit of these new ones? Previously 32-bit wasn't possible, which is the biggest change. These were the other improvements: 1. Simplwallet can set extra for transfers 2. Improvements in JSON RPC for wallet 3. Minor user experience improvements in simplewallet The top two don't really matter for ordinary users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
dreamspark
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 09:32:35 AM |
|
eizh: Will these changes help exchange owners that want to add MRO?
|
|
|
|
|
|