[XMR] Monero Speculation

[smooth]

Monero doesn't use any copyleft licenses and doesn't have any plans to so it is kind of off topic.

[1714662764]

1714662764

[1714662764]

1714662764

[1714662764]

1714662764

[1714662764]

1714662764

[1714662764]

1714662764

[sockpuppet1]

Monero doesn't use any copyleft licenses and doesn't have any plans to so it is kind of off topic.

Okay I drop it. Someone else mentioned ArticMine and Richard Stallman upthread. So I just took the opportunity to return the favor for him wanting to laugh at me. Thanks ArticMine.

[noobtrader]

That is my fault for trying to do too many thoughts at the same time. I have my mind deep in other technology and tried to quickly (as in 3 minutes of thought only) come back to the anonymity issue because of some realization I had about how tainted Bitcoins are due to all the scams. And it caused me to have an idea about DE (which I will post on shortly), but I tried to extend it quickly to CoinJoin and I made an error about trust. In short, you can remove the simultaneity requirement if you allow short-term trust, and this might be a viable method for more efficient DE, but it is not viable for onion routing across a masternode network. So I deleted it. Apologies for the 60 seconds of false warning which was deleted until you decided to gloat and resurrect a false warning. That is what I get for rushing in such a thread of egotistical manaics.

ArticMine it is pitiful that you are a Copy-leftist, who believes in viral licenses and forcing free software. You Communist. As Eric Raymond says, "stop all the oppressive licenses and use permissive licences. You are scaring the fuck out of the corporate world, and not without their justified reason to be scared". I prefer the Unlicense. You kill open source with that Richard Stallman Communism, because then for-profits are scared to use open source.

well... honestly i dont even know why you delete the post, i thought your post was deleted by mod or something

nevermind i will delete my post.

[r0ach]

I was thinking earlier about the legal system vs crypto.  Does anyone think user defined mixing will be a weakpoint of Monero in the legal department?  As in, a fixed mixed count would have been preferable if attempting to design around the law when user defined is pretty similar to active mixing.

It seems kind of obvious that governments would be far more likely to consider active mixing as an act of laundering (darkcoin), while if anonymity is part of the protocol itself, it's just a shortcoming of government auditing.  Both Monero and Zcash are safer legal-wise (than Darkcoin), although you would likely have to enforce a fixed mix count instead of variable if you really wanted to be safe in Monero.  

[GingerAle]

I was thinking earlier about the legal system vs crypto.  Does anyone think user defined mixing will be a weakpoint of Monero in the legal department?  As in, a fixed mixed count would have been preferable if attempting to design around the law when user defined is pretty similar to active mixing.

It seems kind of obvious that governments would be far more likely to consider active mixing as an act of laundering (darkcoin), while if anonymity is part of the protocol itself, it's just a shortcoming of government auditing.  Both Monero and Zcash are safer legal-wise (than Darkcoin), although you would likely have to enforce a fixed mix count instead of variable if you really wanted to be safe in Monero.  

I don't know the legal side of things, but in terms of the current protocol, the default fixed mixin count is the current implementation.

I.e., if you type

transfer gingeropolous@payxmr.com 500

it will send me 500 xmr with a mixin (or ring size) of 3.... and nowhere in the command is there a 3 specified.

[r0ach]

I was thinking earlier about the legal system vs crypto.  Does anyone think user defined mixing will be a weakpoint of Monero in the legal department?  As in, a fixed mixed count would have been preferable if attempting to design around the law when user defined is pretty similar to active mixing.

It seems kind of obvious that governments would be far more likely to consider active mixing as an act of laundering (darkcoin), while if anonymity is part of the protocol itself, it's just a shortcoming of government auditing.  Both Monero and Zcash are safer legal-wise (than Darkcoin), although you would likely have to enforce a fixed mix count instead of variable if you really wanted to be safe in Monero.  

I don't know the legal side of things, but in terms of the current protocol, the default fixed mixin count is the current implementation.

I.e., if you type

transfer gingeropolous@payxmr.com 500

it will send me 500 xmr with a mixin (or ring size) of 3.... and nowhere in the command is there a 3 specified.

Yea, but the fact that it can be user defined makes it kinda sorta fall in the same category as active mixing.  If/when crypto takes over the world, I'm sure there would be legal cases about BTC mixers and those laws would then be tested against the Monero implementation with a judge giving a subjective ruling on it.  Although, even if you had a static mix-in variable, they might just attempt to rule the entire coin itself is just a mixer and try to ban it.  I was trying to think of which anon system the legal system would come down least and most  favorable to.  It seemed like Darkcoin would  come in last in the legal department, with Monero in the middle, and Zcash might do a little better legal-wise, but I'm not sure.  Maybe they would all just be treated the same...

[GingerAle]

I was thinking earlier about the legal system vs crypto.  Does anyone think user defined mixing will be a weakpoint of Monero in the legal department?  As in, a fixed mixed count would have been preferable if attempting to design around the law when user defined is pretty similar to active mixing.

It seems kind of obvious that governments would be far more likely to consider active mixing as an act of laundering (darkcoin), while if anonymity is part of the protocol itself, it's just a shortcoming of government auditing.  Both Monero and Zcash are safer legal-wise (than Darkcoin), although you would likely have to enforce a fixed mix count instead of variable if you really wanted to be safe in Monero.  

I don't know the legal side of things, but in terms of the current protocol, the default fixed mixin count is the current implementation.

I.e., if you type

transfer gingeropolous@payxmr.com 500

it will send me 500 xmr with a mixin (or ring size) of 3.... and nowhere in the command is there a 3 specified.

Yea, but the fact that it can be user defined makes it kinda sorta fall in the same category as active mixing.

Perhaps. I dunno. "Kinda sorta" seems like a wonderful legal term

On the other hand, one-time stealth addressing isn't user defined. So how much user-definition connotates "active"? And soon confidential transactions will also be protocol-level....

[r0ach]

You have to take into account the people who would rule on such issues have no idea how any of it works.  If Monero had a fixed mix-in count, the prosecution would never be able to figure out what's going on behind the scenes and just think Monero and Zcash are both anonymous due to magic.  If some average Joe can bring a screenshot to the stand of a mix-in slider, a non-computer literate person might equate that to laundering and not magic.

[bitebits]

I don't know the legal side of things, but in terms of the current protocol, the default fixed mixin count is the current implementation.

I.e., if you type

transfer gingeropolous@payxmr.com 500 1

it will send me 500 1 xmr with a mixin (or ring size) of 3.... and nowhere in the command is there a 3 specified.

Let me test that.

Code:

transfer gingeropolous@payxmr.com 1

For URL: gingeropolous@payxmr.com, WARNING: DNSSEC validation was unsuccessful, this address may not be correct!

Monero Address = 46aRPgXEgqf23G2VU5fy4oeKBGpU6uXSv57CkXKrz4EbDwDeh573QQhZYeyjriWAMUhNoBHMUwkGV2A2ppWwAx4JT9HNJ9h

Is this OK? (Y/n) y

Money successfully sent, transaction <aabb4052eec0b2097246c2bd4ff2d5421a1ffdb086bbe42d7318500db22280b4>

Wow, how does that work (the sending to your 'email' part)? Pretty cool!


Edit, the default 'mixin' is 4 by the way (when / will we be changing that incorrect term?)
http://moneroblocks.info/search/aabb4052eec0b2097246c2bd4ff2d5421a1ffdb086bbe42d7318500db22280b4

[nioc]

Edit, the default 'mixin' is 4 by the way (when / will we be changing that incorrect term?)
http://moneroblocks.info/search/aabb4052eec0b2097246c2bd4ff2d5421a1ffdb086bbe42d7318500db22280b4

Let me guess, you sent it from MyMonero?

[nioc]

And soon confidential transactions will also be protocol-level....

There were just 4 RingCT commits from our resident coding cow.

[bitebits]

Edit, the default 'mixin' is 4 by the way (when / will we be changing that incorrect term?)
http://moneroblocks.info/search/aabb4052eec0b2097246c2bd4ff2d5421a1ffdb086bbe42d7318500db22280b4

Let me guess, you sent it from MyMonero?

No, CLI (Windows simplewallet). Why?

[nioc]

Edit, the default 'mixin' is 4 by the way (when / will we be changing that incorrect term?)
http://moneroblocks.info/search/aabb4052eec0b2097246c2bd4ff2d5421a1ffdb086bbe42d7318500db22280b4

Let me guess, you sent it from MyMonero?

No, CLI (Windows simplewallet). Why?

Because the mixin default is higher on MyMonero. Then again the messages you received when sending looks like simple wallet.

I believe the next hardfork will increase the mixin default.

[GingerAle]

I don't know the legal side of things, but in terms of the current protocol, the default fixed mixin count is the current implementation.

I.e., if you type

transfer gingeropolous@payxmr.com 500 1

it will send me 500 1 xmr with a mixin (or ring size) of 3.... and nowhere in the command is there a 3 specified.

Let me test that.

Code:

transfer gingeropolous@payxmr.com 1

For URL: gingeropolous@payxmr.com, WARNING: DNSSEC validation was unsuccessful, this address may not be correct!

Monero Address = 46aRPgXEgqf23G2VU5fy4oeKBGpU6uXSv57CkXKrz4EbDwDeh573QQhZYeyjriWAMUhNoBHMUwkGV2A2ppWwAx4JT9HNJ9h

Is this OK? (Y/n) y

Money successfully sent, transaction <aabb4052eec0b2097246c2bd4ff2d5421a1ffdb086bbe42d7318500db22280b4>

Wow, how does that work (the sending to your 'email' part)? Pretty cool!


Edit, the default 'mixin' is 4 by the way (when / will we be changing that incorrect term?)
http://moneroblocks.info/search/aabb4052eec0b2097246c2bd4ff2d5421a1ffdb086bbe42d7318500db22280b4

the magic of openalias, brought to you by the monero developers, even though it can be used by any cryptocurrency.

https://openalias.org/

there are some services in the community to get your own alias, though you can do it yourself if you have your own domain name, or if you feel like using one of the available domains on afraid.org

[TrueCryptonaire]

The price is slowly sliding down as I thought it would be doing.
It goes down approximately 10 % per month.
If it continues on the same track, you are making money if you are able to borrow Moneros for lower rate and short it.

[rdnkjdi]

The price is slowly sliding down as I thought it would be doing.
It goes down approximately 10 % per month.
If it continues on the same track, you are making money if you are able to borrow Moneros for lower rate and short it.

That seems a bit risky even though I lost a bundle on the slide from $1.20 to $.85.

If a bug pops up in ethereum or the doa it's pretty obvious monero is used as a hedge and it's size is a mud puddle next to a lake with a dam ...

[sockpuppet1]

I was thinking earlier about the legal system vs crypto.  Does anyone think user defined mixing will be a weakpoint of Monero in the legal department?  As in, a fixed mixed count would have been preferable if attempting to design around the law when user defined is pretty similar to active mixing.

It seems kind of obvious that governments would be far more likely to consider active mixing as an act of laundering (darkcoin), while if anonymity is part of the protocol itself, it's just a shortcoming of government auditing.  Both Monero and Zcash are safer legal-wise (than Darkcoin), although you would likely have to enforce a fixed mix count instead of variable if you really wanted to be safe in Monero.  

I believe perhaps the global elite will kill off any system which doesn't mandate a viewkey on each mixed transaction, wherein some elected foundation or body is given responsibility for whom has the private key(s) to the viewkey. Better perhaps a multisig viewkey would be best where these would be given to multiple authorities (e.g. each of the major powers or regions national security agencies), and then a quorum of them would have to agree in order to view a transaction.

Thus I think the level of mixing (above 0) is irrelevant.

I just don't believe you snub the global elite and expect to not get your ass wiped in the mud.

I had hoped for an absolute technological immunity, but I studied all the technology deeply and I am very, very confident to tell you that it is impossible. The global elite will remain in control of the Iron Law of Political Economics.

Mass privacy is very important and Monero should stop being delusional and realize how they have to structure their system in order to be accepted.

I guess they might just attack the users and catch them at the on/off ramps and destroy interest in coins that obscure the blockchain from the authorities.

How can a user living in a country where use of cryptocurrencies are unregulated be controlled?

There will exist no such place. Name one. Just one.

Moreover, the protocol is controlled by the Chinese mining cartel, so all the regulation can be done from China. Your coins can be confiscated China regulates their ASIC mining farms. If Monero scales up, it will also be captured by the Chinese cartel.

With the rise of decentralized exchanges, controlling all on and off ramps seems impossible. Some countries may choose to be welcoming instead of hostile.

The Internet will be regulated. China is the model. They will assume the throne of the financial capital of the world in 2033.

You can waste your time disbelieving (and end up in jail and/or all you wealth confiscated). Meanwhile I will get my ducks aligned so I am congruent with the reality.

[TrueCryptonaire]

The price is slowly sliding down as I thought it would be doing.
It goes down approximately 10 % per month.
If it continues on the same track, you are making money if you are able to borrow Moneros for lower rate and short it.

That seems a bit risky even though I lost a bundle on the slide from $1.20 to $.85.

If a bug pops up in ethereum or the doa it's pretty obvious monero is used as a hedge and it's size is a mud puddle next to a lake with a dam ...

The further the months of January-February-March-April are the less unlikely it is to trade above 0.002.
In the beginning of the year the optimism is at its peak and the community has a renewed hope to finally get officially recognized GUI. The longer the year goes, the less unlikely it is a GUI will be ready this year. Rinse and repeat. 

[ArticMine]

The price is slowly sliding down as I thought it would be doing.
It goes down approximately 10 % per month.
If it continues on the same track, you are making money if you are able to borrow Moneros for lower rate and short it.

Trendon Shavers aka pirateat40 tried that with Bitcoin in 2011, when Bitcoin was falling at the rate of 8% a week, by offering 7% a week. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.msg605957#msg605957. Of course this did not end well for Mr Shavers. http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/plea-deal-reached-in-trendon-shavers-bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/.

What is interesting is who actually benefited from all of this. First hindsight has indicated that November 3, 2011 was a great entry point into the Bitcoin market. Sure the price of one Bitcoin did drop from 3.3 USD to just under 2 USD https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/mtgoxUSD#rg60zigHourlyzczsg2011-11-01zeg2011-12-01ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv so pirateat40 did enjoy some short term profits. Then the market turned and pirateat40 tried to suppress the Bitcoin price until August 2012 with his ponzi. The ponzi collapsed but those who bought Bitcoin at depressed prices in late 2011 and 2012, took delivery and held, all perfectly legal, reaped the profits.

[sockpuppet1]

FYI on potential competition to Monero:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1290263.msg14848587#msg14848587

wow... this is new development      

im preparing popcorn now... LOL  

... and the post has now being removed. Frankly fixing Darksend could be worth a lot of money so no hard feelings towards TPTB_need_war for trying. If TPTB_need_war actually has a solution, I am sure the Dash community will pay him for it and it will be money well earned. Does the Monero community have to be concerned about all of this. I doubt it.

All mixing that is active requires, obviously, activity. If you don't get activity up you won't ever significantly increase transaction speed of CoinJoin / DarkSend transactions. Fortunately, Monero mixes passively and therefore doesn't require activity of other participants on the network.

Actually there is only an activity threshold above which offchain mixing can be just as fast as onchain. Actually to do ring mixing correctly so that rings never can overlap in ways that allow combinatorial unmasking, Monero should require activity, but I was apparently never able to get Shen-Noether to understand this during our Reddit discussions last year (because he is a condescending prick in the same mold as Gregory Maxwell who thinks he is too smart, actually they appear to hobknob together sometimes), so afaik Monero remains "broken" (suboptimal). The advantage of adopting my idea for preventing combinatorial unmasking, is it would also make the block chain entirely prunable, not just compressable (which afaik is what Monero and BBR erroneously label "pruning").

The key breakthrough is to remove the simultaneity requirement (lol, I am the one who fixes Gregory Maxwell's broken CoinJoin in 10 minutes of my spare time while my head is deep in designing a programming language), and on further thought I've decided I want to embarrass noobtrader (to show my appreciation for his disrepect) so I went ahead and I think figured out how to eliminate the simultaneity requirement in CoinJoin! I figured out how to eliminate the short-term trust aspect! Another advantage is it can radically improve the robustness of decentralized exchange as well.

It will reduce the block chain size considerably. I also see how to put a viewkey in it. And the mix anonymity sets can be huge, say 50 or 100 transactions per mix (or more!). The disadvantage is the masternode can see the correlation of inputs to outputs. But just like any mixing method, if mix over and over, the probability of your anonymity set being known to any one party diminishes in probability.

You'd still need stealth addresses to achieve the delinking from the recipient's public key.

Another potential advantage may be that this technique I've just invented gives you IP address obfuscation inherently, which is one of the big weakness of Monero. Monero adds I2P integration to attempt to overcome this weakness.

My apologies to ArticMine. I am rushing so much, that I mistakenly (cross-eyed) attributed the above quoted disrespect to him.

Edit: my discovery for offchain mixing (fixing CoinJoin) to remove the simultaneity requirement, is essentially something like a ring signature, but the signers don't need to include the other signers in their signature. The ring is formed by the masternode. It is quite clever. I don't know why I didn't think of it before! The reason Gmaxwell didn't think of this, is it because it requires the knowledge I did for the fixing the atomic DE protocol of TierNolan. The insight comes from the work I did there.