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

[generalizethis]

Is there a cut and paste response we can give on threads for people who are looking for anonymity? There's one over on r/bitcoin now and some are recommending mixers--pointed out the single point of failure inherent with mixers, but don't have the technical expertise to explain why Monero is a better means to anonymity.  

www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2gl4ua/quick_question_dont_upvote/

I'll take a stab at it. I'll just take the whitepaper and try to cut out anything that isnt absolutely necessary for satisfying your request. Maybe we can bounce it around and crowd edit/redraft it. Ok so thats just a super rough draft. Please be tactful.

Monero in a nutshell

Inorder for an electronic cash to be private and anonymous it must satisfy two requirements. Untraceability: for each incoming transaction all possible senders are equiprobable. Unlinkability: for any two outgoing transactions it is impossible to prove they were sent to the same person.

Unfortunately, Bitcoin does not satisfy the untraceability requirement since all the transactions that take place between the network's participants are public. It is also suspected that Bitcoin does not satisfy the second property. A careful blockchain analysis may reveal connections between the users of the Bitcoin network and their transactions thus it fails the unlinkability requirement as well. We offer a solution that fully satisfies both untraceability and unlinkability conditions.

Inorder to satisfy the requirement of untracability, monero utilizes the concept of one time ring signatures. After signing a transaction the user provides, for the purpose of verification, not his own single public key, but the keys of all of the members of a group of users. An observer is able to then verify that the real signer is a member of the group, but cannot exclusively identify the signer. So long as all of the other participants in your group are valid signatures, and linked to valid ring signature groups, and all of the participants in those transactions are valid and link back to still valid ring signature groups... ect all the way back to the genesis block, than no doublespend is possible because for each and every ring signature group in the signatures progeny there is an equal number of inputs and outputs. All of this is accomplished without any need for trust, without any denial of service attack vectors, and without the need for any form of centralization. All members of a ring signature group are equal.

Inorder to satisfy the requirement of unlinkability monero utilizes a scheme which allows a user to publish a single address from which, in addition to some random data from the sender, a one time use public keys may be derived. Hence, there is no such issue as "address reuse" by design and no observer can determine if any transactions were sent to a specific address or link two addresses together.

 I put things in poems so I can understand them better; is this close:

Most coins leave a trail of wallets
Where each man has spent his bling
Monero has gone and solved this
By making his wallet into a ring
That's melted--cooled--put in a pouch
Each piece is spread the world  around
The wealth is spread from house to house
So the senders ring is never found

[HardwarePal]

Error: refresh failed: no connection to daemon. Please, make sure daemon is running. Blocks received 0

Updated to new wallet from the OP
Wtf is this error and how to fix it ?

[sammy007]

Error: refresh failed: no connection to daemon. Please, make sure daemon is running. Blocks received 0

Updated to new wallet from the OP
Wtf is this error and how to fix it ?

You have to launch bitmonerod.exe and sync it. Wallet will connect to daemon and scan blockchain.

[gaba]

Error: refresh failed: no connection to daemon. Please, make sure daemon is running. Blocks received 0

Updated to new wallet from the OP
Wtf is this error and how to fix it ?

Same problem here. Even after "SYNCHRONIZED OK" message.

[sleepdog]

Check your firewall, the updated version may be being blocked.

[NeuroticFish]

I did the upgrade to latest on windows and it works fine.

I'd say:
- either some files are not OK for linux
- either your daemon was working when you did the upgrade and you actually have the old daemon.

Please don't throw stones on me if I'm wrong!

[xulescu]

Most coins leave a trail of wallets
Where each man has spent his bling
Monero has gone and solved this
By making his wallet into a ring
That's melted--cooled--put in a pouch
Each piece is spread the world  around
The wealth is spread from house to house
So the senders ring is never found

Golden.

[rdnkjdi]

Is there anywhere we can see the current dev fund status / amount?

The view key for the XMR fund is in the OP...we just need to provide tooling for that:) We've received around 25.3 BTC in XMR donations, and 7.80559 BTC in BTC donations, so a total of 33.10559 BTC. Actual expenses / contributor tips / freelancers / mathematicians+cryptographers / hosting have been significantly higher (in the region of 110 BTC excluding the core team's time), which we have been covering out of our pockets. In other words, we're in a perpetually negative balance.

For whatever it's worth ...

I'll dedicate 5-10% of my holdings towards dev fund.  May be a few days & not a lot.

I did notice adding up all the XMR donations in the thread rptellia created was quite a bit more than 25 BTC (more like 40?) so I guess you must've exchanged them at lower rates to pay for expenses?

I think it would be a great PR move to somehow make how much "in the hole" the project is as far as what the devteam has spent on what more visible.  I know it's a labor of love but in my opinion it should be fully funded.  Maybe making it visible that the people doing the technical work are also pulling the financial load will help resolve that. 

Or maybe not too.  People are greedy to the point of hurting themselves.

[fluffypony]

I did notice adding up all the XMR donations in the thread rptellia created was quite a bit more than 25 BTC (more like 40?) so I guess you must've exchanged them at lower rates to pay for expenses?

Yes - rates are at-the-time that the expense needs to be paid, so obviously donations took a beating when the exchange rate was quite a bit lower.

I think it would be a great PR move to somehow make how much "in the hole" the project is as far as what the devteam has spent on what more visible.  I know it's a labor of love but in my opinion it should be fully funded.  Maybe making it visible that the people doing the technical work are also pulling the financial load will help resolve that. 

Or maybe not too.  People are greedy to the point of hurting themselves.

It is kinda frustrating to see other projects raise hundreds and thousands of BTC based on a whim and a promise...but then again, it does change the dynamic as respects the integrity of the project. If we're perpetually in the negative there's nobody's money we can run away with:-P

[halorose]

the updated version may be being blocked.

[tacotime]

It's kind of sad... Monero has attracted some of the smartest minds I've seen in cryptocurrencies and cryptography, but we don't have enough money to pay to developed even 1/4 of the things we need to. It costs about $100-150 an hour to contract a decent programmer to hack (and please don't start on the value of third world programmers, if you're talking about that you've probably never used them), or $800-1200 a day. I would estimate that ByteCoin put in about a half million USD to get their project off the ground, which is probably why they've been trolling us so hard. But, the fact of the matter is, we're either paying out of pocket or (like me) working completely for free.

Monero is about a lot more than pumping and dumping -- it uses many of the features that have been desired from core devs over time like privacy and faster/more secure EdDSA (which uses Schnorr signatures). But there are major, major architectural overhauls to the core code that need to be done to give it even a fraction of the usability of BTC, and I fear we won't be able to afford that. I suspect we need at least 0.25-0.50M USD per year to keep things moving along smoothly, and we're not getting close to $21K USD a month in donations.

[oda.krell]

I did notice adding up all the XMR donations in the thread rptellia created was quite a bit more than 25 BTC (more like 40?) so I guess you must've exchanged them at lower rates to pay for expenses?

Yes - rates are at-the-time that the expense needs to be paid, so obviously donations took a beating when the exchange rate was quite a bit lower.

I think it would be a great PR move to somehow make how much "in the hole" the project is as far as what the devteam has spent on what more visible.  I know it's a labor of love but in my opinion it should be fully funded.  Maybe making it visible that the people doing the technical work are also pulling the financial load will help resolve that. 

Or maybe not too.  People are greedy to the point of hurting themselves.

It is kinda frustrating to see other projects raise hundreds and thousands of BTC based on a whim and a promise...but then again, it does change the dynamic as respects the integrity of the project. If we're perpetually in the negative there's nobody's money we can run away with:-P

Amusing as that thought is, it's not a permanently viable solution. I will add my share to the fund in BTC (not exactly now, I'm a bit short for that), but I hope there are some plans to accompany meeting one of the larger goals (official GUI release, for example) with a more concerted fundraiser. Yes?

[Anon136]

I guess ill go ahead and bring up my idea of crowd funding again. Tell us how much it will cost to have the database finished. Tell us when it will be completed if you do raise the funds. Then I will hold peoples funds in escrow until enough is raised. The moment the funding goal is reached i will deliver the funds to the devs as per the arrangement. If the funding goal is not reached than I will refund everyone’s money.

See rep thread in signature if you are concerned about whether I am qualified for this task.

[OrientA]

It's kind of sad... Monero has attracted some of the smartest minds I've seen in cryptocurrencies and cryptography, but we don't have enough money to pay to developed even 1/4 of the things we need to. It costs about $100-150 an hour to contract a decent programmer to hack (and please don't start on the value of third world programmers, if you're talking about that you've probably never used them), or $800-1200 a day. I would estimate that ByteCoin put in about a half million USD to get their project off the ground, which is probably why they've been trolling us so hard. But, the fact of the matter is, we're either paying out of pocket or (like me) working completely for free.

Monero is about a lot more than pumping and dumping -- it uses many of the features that have been desired from core devs over time like privacy and faster/more secure EdDSA (which uses Schnorr signatures). But there are major, major architectural overhauls to the core code that need to be done to give it even a fraction of the usability of BTC, and I fear we won't be able to afford that. I suspect we need at least 0.25-0.50M USD per year to keep things moving along smoothly, and we're not getting close to $21K USD a month in donations.

At present, we mine about 20k XMR a day, 1% of that is 200 XMR or about $400. Can we make the the block reward to pay 1% of coins to a wallet controlled by developer? As the value of XMR increases, the reward will also decrease, making the payment almost constant or higher if XMR appreciate faster.

[nioc]

After updating to 8.8.4 and receiving no error messages I woke up to the following.  I just checked the log and it started over an hour ago.

Before going to sleep I sent another small donation.


2014-Sep-17 11:08:37.602952 [P2P7]ERROR c:\users\ric_000\desktop\bitmonero\contr
ib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABST
RACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection
2014-Sep-17 11:08:37.612959 [P2P7]ERROR c:\users\ric_000\desktop\bitmonero\contr
ib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABST
RACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection
2014-Sep-17 11:08:48.546157 [P2P4]ERROR c:\users\ric_000\desktop\bitmonero\contr
ib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABST
RACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection
2014-Sep-17 11:08:48.599194 [P2P4]ERROR c:\users\ric_000\desktop\bitmonero\contr
ib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABST
RACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection
2014-Sep-17 11:09:07.189484 [P2P5]ERROR c:\users\ric_000\desktop\bitmonero\contr
ib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABST
RACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection
2014-Sep-17 11:09:07.199491 [P2P5]ERROR c:\users\ric_000\desktop\bitmonero\contr
ib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABST
RACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection
2014-Sep-17 11:09:49.791634 [P2P9]ERROR c:\users\ric_000\desktop\bitmonero\contr
ib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABST
RACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection
2014-Sep-17 11:09:49.832649 [P2P9]ERROR c:\users\ric_000\desktop\bitmonero\contr
ib\epee\include\net\abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABST
RACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection

[mmortal03]

It is kinda frustrating to see other projects raise hundreds and thousands of BTC based on a whim and a promise...but then again, it does change the dynamic as respects the integrity of the project. If we're perpetually in the negative there's nobody's money we can run away with:-P

Those other projects usually have prettier websites and make use of other PR techniques. While I personally like the fact that the devs here are focusing on the fundamentals of the backend, I've come to the conclusion that I'm in the minority on that.

[Anon136]

It's kind of sad... Monero has attracted some of the smartest minds I've seen in cryptocurrencies and cryptography, but we don't have enough money to pay to developed even 1/4 of the things we need to. It costs about $100-150 an hour to contract a decent programmer to hack (and please don't start on the value of third world programmers, if you're talking about that you've probably never used them), or $800-1200 a day. I would estimate that ByteCoin put in about a half million USD to get their project off the ground, which is probably why they've been trolling us so hard. But, the fact of the matter is, we're either paying out of pocket or (like me) working completely for free.

Monero is about a lot more than pumping and dumping -- it uses many of the features that have been desired from core devs over time like privacy and faster/more secure EdDSA (which uses Schnorr signatures). But there are major, major architectural overhauls to the core code that need to be done to give it even a fraction of the usability of BTC, and I fear we won't be able to afford that. I suspect we need at least 0.25-0.50M USD per year to keep things moving along smoothly, and we're not getting close to $21K USD a month in donations.

At present, we mine about 20k XMR a day, 1% of that is 200 XMR or about $400. Can we make the the block reward to pay 1% of coins to a wallet controlled by developer? As the value of XMR increases, the reward will also decrease, making the payment almost constant or higher if XMR appreciate faster.

Thats actually a brilliant idea. Release a fork that pays part of the mining rewards automatically to the devs. If people dont like it than they dont have to use that fork. If the network splits into two, one where we have all of the devs being properly compensated and devloping appropriately, and another fork where its just some stubborn guys who dont like the proposal hording and sitting on coins that arnt being developed, than i think we know which would win out in the long run. If they want to fork and get their own devs and follow a more traditional funding model, than great we will have 2 competing cryptos that would both be pretty interesting. I might throw some capital into both.

Its not forcing people to pay you either. You provide some code, built in is what you guys want to be compensated for it, and only people who value your code more highly than what you are charging will decide to use it. Its totally fair. Just like a store putting a price tag on a product that they are selling. You either buy it or dont depending on how you feel about the price.

I obviously understand the drawbacks. We would be assailed for having an element of centralization. But i really think that when you weigh the costs and the benefits against each other, atleast superficially, we get to a point where we really really really should be atleast talking about this.

Also obviously this would have to be temporary. The devs would need to commit to weaning off of such a system after given features are implemented or a given period of time.

[aminorex]

I guess ill go ahead and bring up my idea of crowd funding again. Tell us how much it will cost to have the database finished. Tell us when it will be completed if you do raise the funds. Then I will hold peoples funds in escrow until enough is raised. The moment the funding goal is reached i will deliver the funds to the devs as per the arrangement. If the funding goal is not reached than I will refund everyone’s money.

See rep thread in signature if you are concerned about whether I am qualified for this task.

Wouldn't it be better to do it on kickstarter or the like?  Wider audience.  BTCT is a ghetto.

[mmortal03]

It's kind of sad... Monero has attracted some of the smartest minds I've seen in cryptocurrencies and cryptography, but we don't have enough money to pay to developed even 1/4 of the things we need to. It costs about $100-150 an hour to contract a decent programmer to hack (and please don't start on the value of third world programmers, if you're talking about that you've probably never used them), or $800-1200 a day. I would estimate that ByteCoin put in about a half million USD to get their project off the ground, which is probably why they've been trolling us so hard. But, the fact of the matter is, we're either paying out of pocket or (like me) working completely for free.

Monero is about a lot more than pumping and dumping -- it uses many of the features that have been desired from core devs over time like privacy and faster/more secure EdDSA (which uses Schnorr signatures). But there are major, major architectural overhauls to the core code that need to be done to give it even a fraction of the usability of BTC, and I fear we won't be able to afford that. I suspect we need at least 0.25-0.50M USD per year to keep things moving along smoothly, and we're not getting close to $21K USD a month in donations.

At present, we mine about 20k XMR a day, 1% of that is 200 XMR or about $400. Can we make the the block reward to pay 1% of coins to a wallet controlled by developer? As the value of XMR increases, the reward will also decrease, making the payment almost constant or higher if XMR appreciate faster.

Thats actually a brilliant idea. Release a fork that pays part of the mining rewards automatically to the devs. If people dont like it than they dont have to use that fork. If the network splits into two, one where we have all of the devs being properly compensated and devloping appropriately, and another fork where its just some stubborn guys who dont like the proposal hording and sitting on coins that arnt being developed, than i think we know which would win out in the long run. If they want to fork and get their own devs and follow a more traditional funding model, than great we will have 2 competing cryptos that would both be pretty interesting. I might throw some capital into both.

I obviously understand the drawbacks. We would be assailed for having an element of centralization. But i really think that when you weigh the costs and the benefits against each other, atleast superficially, we get to a point where we really really really should be atleast talking about this.

Also obviously this would have to be temporary. The devs would need to commit to weaning off of such a system after given features are implemented or a given period of time.

I would suggest exhausting all possible external options for raising funds before building something into the software. I think going this other route would be more scandalized and trolled than you're considering.

[Anon136]

It's kind of sad... Monero has attracted some of the smartest minds I've seen in cryptocurrencies and cryptography, but we don't have enough money to pay to developed even 1/4 of the things we need to. It costs about $100-150 an hour to contract a decent programmer to hack (and please don't start on the value of third world programmers, if you're talking about that you've probably never used them), or $800-1200 a day. I would estimate that ByteCoin put in about a half million USD to get their project off the ground, which is probably why they've been trolling us so hard. But, the fact of the matter is, we're either paying out of pocket or (like me) working completely for free.

Monero is about a lot more than pumping and dumping -- it uses many of the features that have been desired from core devs over time like privacy and faster/more secure EdDSA (which uses Schnorr signatures). But there are major, major architectural overhauls to the core code that need to be done to give it even a fraction of the usability of BTC, and I fear we won't be able to afford that. I suspect we need at least 0.25-0.50M USD per year to keep things moving along smoothly, and we're not getting close to $21K USD a month in donations.

At present, we mine about 20k XMR a day, 1% of that is 200 XMR or about $400. Can we make the the block reward to pay 1% of coins to a wallet controlled by developer? As the value of XMR increases, the reward will also decrease, making the payment almost constant or higher if XMR appreciate faster.

Thats actually a brilliant idea. Release a fork that pays part of the mining rewards automatically to the devs. If people dont like it than they dont have to use that fork. If the network splits into two, one where we have all of the devs being properly compensated and devloping appropriately, and another fork where its just some stubborn guys who dont like the proposal hording and sitting on coins that arnt being developed, than i think we know which would win out in the long run. If they want to fork and get their own devs and follow a more traditional funding model, than great we will have 2 competing cryptos that would both be pretty interesting. I might throw some capital into both.

I obviously understand the drawbacks. We would be assailed for having an element of centralization. But i really think that when you weigh the costs and the benefits against each other, atleast superficially, we get to a point where we really really really should be atleast talking about this.

Also obviously this would have to be temporary. The devs would need to commit to weaning off of such a system after given features are implemented or a given period of time.

I would suggest exhausting all possible external options for raising funds before building something into the software. I think going this other route would be more scandalized and trolled than you're considering.

well there is the crowd funding idea that i mentioned a few posts back. we could always try that first.