delete

[YarkoL]

@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

* I have found very specific exploits in CN that have not been fixed

If that is true, it will affect all CN coins. Since Boolberry just places some restrictions to
the set of possible anon transactions it would not be resistant.

However

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

[TheFascistMind]

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 will not be joining any coin that has a foundation, the exception being a foundation that has the very limited role of holding the domain names (and any other assets that can't be held anonymously) for compliance with law.

I observe throughout all examples in human history all collective trust is corruption directed. The best intentions of mice and men won't change this, e.g. I was banned at least once from their Cryptocrypt forum. They could have learned a lot of information from me a lot sooner, but their top-down perspective won (unwittingly a manifestation of gestapo).

PoW solved the bottom-up consensus without trust problem (although we discussed upthread that the trend towards centralization hasn't been solved yet and if I am correct BCX will need to find a new vocation and abandon his pools). Google Paul Brody at IBM to see how fundamental this paradigm shift is.

The most useful activity those with large capital can do is to angel invest in startups which proliferate the use of crypto-currencies to hopefully drive adoption as a unit-of-account. For as long as crypto-currencies are just a pass-through mechanism (e.g. Bitpay) then we've accomplished nothing against the coming global consolidation of fiat power.

I'm refuting the notion that there exists some causal relationship between expenditure and value. That relationship is correlation in some cases, but not causation. Plenty of coins have been mined with great expenditure of resources yet are worthless now. The inverse is also true. Some coins have been mined quickly and without much expenditure, but are highly valued.

That is a very astute point. The value of a coin other than as an investor pump has been the value of a currency, which is related to the number of goods and services it can be spent on and moreover the number of people who use it as their unit-of-account. Bitcoin has done only moderate inroads on the former and failed miserably on the latter (Peter Thiel's Bitpay actively works to not make it a unit-of-account).

The only prayer of attaining unit-of-account status is to put the coin in a 100 - 1000 million spenders' hands such that both the former and latter are synergistic. Apple Pay is going to lock up 200 million within a year or so. Time is running out, but there is still the developing world, yet I see Bangladesh has threatened to jail users of crypto-currency and Ecuador is also hostile.

I've had my mind on bigger issues than just anonymity. Anonymity is personally important to me, but not to vast majority of consumers. A coins design has to factor these realities in.

[illodin]

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.

Every new coin will have low hash. If a "low-hash coin" takes off i.e. becomes popular, the low-hash issue goes away. Whereas a fundamental technological flaw will not.

[TheFascistMind]

If that is true, it will affect all CN coins. Since Boolberry just places some restrictions to
the set of possible anon transactions it would not be resistant.

However

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

How it is implemented could possibly mean how rings intersect (my hunch) which would thus implicate all CN coins. He may be saying that the encryption of one ring is not breakable, but the correlation of multiple rings leads to a discovery of the 'x' private key in the NIZKP. I shouldn't be so lazy and should actually try to do the math to see if my hunch is correct. There are other probably other possibilities as well. I can't be sure my hunch is the correct one, as I haven't done the math (yet).

[svetliopi44]

Sorry for the deviation from the topic and my bad English.
Does this topic not just the opposite effect.
I see that there are many people willing to buy Monero and Boolbarry than people want to sell.

[TheFascistMind]

Sorry for the deviation from the topic and my bad English.
Does this topic not just the opposite effect.
I see that there are many people willing to buy Monero and Boolbarry than people want to sell.

BCX is buying? He said he wouldn't but he didn't say his friends wouldn't. Rpietilla is doubling-down?

Messy thread. I am signing out. Can't make confirmed sense of it, unless I confirm an exploit.

[svetliopi44]

Sorry for the deviation from the topic and my bad English.
Does this topic not just the opposite effect.
I see that there are many people willing to buy Monero and Boolbarry than people want to sell.

BCX is buying? He said he wouldn't but he didn't say his friends wouldn't. Rpietilla is doubling-down?

Messy thread. I am signing out. Can't make confirmed sense of it, unless I confirm an exploit.

I do not understand a lot of speculation, but I see two walls of purchase for Monero and Boolberry

[Johnny Mnemonic]

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.

Then why not disclose it?

If you're not selling it, and only you and one other person are capable of executing it, then why not simply tell us what it is? The only reason I can possibly think of is that there is no exploit in the first place.

[YarkoL]

How it is implemented could possibly mean how rings intersect (my hunch) which would thus implicate all CN coins. He may be saying that the encryption of one ring is not breakable, but the correlation of multiple rings leads to a discovery of the 'x' private key in the NIZKP. I shouldn't be so lazy and should actually try to do the math to see if my hunch is correct. There are other probably other possibilities as well. I can't be sure my hunch is the correct one, as I haven't done the math (yet).

As a simple mechanic, my first instinct is to check the generation
of random bytes. Can these be tampered with?

[arielbit]

if bcx won't share it..my say is attack it and see if it survives, we don't want XMR to be exploited when it is more or less than 100$ a piece, do we? besides what if somebody discovers it or learned how to do it besides bcx.

but allow some time for bug hunters to find it..with bounty  

[OrientA]

if bcx won't share it..my say is attack it and see if it survives, we don't want XMR to be exploited when it is more or less than 100$ a piece, do we? besides what if somebody discovers it or learned how to do it besides bcx.

It is better to be attacked now than when the market capitalization of $10b. But if the bug is in the ring, then it is quite fundamental.

[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 will not be joining any coin that has a foundation, the exception being a foundation that has the very limited role of holding the domain names (and any other assets that can't be held anonymously) for compliance with law.

This Monero Economic Workgroup aka "foundation" (?) is somewhat different in scope and direction than say the Bitcoin foundation or some of the other coin foundations.

It doesn't exist to hold on to a premine or employ the developers (but does intend to donate to development) and doesn't hold any position of authority over the project itself. Its is something more like an industry association and will serve as a mechanism for those in the user/merchant community to work together to build the economy. Of course there is no real "industry" or economy to associate or build at this point but there are certainly people who want to change that.

[instacalm]

This Monero Economic Workgroup aka "foundation" (?) is somewhat different in scope and direction than say the Bitcoin foundation or some of the other coin foundations.

Speaking as one of the Monero core team members, I can assure you that there will NEVER be a Monero Foundation. If anyone starts something like that we will reject it, and will encourage the community to reject it.

?

[superresistant]

This Monero Economic Workgroup aka "foundation" (?) is somewhat different in scope and direction than say the Bitcoin foundation or some of the other coin foundations.

Speaking as one of the Monero core team members, I can assure you that there will NEVER be a Monero Foundation. If anyone starts something like that we will reject it, and will encourage the community to reject it.

?

Monero is the money of people.
No hierarchy, no rules, no restrictions.
Get it ?

[instacalm]

Monero is the money of people.
No hierarchy, no rules, no restrictions.
Get it ?

No, actually I don't

Also could you please explain the contradiction I quoted in the above post? Thanks

[dEBRUYNE]

Monero is the money of people.
No hierarchy, no rules, no restrictions.
Get it ?

No I don't, sorry

Also could you please explain the contradiction I quoted in the above post? Thanks

The monero economy workgroup (MEW) is not a foundation.
See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776479.0

[instacalm]

The monero economy workgroup (MEW) is not a foundation.
See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776479.0

The voting aspect could be conveyed by "Parliament" or similar. "Council", even "Consortium" have been proposed. "Foundation" is often used but was rejected in yesterday's meeting.

So basically it's a foundation but not called foundation

[smooth]

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.

Something being risky doesn't mean it is a mistake or that you shouldn't it. That is a question of price, and ultimately, individual judgement. Just be aware of the risks.

[smooth]

The monero economy workgroup (MEW) is not a foundation.
See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776479.0

The voting aspect could be conveyed by "Parliament" or similar. "Council", even "Consortium" have been proposed. "Foundation" is often used but was rejected in yesterday's meeting.

So basically it's a foundation but not called foundation

Call it whatever the hell you want. The people running it aren't calling it a foundation, and the role that it serves is certainly different from some of the other coin foundations that exist. But if you want to say it is "basically a foundation" go right ahead. I'm not sure anyone actually cares. I sure don't.

[instacalm]

Call it whatever the hell you want. The people running it aren't calling it a foundation, and the role that it serves is certainly different from some of the other coin foundations that exist. But if you want to say it is "basically a foundation" go right ahead. I'm not sure anyone actually cares. I sure don't.

I don't care either (have 0 XMR), I just find it pretty funny