rpietila Altcoin Observer

[Este Nuno]

The volume on BBR is increasing and XMR is starting to up again. This is reminding me of the last XMR run up.

Anyone expecting(or not) XMR to have another run up soon? Or are we going to be waiting a while for a news hit or some other catalyst?

[rpietila]

The volume on BBR is increasing and XMR is starting to up again. This is reminding me of the last XMR run up.

Anyone expecting(or not) XMR to have another run up soon? Or are we going to be waiting a while for a news hit or some other catalyst?

News are trickling.. of course it's going up now!

More interesting is, whether it makes a higher high (>0.010) indicating a rising trend, or just a higher low (which it did), indicating a stabilization somewhere between 0.004-0.008 below the ATH of yore.

Anyone knows the number of XMR holders?? Could be interesting..

[dreamspark]

The volume on BBR is increasing and XMR is starting to up again. This is reminding me of the last XMR run up.

Anyone expecting(or not) XMR to have another run up soon? Or are we going to be waiting a while for a news hit or some other catalyst?

I think a slightly slower run up will ensue absent some serious news. Its just finding its fair value which is always a volatile excercise. The volume boost as well as the buying back thats occuring are text book after a new coins run up, though I will admit they normally flatten out for longer. Im back in with what I sold between 0.009 and 0.01 (just my trading stash not my main) and will be increasing my investment as the technicals get confirmed.

[Brilliantrocket]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

Anonymint commentary on a flaw he found with Cryptonote. Yet another problem to add to the list.

 More good commentary :  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659

[othe]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

Anonymint commentary on a flaw he found with Cryptonote. Yet another problem to add to the list.

 More good commentary :  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659

Nice troll attempt.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659 - if you read this thread, you might notice comments from deathandtaxes, gmaxwell and others that Anonymints proposal is simply bad (like the whole paper linked in the first post).

Not to mention hes wrong again on cryptonote, he simply doesnt understand the technical background it seems.

[uvt9]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

Anonymint commentary on a flaw he found with Cryptonote. Yet another problem to add to the list.

 More good commentary :  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659

It's not a flaw. He was proposing an idea against double spend attack on Bitcoin in the case attacker has < 50% hash rate. He found that his idea doesn't apply to CryptoNote and other coins differ from Bitcoin protocol.

[Brilliantrocket]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

Anonymint commentary on a flaw he found with Cryptonote. Yet another problem to add to the list.

 More good commentary :  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659

It's not a flaw. He was proposing an idea against double spend attack on Bitcoin in the case attacker has < 50% hash rate. He found that his idea doesn't apply to CryptoNote and other coin differ from Bitcoin protocol.

Ok, it isn't something with immediate implications, but it will be acknowledged as a security flaw if Anonymint's proposal becomes a standard.

[Apraksin]

Possible cooperation between ANC devs and XMR devs.

"Meeh: I would also like to add this; fluffypon(the dev) and the Monero coin is someone we might co-work with to increase anonymity, but again, we haven't decided much else than that we don't shittalk eachother. So not you fans too."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=227287.msg7854613#msg7854613

[Brilliantrocket]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

Anonymint commentary on a flaw he found with Cryptonote. Yet another problem to add to the list.

 More good commentary :  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659

Nice troll attempt.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659 - if you read this thread, you might notice comments from deathandtaxes, gmaxwell and others that Anonymints proposal is simply bad (like the whole paper linked in the first post).

Not to mention hes wrong again on cryptonote, he simply doesnt understand the technical background it seems.

CN proponents always seem to think that anyone who criticizes their precious just doesn't understand.    

[Its About Sharing]

I've listed the Flaws of Darkcoin and Monero.

Darkcoin's Flaws:

1) Darkcoin has a 50% instamine by it's own developers during launch, as the block reward was set to 500, and there was no windows wallets/miners. Evan, the developer, and Internetape, the other developer, instamined over 1million Darkcoin's within 24 hours.

2) Darkcoin's name itself, Darkcoin, will always be affiliated with illegal activity like the Darkweb, Drugs, etc, and the name itself ensures that Darkcoin will never reach anything close to mainstream acceptance.

3) Darkcoin's "anonymity" is based on coinjoin, it simply mixes users coins around, making it harder to track it. However, if even the slightest taint if found when mixing the coins, an investigator will be able to deduce who sent what and who received what. The maker of coinjoin, Gmaxwell, deeply criticized Darkcoin since it's coinjoin based "anonymity" is basically a joke.

4) Darkcoin's mixing system/coinjoin relies on something called Masternodes, Masternodes are nodes that are set up by people, anyone can set one up, and Masternodes are the things that mix the coin around. Masternodes also present many risks besides giving trivial "anonymity", if all masternodes are owned by one individual, he will be able to "de-anonymize" Darkcoin and see all transactions clearly.

5) Darkcoin's Masternode Payment system has forked the network many times, and has failed Twice in the effort to pay the owners of Masternodes.

6) Darkcoin's Masternode/Darksend system is closed source, so that means the developers could be stealing coins, or doing any other malicious things, and it will remain unnoticed

7) The Masternodes can always be DDOSed, effectively shutting them down, if the majority of Masternodes were taken offline(they are mostly hosted on Amazon servers), then Darkcoin's trivial anonymity will completely shut off

There are many many other flaws, it will take up too much space to list, so I've listed the main ones.

Monero's Flaws:

1) Monero's bloating/scaling is an issue, where the blockchain itself takes up a lot of space on someone's computer, however, there have solutions to this, as shown by Crypto_Zoidberg, after he fixed this issue with his own coin. The issue has pretty much been fixed anyway, since bloating was caused by dust payments from pools, and with a recent update, those dust payments have been taken off. But because I think it will look to unfair compared to Darkcoin's 101 flaws, I had to list a "flaw" for Monero

2) That's it.

Worth repeating, thanks Darkota...

[drawingthesun]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

Anonymint commentary on a flaw he found with Cryptonote. Yet another problem to add to the list.

 More good commentary :  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659

Nice troll attempt.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659 - if you read this thread, you might notice comments from deathandtaxes, gmaxwell and others that Anonymints proposal is simply bad (like the whole paper linked in the first post).

Not to mention hes wrong again on cryptonote, he simply doesnt understand the technical background it seems.

CN bagholders always seem to think that anyone who criticizes their precious just doesn't understand.    

Brilliantrocket , you're now calling all CryptoNote holders "bagholders"?

[canonsburg]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

Anonymint commentary on a flaw he found with Cryptonote. Yet another problem to add to the list.

 More good commentary :  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659

Nice troll attempt.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.msg7857659#msg7857659 - if you read this thread, you might notice comments from deathandtaxes, gmaxwell and others that Anonymints proposal is simply bad (like the whole paper linked in the first post).

Not to mention hes wrong again on cryptonote, he simply doesnt understand the technical background it seems.

CN bagholders always seem to think that anyone who criticizes their precious just doesn't understand.    

I suggest you read the CryptoNote whitepaper. It's quite mind-blowing stuff. It is quite technical so you might not get it at first.

[Primitive]

i'm sorry - but this is the greatest thread of all time. 

[Brilliantrocket]

Interesting how all the Darkcoin flaws are either losers whining about the instamine (You'd NEVER buy a POS coin, right?). Or a criticism of coinjoin. Anonymint himself has stated that Darkcoin has solved Coinjoin's biggest problem, the potential for jamming transactions. Yes, he has also criticized the anonymity, but there have been some big changes since he reviewed Darkcoin. It seems like none of the things mentioned in that list are fundamentally unsolvable. Others will only be valid until a few months from now, like the closed source criticism.

[Brilliantrocket]

Brilliantrocket , you're now calling all CryptoNote holders "bagholders"?

Are you offended? I'll change it to something less likely to offend your sensibilities.

[drawingthesun]

Interesting how all the Darkcoin flaws are either losers whining about the instamine (You'd NEVER buy a POS coin, right?). Or a criticism of coinjoin. Anonymint himself has stated that Darkcoin has solved Coinjoin's biggest problem, the potential for jamming transactions. Yes, he has also criticized the anonymity, but there have been some big changes since he reviewed Darkcoin. It seems like none of the things mentioned in that list are fundamentally unsolvable. Others will only be valid until a few months from now, like the closed source criticism.

Come on this is rubbish!

By "solving" coinjoin's biggest problem Darkcoin has introduced more problems. The nodes can track their own operation, if you own enough nodes you can easily graph the transaction path. If you have enough DDOS power you can also attack honest nodes driving more traffic to dishonest nodes.

I'm really not sure that the Masternode idea is helping here. Also it doesn't take much to see problems with Darkcoin, almost every part of Darkcoin is problematic.

The Masternodes are weak and easy to attack, the distribution is a premine, the developer is careless and willing to risk the entire network to look like he's keeping busy.

[drawingthesun]

Brilliantrocket , you're now calling all CryptoNote holders "bagholders"?

Are you offended? I'll change it to something less likely to offend your sensibilities.

Offended? Haha, dude you follow one person's word as absolute gospel (Anonymint) and will not even listen to anyone else, when I said why don't you read the paper that Anonymint was basing his latest ideas off of you said it would take too long, you're not even willing to put in any effort but would rather just listen to one person.

The paper wasn't that amazing, the majority of it's concerns do not even apply to CryptoNote based coins.

[Brilliantrocket]

Interesting how all the Darkcoin flaws are either losers whining about the instamine (You'd NEVER buy a POS coin, right?). Or a criticism of coinjoin. Anonymint himself has stated that Darkcoin has solved Coinjoin's biggest problem, the potential for jamming transactions. Yes, he has also criticized the anonymity, but there have been some big changes since he reviewed Darkcoin. It seems like none of the things mentioned in that list are fundamentally unsolvable. Others will only be valid until a few months from now, like the closed source criticism.

Come on this is rubbish!

By "solving" coinjoin's biggest problem Darkcoin has introduced more problems. The nodes can track their own operation, if you own enough nodes you can easily graph the transaction path. If you have enough DDOS power you can also attack honest nodes driving more traffic to dishonest nodes.

I'm really not sure that the Masternode idea is helping here. Also it doesn't take much to see problems with Darkcoin, almost every part of Darkcoin is problematic.

The Masternodes are weak and easy to attack, the distribution is a premine, the developer is careless and willing to risk the entire network to look like he's keeping busy.

By running the transaction through enough nodes, even someone who owns half the nodes would not be able to reliably unmask transactions. This criticism is not valid for anyone except a government group, and you know damn well that CN is not immune to such entities either. The team is working on further solutions, as well.

 A DOS solution has already been implemented (March wants its talking points back), if it ever becomes an issue, Evan will do further work. He's committed to full time work for 2 years. As far as the forks, the only people who were at any risk were the ones who deserved it, the pools that failed to update. They'll be put at risk again, and if they don't update, they won't be able to mine. Don't see the issue here.

Remember that this is all beta software, being designed by small teams. Microsoft has thousands of people working on a project, and still you see bugs in the release version! We both know that you know better than to raise this as an issue.  

Anonymint's criticisms may not be gospel, but he is a genius when it comes to cryptography. Certainly well beyond any other (current ) member of this site.

[uvt9]

Ok, it isn't something with immediate implications, but it will be acknowledged as a security flaw if Anonymint's proposal becomes a standard.

Even if that case could happen, it's still not a flaw. People on that thread was discussing about improving Bitcoin protocol and the subject obviously doesn't apply to CryptoNote protocol. Think about Bitcoin as Windows and CryptoNote as Linux. You can't say Linux is flawed just because you can't install Photoshop directly on it.

[Brilliantrocket]

Ok, it isn't something with immediate implications, but it will be acknowledged as a security flaw if Anonymint's proposal becomes a standard.

Even if that case could happen, it's still not a flaw. He was discussing about improving Bitcoin protocol and the subject obviously doesn't apply to CryptoNote protocol. Think about Bitcoin as Windows and CryptoNote as Linux. You can't say Linux is flawed just because you can't install Photoshop directly on it.

If you have a security standard, and something else cannot meet that standard, I would call that a flaw. It would be more like saying that operating system B is flawed if you can't determine whether it has malware on it, but with A you can.