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

[rdnkjdi]

The bet is untenable. It is game-theoretically impossible for Risto (or anybody else, who we suppose helps XMR) to accept it. BCX is an asshole, but he's not an idiot and perfectly knew that.

What do you mean untenable?  To be a devils advocate - isn't whoever has worse odds going to be the one avoiding the bet?  Hence Risto had less favorable odds than BCX?

[1713911762]

1713911762

[1713911762]

1713911762

[nakaone]

a second thing bcx could have tried is to destroy the reputation of xmr, but why?

there is no real competitor, I doubt he bought darkcoin, not sure on anoncoin.

him being afraid that monero could really get litecoins position, but why wouldn't he simply buy or mine xmr when they are cheap.

I was quite sure that he was in interested in cheap xmr but I think thehn he would have cleared things up afterwards.

[rdnkjdi]

him being afraid that monero could really get litecoins position, but why wouldn't he simply buy or mine xmr when they are cheap.

Ahhh - litecoin.  That is the only rational explanation that I've said from the beginning makes sense.

I believe he got litecoin for around 0.20 each.  XMR isn't a sure thing with BBR plus dealing with a new codebase that still isn't fully understood. 

[generalizethis]

him being afraid that monero could really get litecoins position, but why wouldn't he simply buy or mine xmr when they are cheap.

Ahhh - litecoin.  That is the only rational explanation that I've said from the beginning makes sense.

I believe he got litecoin for around 0.20 each.  XMR isn't a sure thing with BBR plus dealing with a new codebase that still isn't fully understood. 

Hubris could also be a factor. Like a North Korean dictator's perfect game, BCX might buy into the notion of infallibility.

[krawallmining]

How long since the "attack" has started?
Aren't those few days already over?

[robinwilliams]

How long since the "attack" has started?
Aren't those few days already over?

ya ... i don't get it.

dissapointed in bcx   

[NewLiberty]

"All aboard the Bitcoin Express! We're leaving in 72--errrr...wait, wait...4 day--wait..errr...2 weeks! Yeah, get on board! Next stop Fudville!"

What are you laughing for? BCX had reached his goal. He had planned to bring the XMR price down with his exploit bullshit to buy in as cheaply as possible and got what he wanted.  

This is fine for speculating on what ulterior motives might be at play, however...
If you take BCX at just what BCX said, it wasn't about the price.

There were other things BCX claimed to want:
1)  "Forced Evolution"
2)  "requests for help from developers"

BCX achieved both of these.  These goals are also consistent with the general goals of the broad community of crypto currency workers (but perhaps with the exception of the threat of the use of force to achieve them).
This was a no-lose scenario for BCX, just different sorts of wins.

[cAPSLOCK]

This was a no-lose scenario for BCX, just different sorts of wins.

For the most part I would agree with this.  But if I were BCX I would find the hit to my reputation a bit hard to reconcile.  In the end he just was a lying manipulator.  And perhaps this is enough for him to have fun.

In the end his credibility was badly damaged by this.

BCX!  Crusher of Solidcoin!  Destroyer of Auroracoin. 

Played peek-a-boo with Monero.

Doesn't really continue the legacy does it? 

[5w00p]

No legacy ever existed.

[generalizethis]

This was a no-lose scenario for BCX, just different sorts of wins.

For the most part I would agree with this.  But if I were BCX I would find the hit to my reputation a bit hard to reconcile.  In the end he just was a lying manipulator.  And perhaps this is enough for him to have fun.

In the end his credibility was badly damaged by this.

BCX!  Crusher of Solidcoin!  Destroyer of Auroracoin. 

Played peek-a-boo with Monero.

Doesn't really continue the legacy does it? 

Agree, the Bit Corn moniker is something no prophet wants, especially when they claim to have the the keys to the collapse. You can spin it however you want, but this stinks of failure.

[nioc]

"All aboard the Bitcoin Express! We're leaving in 72--errrr...wait, wait...4 day--wait..errr...2 weeks! Yeah, get on board! Next stop Fudville!"

What are you laughing for? BCX had reached his goal. He had planned to bring the XMR price down with his exploit bullshit to buy in as cheaply as possible and got what he wanted.  

This is fine for speculating on what ulterior motives might be at play, however...
If you take BCX at just what BCX said, it wasn't about the price.

There were other things BCX claimed to want:
1)  "Forced Evolution"
2)  "requests for help from developers"

BCX achieved both of these.  These goals are also consistent with the general goals of the broad community of crypto currency workers (but perhaps with the exception of the threat of the use of force to achieve them).
This was a no-lose scenario for BCX, just different sorts of wins.

Did he really achieve b?  The following was his last post in that thread.

That is not the official statement of the dev team. Please reconsider what you are doing, this is not a healthy mindset to have. As humans, we are supposed to build things up, not break them down. It is our duty. Please reconsider.

Being in a healthy mindset is something I am not often accused of.

At some point I am sure the XMR team will realize they do indeed need my help and we may work something out.

But anyway the image below posted by nutildah is interesting. Check the blocks just prior to the circle.

Later guys.


~BCX~

That "work something out" sounds like _________

His quote also includes "proof" of his bogus claim of having already affected the blockchain.

[dewdeded]

For the most part I would agree with this.  But if I were BCX I would find the hit to my reputation a bit hard to reconcile.  In the end he just was a lying manipulator.  And perhaps this is enough for him to have fun.

I told everybody two months ago.

e.g. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709197.msg8049862#msg8049862

[NewLiberty]

This was a no-lose scenario for BCX, just different sorts of wins.

For the most part I would agree with this.  But if I were BCX I would find the hit to my reputation a bit hard to reconcile.  In the end he just was a lying manipulator.  And perhaps this is enough for him to have fun.

In the end his credibility was badly damaged by this.

BCX!  Crusher of Solidcoin!  Destroyer of Auroracoin. 

Played peek-a-boo with Monero.

Doesn't really continue the legacy does it? 

Sure, just depends on the legacy that matters to BCX.  All that remains would be for BCX to claim victory.  After all, BCX got everything BCX asked for from the outset.

We all can see how BCX's crushing might of brute force hashing, summonable on command plus a deep history of expert TW assaults and DDoS capability of BCX's repute, has forced the hand of the XMR dev team to alter their commits just to address this threat. 

That the DEV team also came to BCX, hat in hand, asking publicly for help from BCX shows their both humility and single-minded dedication to the success of their project.  They dropped all pretense of ego, all they care about is tight code.  They seem willing to admit that given enough power, the block chain, any block chain, can be overwhelmed. 
They did manage to raise the barricades a good bit, and battened down the hatches with their decentralized and nimble checkpointing innovation.  This would make any TW dependent attack much more costly to BCX with much less disruptive effect.

XMR is in the crib, in the years to come it will have to contend with much greater adversaries than BCX.  It was born out of a litter of CryptoNote alts, had a brief foster parentage with TFT, and now has a strong well balanced family of its own with its current team.

There is no perfect offering, XMR just managed to achieve "best yet", and within the 72 hours of the BCX challenge issued.  Other baby alts would be wise to follow this leadership in TW defenses.

There are TLAs more powerful than BCX.  Thanks to BCX, XMR is a bit more ready for those challenges to come.

[Nekomata]

XMR is the future.

[Hueristic]

...

Dont be so hard on yourself, this is not your fault and you said nothing wrong or provocative, he just chose your prolific post to use as excuse for another round of threats and BS.

Never forget we were actually threatened, it doesn't matter the excuses he tried to use.

Very true, If he couldn't find something to use he would have fabricated it.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I'm confident the entire reason BCX wants to "bet" is to pay for the hash power required to attack the coin. The reason he hasn't (seemingly) tried is probably because he doesn't want to expense it.

So no, Risto's refusal of the bet would have little to do with his confidence in Monero and everything to do with him not wanting to directly fund its attack.

[Hueristic]

I'm confident the entire reason BCX wants to "bet" is to pay for the hash power required to attack the coin. The reason he hasn't (seemingly) tried is probably because he doesn't want to expense it.

So no, Risto's refusal of the bet would have little to do with his confidence in Monero and everything to do with him not wanting to directly fund its attack.

Very astute observation. Given the right number BTC can be taken down.

[XDO]

Suddenly getting lots of the following errors in the daemon (pages full of red text):

Code:

ERROR /root/bitmonero/contrib/epee/include/net/abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABSTRACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection

I upgraded to head after the fix for the the BCX attack was deployed, and until now it's been running fine.

After restarting the daemon, I have the correct block height (239586 as of now).

Are these errors anything to worry about?

[smooth]

Suddenly getting lots of the following errors in the daemon (pages full of red text):

Code:

ERROR /root/bitmonero/contrib/epee/include/net/abstract_tcp_server2.inl:307 send que size is more than ABSTRACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), shutting down connection

I upgraded to head after the fix for the the BCX attack was deployed, and until now it's been running fine.

After restarting the daemon, I have the correct block height (239586 as of now).

Are these errors anything to worry about?

No it just means the peer is stuck (peer went to sleep on energy saver, probably). It doesn't affect your node. How often these happen depend on network conditions but in general nothing to worry about.

[Patel]

Couple of questions I hope a core dev could clear up:

1. Did they release the statement about the attack? Have any exploits been discovered?

2. Can we get some clarity on core development funding and how that will proceed?

Thanks