delete

[TingCoin]

This thread is hilarious, thanks guys haha. Especially that Moneroman guy LOL, what a twat.  

Anyway yeah I've never been sure about CN coins and haven't invested in them. Purely because of the fact that ByteCoin first popped up claiming to have been being used on the Darknet for years prior to it's BitcoinTalk announcement. Which, let me tell you is absolute trollop. I always just assumed the creators were mining it themselves and sending it around wallets to make it seem plausible so everyone here thinks they're investing in an already established "oooh top secret" coin or some shit. Then all the clones like Monero and whatnot I haven't even bothered checking out.

Happy I made the right decision to stay away from these tbh.

[TheFascistMind]

2) There is no break down in the encryption but in how it is implemented.

If he is not bluffing, my hunch is probably correct. CN was never analyzed from the standpoint of the mathematical correlation of multiple intersecting rings. Rather the proof of security was for one ring in isolation.

I bet you will quickly find his exploit if you pursue my hunch.

[smooth]

Sitting on XMR is a mistake because there are way too many open vectors in what even the lead developer "smooth" has labeled as alpha software.
Placing large sums of any form of money in alpha software and expecting it to be secure is just plain foolish.

If you do so then ask yourself, am I feeling lucky?.

I agree with you, and I'm not being misquoted here.

But let's be real here, the entire market cap is like 5.5 million USD. That just isn't "large sums of money" when divided among a large number of participants. Its a very low speculative value fairly consistent with the risks involved balanced against what might be significant upside if the risks can be overcome.

Of course what is large to one person is small to another. Certainly no one should invest more than he or she can afford to lose in any speculative investment, and that includes not only any altcoin but any cryptocoin at all, in my view.

[Kuriso]

Just catching up on this thread and all I can say is...

Why are there 10 pages of response to me clearly saying I am not going bother XMR?  

Is it that clearly stating that I had no intention to bother XMR disappointing?

Allow me to answer a few of the pressing questions in the previous 10 pages.

1) No I haven't disclosed the exploit to the XMR team and I might not. Why would I considering I have been offered 100 BTC for it by a private buyer? Also it was not my "theory" per se but I did make it work and so far seem to be the only one with enough resources to do so. Trust me, others are trying, will they be successful,,, possibly.

2) There is no break down in the encryption but in how it is implemented.

3) There exist right now a very deployable, possibly lethal TW exploit that I have sandbox tested with success. But rest easy because , in all of crypto only two people have successfully deployed a true TW exploit, myself and Artforz and I said I am not going to bother XMR.

Art has been MIA so I think you are covered there.

Additionally I have a yet to be tested diff exploit but am fairly certain it would also be effective.

Again, I have no intentions on attacking XMR as my focus is my pools and DGC if anything.


My original advice stands,

If I were mining XMR I would sell as I mined.

Sitting on XMR is a mistake because there are way too many open vectors in what even the lead developer "smooth" has labeled as alpha software.
Placing large sums of any form of money in alpha software and expecting it to be secure is just plain foolish.

If you do so then ask yourself, am I feeling lucky?.


~BCX~

Is there anyway for you to post some proof of these issues without giving them away?  I bet there isn't but it would be great if you could.

[smooth]

Just catching up on this thread and all I can say is...

Why are there 10 pages of response to me clearly saying I am not going bother XMR?  

Is it that clearly stating that I had no intention to bother XMR disappointing?

Allow me to answer a few of the pressing questions in the previous 10 pages.

1) No I haven't disclosed the exploit to the XMR team and I might not. Why would I considering I have been offered 100 BTC for it by a private buyer? Also it was not my "theory" per se but I did make it work and so far seem to be the only one with enough resources to do so. Trust me, others are trying, will they be successful,,, possibly.

2) There is no break down in the encryption but in how it is implemented.

3) There exist right now a very deployable, possibly lethal TW exploit that I have sandbox tested with success. But rest easy because , in all of crypto only two people have successfully deployed a true TW exploit, myself and Artforz and I said I am not going to bother XMR.

Art has been MIA so I think you are covered there.

Additionally I have a yet to be tested diff exploit but am fairly certain it would also be effective.

Again, I have no intentions on attacking XMR as my focus is my pools and DGC if anything.


My original advice stands,

If I were mining XMR I would sell as I mined.

Sitting on XMR is a mistake because there are way too many open vectors in what even the lead developer "smooth" has labeled as alpha software.
Placing large sums of any form of money in alpha software and expecting it to be secure is just plain foolish.

If you do so then ask yourself, am I feeling lucky?.


~BCX~

Is there anyway for you to post some proof of these issues without giving them away?  I bet there isn't but it would be great if you could.

In a way there is. He could write up a description (or use some existing one he probably already has) and post a hash of it. After it is discovered by someone else, he can disclose his original writeup, and the hash can be verified.

[Propulsion]

2) There is no break down in the encryption but in how it is implemented.

If he is not bluffing, my hunch is probably correct. CN was never analyzed from the standpoint of the mathematical correlation of multiple intersecting rings. Rather the proof of security was for one ring in isolation.

I bet you will quickly find his exploit if you pursue my hunch.

Just out of curiosity, why the change of name to TheFascistMind?

[DieJohnny]

Again, I have no intentions on attacking XMR as my focus is my pools and DGC if anything.

~BCX~

BCX, most people that are interested in crypto know absolutely nothing about the underlying technology. We can read white papers and nod our heads in agreement.... feigning a sliver of understanding, then those tiny bits of knowledge are deleted from all thought almost immediately. We are fundamentally helpless to evaluate the true stability and safety of any coin we own.

The reason I say this, is because it is a waste of time for the crypto community and for individual investors to bother with coins that are flawed. They should be exploited and destroyed the moment they are proven vulnerable. Coins would be much more careful about launching, there would be a cost to launching a coin that is weak, today there is no such cost and the investor is left to simply gamble.

I would call upon you and your similarly capable friends to take it upon yourself to ALWAYS destroy a coin that is vulnerable, this includes low-hash coins, because 51% is a vulnerability that cannot be ignored. Someone has to be the police, we have police for a reason, to protect the innocent.

Please destroy Monero and any other coin that cannot withstand the force of your hashing resources, a two week notice should be all you provide, then execution, quick and painless. Slowly you can change this landscape full of scamming and thievery and lies.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Again, I have no intentions on attacking XMR as my focus is my pools and DGC if anything.

~BCX~

Whiny obsequious appeal for centralized action.

Your dependence on those you fear is a touching example of human weakness.

[slapper]

@BCX (and or AnonyMint)

Regarding #1 and #3, is the BBR code base with its different PoW and other core changes already resistant to the same exploit?

Edit: https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry

[Hunyadi]

There is/soon-will-be a separate group MEW, Monero Economy Workgroup, similar to foundation that some coins have.

Isn't that a bit arrogant. Bitcoin = "some coin" 

[smooth]

There is/soon-will-be a separate group MEW, Monero Economy Workgroup, similar to foundation that some coins have.

Isn't that a bit arrogant. Bitcoin = "some coin" 

I think there are other coins with foundations or similar groups? (I don't really know.)

[dgmon]

There is/soon-will-be a separate group MEW, Monero Economy Workgroup, similar to foundation that some coins have.

Isn't that a bit arrogant. Bitcoin = "some coin" 

I think there are other coins with foundations or similar groups? (I don't really know.)

BlackCoin.

[TheFascistMind]

Anonymint, I bet you're already on it aren't you?

I like you am too busy to pursue this. And if my hunch is correct, one needs significant hashing power to exploit it, which I don't have. Plus I don't want to create animosity with the developers, because I am hoping they will work with me in the future. I do appreciate your efforts and hope to be the beneficiary of your audit in the future.

Note he didn't confirm my hunch. There is also a possible antithetical meaning to the above post.

Just out of curiosity, why the change of name to TheFascistMind?

I intended to leave the forum for a while to get some work done, so the AnonyMint account was closed and I am happy for that. Because talk is cheap. And the silly arguing we were doing wasn't productive or had reached diminishing returns, especially compared to possible value I could create by coding and not talking. Or at least I wanted to not throw my reputation around because I am in support of the notion that the best code should win, not the best control over public opinion (yeah I wee bit annoyed that Monero tries to win with control over public opinion rather than not bashing the other CN coins and simply out innovating them and let their code speak for itself. And also a little bit annoyed that animorex and rpietila annoint the winner of altcoin innovation without seeing all the innovation and also with their limited understanding of the detailed issues involved. I am also guilty somewhat which is another reason to terminate AnonyMint. At the end of the day, we all need any innovations any one can do, and simply buying or earning bounties on that coin which is the most innovative will make us all rich so we don't need to get too overly aggressive on the public opinion battles.). I am in full support of any innovation that any altcoins can accomplish because I believe there are ominous threats to our human freedom on the near-term horizon which outweigh any of my personal desires for gain. For example, I am very interested in any exploit against one-time ring signatures, since I contemplated using them in an anonymity toolset. Notwithstanding though I would also like to make some money in this space and I trust myself to bring about the necessary innovations more than I trust any other developer or group of developers that I am aware of in this space. But if another development group leaps forward and proves me wrong, I might just have to join them. However, honestly I don't know too well TacoTime's (at al) capabilities or what they have in mind for the near-term future.  I am enticed back to this thread because some people who I think would be my angel investors (even if they don't know it) are also investors in XMR and BBR, thus I don't want them to lose the money that I am hoping they will invest on my efforts if ever I get there. Thus I want to try to ascertain whether there is any risk here on BCX's allegation. In short, if something is really important for the future of altcoins, I am drawn back to post.

Note I continue to get further evidence that jl777 doesn't have a deep grasp of the technology. Or at least some areas are not within his realm of expertise. I haven't looked at his code, and prolific coders can be extremely helpful if you keep them away from core things they don't understand well. Note I don't claim to be omniscient or to not make mistakes. And I don't claim to be better at cryptography than gmaxell and other core Bitcoin developers. I am a recent autodidact on cryptography and I am a generalist. So I have some distinct disadvantages, but I also have some creative freedom they may not have.

I learned in this thread that gmaxell (and Adam Beck?) semi-regularly communicate with the Monero developers. Well he thinks I am an idiot, so you have a strong ally I would probably never attain. Closing AnonyMint and stop fighting with the smart developers is a wise step on my part.

Are we affected of what ? He didn't say anything concrete. Atm it looks like classic FUD, because i can't see any other goal behind this post.

But still, it always possible to have flaws - with this post or without it, we should keep attention carefully.

yep, I think the same, I also find funny that the "coin killer" exploit harms Monero anonymity, sounds like the perfect FUD, either way I hope he will work with the dev team for a win win scenario, instead of more hate.

how it is possible for a locally encrypted wallet to be compromised is beyond me.
conveniently he says there is a workaround to this unlikely result that just happens to require losing the anonymity
however, it also seems unlikely that losing anonymity will solve any wallet stealing

without any specifics, this is artful FUD, especially with the "under the right conditions" part

It might almost be possible to prove that a local wallet cannot be stolen externally via the blockchain unless the encryption of the wallet is cracked and that the wallet contents are somehow able to be transferred to the attacker! I can see the theoretical possibility of unspent funds being spent without the wallet, which is what happened to XCP. Still for someone to be making such claims, he is either the top cryptonote dev in the world or it is FUD

There isnt an API call that allows the transmission of your wallet is there? Without this and also the ability to crack the encryption of the wallet, this is not very convincing FUD to me. It has nice tech terms to scare non-tech peoples, but unless his "right conditions" includes a computer that is infected with a keylogger the claims seem quite impossible. I await to be corrected with some actual specifics on even the theoretical method of wallet stealing that is possible without an already compromised computer. In that case, all coins, bitcoin included, are victim to the same exploit.

I know of an exploit for USD (or any currency) that allows all your accounts to be drained under the right conditions.

James

[TheFascistMind]

BCX, most people that are interested in crypto know absolutely nothing about the underlying technology. We can read white papers and nod our heads in agreement.... feigning a sliver of understanding, then those tiny bits of knowledge are deleted from all thought almost immediately. We are fundamentally helpless to evaluate the true stability and safety of any coin we own.

And thus the battles for public opinion. And even we developers aren't 100% sure which technological innovations are superior and must wait for the market and exploits to tell us.

Once the technological innovation settles down a bit, I and others can pursue education of laymen. I enjoy that actually. I used to tutor my engineering friends in college in physics, math, etc..

Right now we are so busy actually trying to innovate, do not have sufficient time to educate and we don't have sufficient unifying understanding to educate optimally. It is more a piecemeal process at this juncture.

The reason I say this, is because it is a waste of time for the crypto community and for individual investors to bother with coins that are flawed. They should be exploited and destroyed the moment they are proven vulnerable. Coins would be much more careful about launching, there would be a cost to launching a coin that is weak, today there is no such cost and the investor is left to simply gamble.

Killing innovation too early though also has a cost. And it appears to me BCX is too busy and was asked by his confidents to make a decision on XMR (and CN) and took his investigation only as far as finding the answer he wanted.

And doesn't interest him (economically) to expend more effort on it. Of he could be bluffing for some reason such as deciding he wants to be in XMR and thus wants to buy it cheaper.

Or he had a hunch and wanted to entice someone to do his work for him.

You have articulated my belief that a coin which has its act together on making laymen knowledgeable (in a non-confrontational manner) will have an advantage.

[farfiman]

Is it that clearly stating that I had no intention to bother XMR disappointing?

Again, I have no intentions on attacking XMR as my focus is my pools and DGC if anything.

Apparently you have- your words were attack enough- no need to actually do anything.

Sitting on XMR is a mistake because there are way too many open vectors .......

[TheFascistMind]

Is it that clearly stating that I had no intention to bother XMR disappointing?

Again, I have no intentions on attacking XMR as my focus is my pools and DGC if anything.

Apparently you have- your words were attack enough- no need to actually do anything.

Sitting on XMR is a mistake because there are way too many open vectors .......

Should he instead say nothing and then when the exploit is active (assuming he isn't bluffing), no one had a chance to get out. But not promising to publish the exploit after some time is very suspicious.

If you review the history, he received private messages urging him to look at "the shitcoin Monero" about 2 - 3 months ago. As he investigated he found some flaws and his initial enthusiasm in Monero changed to "I think the price will decline". He was then challenged to justify that and thus the OP of this thread.

If he is bluffing, my comment could feed the selloff. So I am torn what to post, but I do want logic to prevail here.

[farfiman]

Is it that clearly stating that I had no intention to bother XMR disappointing?

Again, I have no intentions on attacking XMR as my focus is my pools and DGC if anything.

Apparently you have- your words were attack enough- no need to actually do anything.

Sitting on XMR is a mistake because there are way too many open vectors .......

Should he instead say nothing and then when the exploit is active (assuming he isn't bluffing), no one had a chance to get out.

If you review the history, he received private messages urging him to look at "the shitcoin Monero" about 2 - 3 months ago. As he investigated he found some flaws and his initial enthusiasm in Monero changed to "I think the price will decline". He was then challenged to justify that and thus the OP of this thread.

If he is bluffing, my comment could feed the selloff. So I am torn what to post, but I do want logic to prevail here.

No- he shouldn't not say anything. But he can't say in the same breath that he isn't attacking it . I know he means actually using the flaw- but if people believe he is right then he doesn't have to actually do it- it's the same result.

[TheFascistMind]

Ideally he should promise to publish the exploit after a certain time, so there is more at stake on his reputation. The entire thing is bizarre. Has created a lot of confusion and doubt for investors. Maybe that is what he is trying to accomplish. Perhaps he wants investors to be more afraid of new altcoins. In that regard, he might up to ante on the layman education new coins need to do.

There are so many ways of looking at this. Well I need to go back to work. See ya.

Edit: I see BCX and I were composing posts at the same time, I basically read his mind.

Edit#2: he could also be trying to leave the altcoin space open for more competition by blowing some holes in the "arrogance" that some believe the Monero group exhibits. This may also be a way of spanking, "don't piss on the community".

[TheFascistMind]

Okay sorry.

[farfiman]

Apparently you have- your words were attack enough- no need to actually do anything.

Sitting on XMR is a mistake because there are way too many open vectors .......

You conveniently left out the part where the lead developer "smooth" agreed with me that it is indeed full of holes and leaving any amount of value in it is risky.

If stating the truth is an attack, so be it.
~BCX~  

I didn't leave it out because I'm putting my head in the sand..just wanted to keep it short and to the point.
Of course it's risky to invest in any coin. Also Gavin states all the time that its risky to invest in bitcoin that is years ahead of xmr and most coins.