Bitcoin Forum
July 21, 2019, 10:13:19 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 »
  Print  
Author Topic: delete  (Read 165295 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1131



View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:14:16 PM
 #1821

You have totally and absolutely lost the argument regarding the concerted, orchestrated and most (by a million miles) annoying campaign by fudsters, shills and trolls that this forum has ever seen.

Because you say so. Sure.

There is no such campaign. Readers can decide who to believe. I suggest they look closely at your long history of posting in support of BCN, the 82% fraudulent premine coin, with obvious use of sock puppets (likely shills) that have been specifically identified and outed. LOL. Nice one.


Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1563747199
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1563747199

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1563747199
Reply with quote  #2

1563747199
Report to moderator
fluffypony
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1024


GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com


View Profile WWW
October 03, 2014, 10:17:36 PM
 #1822

-blah-

Jimbob...you read our Monero Research Lab's very first publication, right? You know the one where we spoke about a cascading privacy failure if an attacker owned sufficient outputs? Here's a link for you to save yourself. At any rate, this could occur in a CryptoNote coin where persons unknown to everyone else controlled, to thumb suck an example, 82% of all the outputs. That would be an exceedingly unsafe CryptoNote coin to use, as those person(s) could easily reveal the actual signature of just about any transaction, thus negating any benefit of ring signatures.

When choose a currency to shill for, you really should choose one that doesn't have that flaw.

somacoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 448
Merit: 251



View Profile WWW
October 03, 2014, 10:20:31 PM
 #1823

too much drama, way too much drama.
more development needed not blabla! smooths et al. post history is 99% drama recently. We want to see advancement guys! Don't let this shitstorm get you down and continue developing please, or have you stopped?
kennyP
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:21:23 PM
 #1824


So you're claiming that Moneroman88 is Bluemenie?

No, Moneroman claimed he is BlueMeanie.

I am not BM.



You got busted!!
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:21:31 PM
 #1825

-blah-

Jimbob...you read our Monero Research Lab's very first publication, right? You know the one where we spoke about a cascading privacy failure if an attacker owned sufficient outputs? Here's a link for you to save yourself. At any rate, this could occur in a CryptoNote coin where persons unknown to everyone else controlled, to thumb suck an example, 82% of all the outputs. That would be an exceedingly unsafe CryptoNote coin to use, as those person(s) could easily reveal the actual signature of just about any transaction, thus negating any benefit of ring signatures.

When choose a currency to shill for, you really should choose one that doesn't have that flaw.

And XMR paid me (7.5 BTC thus far, 2.5 BTC in arrears) for a supplement to that which is an idea for potential amplification and mitigation, where for example in some cases the attacker doesn't even need any of the outputs that are in the ring signature. Omitting my contribution (which y'all paid for, thank you) could possibly be construed as subconscious "not invented here bias" (hope not).
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1131



View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:23:24 PM
 #1826

-blah-

Jimbob...you read our Monero Research Lab's very first publication, right? You know the one where we spoke about a cascading privacy failure if an attacker owned sufficient outputs? Here's a link for you to save yourself. At any rate, this could occur in a CryptoNote coin where persons unknown to everyone else controlled, to thumb suck an example, 82% of all the outputs. That would be an exceedingly unsafe CryptoNote coin to use, as those person(s) could easily reveal the actual signature of just about any transaction, thus negating any benefit of ring signatures.

When choose a currency to shill for, you really should choose one that doesn't have that flaw.

And XMR paid me (7.5 BTC thus far, 2.5 BTC in arrears) to supplement that with a potential amplification and mitigation, where for example in some cases the attacker doesn't even need any of the outputs that are in the ring signature. Omitting my contribution (which y'all paid for, thank you) could possibly be construed as subconscious "not invented here bias" (hope not).

The extent of that vulnerability has not been quantified and thus nothing of substance is demonstated, we merely have a proof of concept and a supposition. By contrast, the MRL-0001 analysis that shows numerically that 82% control with low typical mixin usage on the network is clearly devastating.

FUD (aka repeatedly proclaiming "this might be a flaw/vulnerability" ) is easy. Proving something to be an actual practical vulnerability is much harder.

That is certainly not "not invented here." We've uncovered various potential issues that are also in need of in depth analysis. We consider both to be in the same category, except that we don't go around shouting about "possible flaw" before we actually know the validity and extent we are looking it.


TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:28:37 PM
 #1827

A direct question that has no hope of being answered directly.

Why are you attacking Monero?

Here is my guess...

He already told the devs with a public post that too fast of difficulty adjustment and throwing away 20% of the timestamps are weaknesses. The devs were given approximately 25 days to rectify those flaws, and thus far afaik have not done so. Perhaps the devs didn't see any flaws in those design decisions. I thus expended some effort to broad-stroke outline some ideas of potential attacks that require one of those weaknesses.

I understand you want BCX to walk them through an attack with more details, but you know even most very smart Bitcoin devs didn't think selfish mining was real after the white paper was published until they went and built simulations to disprove it and ended up proving it.

Denial and confirmation bias makes climbing the nice wall inefficient. The most efficient is action and demonstration.

I have experienced many times in my life the "not invented here" syndrome and it is very inefficient to fight hierarchies and vested interests to get something done. Much easier is to do what one can do without being dependent on some slow moving molasses.

The other possibility is that he wants to maximization the amplification of his reputation, since it was slandered here. Also I can't rule out the possibility that he has some level of distaste for the hierarchy of XMR and its public face (although that might just be me projecting my distaste for centralized paradigms), but for political reasons I doubt he would want to let that be known.

Hopefully he will answer you too.

P.S. BCX also indicated another of the weaknesses is a coin killer (something about anonymity and wallets), meaning it can't be fixed. So helping the devs in that case wouldn't be evolution, it would be delaying killing what can't live. I am not sure if he meant he would be attacking that weakness though. Maybe not. Maybe he is only trying to wake up the community. And maybe that "coin killer" weakness is only theoretical and hadn't been fully developed into a deployable attack. I lean to this interpretation because BCX has only mentioned TW like aspects in the past days and he confirmed a "decline in price" differentiated that from the other choice of "price to 0".

Edit: in most cases I agree with filing a bug report with the developers. But in the case that forced evolution is timely and a bug report would have to be prioritized, I might choose the former too. But I've never played the role BCX does. I would instead spend my time creating a coin without the weakness I found. If I was a developer for XMR, I would be attempting to change the design, but I would probably be met with some resistance since no attack has been demonstrated yet. Refer to the upthread exchange with fluffypony wherein he stated that until an attack was demonstrated, they could assume they could unwind any damage from a future attack, and that he had time to go think at the beach with his wife (the implication was that I was too stressful and paranoid).

There is nothing that teaches better than the shock of having one's confirmation bias shattered rather than giving one a long period of time to think they discovered and rectified their bias on their on volition.


Couldn't have said that better if I had said it myself!


~BCX~

Our dissociative identity disorder is so harmonious.
nutildah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1456
Merit: 1943


KnowNoBorders.io


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:34:59 PM
 #1828

"Accomplice" implies active participation or working in concert. There no one actively participating in the project or working with us, or contributing who pretends not to be. Everyone affiliated with the project is open about it. Anyone else is not affiliated.

Here is a definition that is clearer, from wikipedia:

"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization"

My time on planet earth is more valuable than this.

You lost the argument. Your coin is driven by shills - paid or unpaid - makes no difference.

Have fun counterarguing this point with an empty chair.

   ▄▄██████▄▄
  ████████████
███▄▄
 ██████████████▀▀▀██▄
████████████████   ▀██▄
████████████████     ▀██
██████████████       ██▌
██████████████        ▐██
██▌▀▀██████▀▀         ▐██
▐██                   ██▌
 ██▄                 ▄██
  ▀██▄             ▄██▀
    ▀██▄▄▄     ▄▄▄██▀
      ▀▀█████████▀▀





█████████████████████████
███████▀▀       ▀▀███████
████▀   ▄ ▀███▀ ▄   ▀████
███  ▄████▄ ▀ ▄████▄  ███
██  ▄ ▀███▀ ▄ ▀███▀ ▄  ██
█  ▄██ ▀▀ ▄███▄ ▀▀ ██▄  █
█  █▀ ▄█ ███████ █▄ ▀█  █
█   ▄███▄ █████ ▄███▄   █
██  ████▀ ▄▄▄▄▄ ▀████  ██
███  ▀ ▄ ▀█████▀ ▄ ▀  ███
████▄  ▀▀▄ ███ ▄▀▀  ▄████
███████▄▄       ▄▄███████
█████████████████████████
████████     INDUSTRY LEADING CRYPTO SPORTSBOOK     ████████
PARTNER OF
WATFORD FC
LIVE
STREAMING
DAILY PRICE
BOOSTS
FAST & SECURE
PAYMENTS
█████████████████████████
███████▀▀       ▀▀███████
████▀  ▄█▄  ▀  ▄▄   ▀████
███  ▄  ▀    ▀█████▄  ███
██  ▀█▀   ▀█▄   ▀▀██▄  ██
█  ▄    █▄  ▀██▄▄  ▀█▄  █
█  █▀ ▄  ▀█▄  ▀███▄  ▀  █
█    ▄██  ▀██▄  ▀███▄   █
██  ▀████  ▀███▄  ▀█▀  ██
███  ▀████  ▀████▄    ███
████▄   ▀▀█▄  ▀▀▀   ▄████
███████▄▄       ▄▄███████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████▀▀ █████ ▀▀███████
████▀    ▄█████▄    ▀████
█████▄▄█▀▀ ▄▄▄ ▀▀█▄▄█████
██▀███▀ ▄███▀███▄ ▀███▀██
█   █ ▄██▀     ▀██▄ █   █
█   █ ██         ██ █   █
█   █ ▀██▄▄█ █▄▄██▀ █   █
██▄███▄ ▀██▄▄▄██▀ ▄███▄██
█████▀▀█▄▄ ▀▀▀ ▄▄█▀▀█████
████▄    ▀█████▀    ▄████
███████▄▄ █████ ▄▄███████
█████████████████████████





.
..WIN WITH US!..
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:38:19 PM
 #1829

-blah-

Jimbob...you read our Monero Research Lab's very first publication, right? You know the one where we spoke about a cascading privacy failure if an attacker owned sufficient outputs? Here's a link for you to save yourself. At any rate, this could occur in a CryptoNote coin where persons unknown to everyone else controlled, to thumb suck an example, 82% of all the outputs. That would be an exceedingly unsafe CryptoNote coin to use, as those person(s) could easily reveal the actual signature of just about any transaction, thus negating any benefit of ring signatures.

When choose a currency to shill for, you really should choose one that doesn't have that flaw.

And XMR paid me (7.5 BTC thus far, 2.5 BTC in arrears) to supplement that with a potential amplification and mitigation, where for example in some cases the attacker doesn't even need any of the outputs that are in the ring signature. Omitting my contribution (which y'all paid for, thank you) could possibly be construed as subconscious "not invented here bias" (hope not).

The extent of that vulnerability has not been quantified and thus nothing of substance is demonstated, we merely have a proof of concept and a supposition. By contrast, the MRL-0001 analysis that shows numerically that 82% control with low typical mixin usage on the network is clearly devastating.

FUD (aka repeatedly proclaiming "this might be a flaw/vulnerability" ) is easy. Proving something to be an actual practical vulnerability is much harder.

Agreed.

That is certainly not "not invented here." We've uncovered various potential issues that are also in need of in depth analysis. We consider both to be in the same category, ...

Commendable.

... except that we don't go around shouting about "possible flaw" before we actually know the validity and extent we are looking it.

Controlled information is never as efficient as an Inverse Commons. The reason is Linus's law, "given enough eyeballs, every bug is shallow".

One person's FUD is another person's eureka instigator.

Myself and others have many times tried to suggest that the culture of controlling information flow is what is causing such a big problem for XMR's public perception. I also have this private speculation (my pet theory) that it limits the technical innovation, diluting the impressive brain power in the group.

Information and truth want to be free(dom).
TooDumbForBitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:39:17 PM
 #1830

"Accomplice" implies active participation or working in concert. There no one actively participating in the project or working with us, or contributing who pretends not to be. Everyone affiliated with the project is open about it. Anyone else is not affiliated.

Here is a definition that is clearer, from wikipedia:

"A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization"

My time on planet earth is more valuable than this.

You lost the argument. Your coin is driven by shills - paid or unpaid - makes no difference.

Have fun counterarguing this point with an empty chair.

Monkeydiaperchanger, an empty chair symbolizes your relevance succinctly and completely.



▄▄                                  ▄▄
 ███▄                            ▄███
  ██████                      ██████
   ███████                  ███████
    ███████                ███████
     ███████              ███████
      ███████            ███████
       ███████▄▄      ▄▄███████
        ██████████████████████
         ████████████████████
          ██████████████████
           ████████████████
            ██████████████
             ███████████
              █████████
               ███████
                █████
                 ██
                  █
veil|     PRIVACY    
     WITHOUT COMPROMISE.      
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
|   NO ICO. NO PREMINE. 
   X16RT GPU Mining. Fair distribution.  
|      The first Zerocoin-based Cryptocurrency      
   WITH ALWAYS-ON PRIVACY.  
|



                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌




   ▄███████
   ████████
   ███▀
   ███
██████████
██████████
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███




     ▄▄█▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀█▄▄
   ▐██▄▄██████████████▄▄██▌
   ████████████████████████
  ▐████████████████████████▌
  ███████▀▀▀██████▀▀▀███████
 ▐██████     ████     ██████▌
 ███████     ████     ███████
▐████████▄▄▄██████▄▄▄████████▌
▐████████████████████████████▌
 █████▄▄▀▀▀▀██████▀▀▀▀▄▄█████
  ▀▀██████          ██████▀▀
      ▀▀▀            ▀▀▀
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1131



View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:44:11 PM
 #1831

One person's FUD is another person's eureka instigator.

I'm waiting for that to happen even once. Then I will be convinced.

In this space the reasonable a priori belief is that FUD is just FUD. That does not mean it can't be reevaluated in light of new evidence, but without evidence, no, and without reevaluation the a priori remains rationally useful.

The code is open to all eyeballs, just as is Linux. Github, including developer's forks on github are open. Discussions on #monero-dev and other suitable channels are also open.

There is nothing being hidden, but we await actionable competently analyzed information. So far there has been none.



smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1131



View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:45:21 PM
 #1832

You lost the argument. Your coin is driven by shills - paid or unpaid - makes no difference.

Most certainly. Congratulations on your successful triumph by the unassailable power of proof by assertion.

Oh wait, was there some other evidence of shills that I missed?

 
robinwilliams
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:48:34 PM
 #1833

Quote
Refer to the upthread exchange with fluffypony wherein he stated that until an attack was demonstrated, they could assume they could unwind any damage from a future attack, and that he had time to go think at the beach with his wife (the implication was that I was too stressful and paranoid).

Quote
And XMR paid me (7.5 BTC thus far, 2.5 BTC in arrears) to supplement that with a potential amplification and mitigation

so there paying u to find flaws and ur just badmouthing them and saying tehy don't care?

bite the hand that feeds u much?
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:50:19 PM
 #1834

bite the hand that feeds u much?

Expending my scarce time to for example explain why checkpoints are not a complete solution is not helping?

That some people think I am not helping means they are biting the hand that feeds them.

So you agree ring signature entanglement from the coinbase transactions of the attackers fork could in theory occur??

How to unwind those?
This is a good question.
I'd like to think about it a bit, but I am still cleaning up the NEFT that spurted out of my face a while back.
After that, I'm going to feed the alpacas and see if anything comes to me.
It is a really good question.  Just too many distractions at the moment.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2198
Merit: 1131



View Profile
October 03, 2014, 10:54:04 PM
 #1835

so there paying u to find flaws and ur just badmouthing them and saying tehy don't care?

No that is a mischaracterization. What happened was that a bounty was offered for revealing an exploit that was shown to be stronger than what we had already published. The exploit turned out to have no obvious relevance to BCX, but nevertheless the requirements were met and the bounty was paid.

TFM is not "working for" the Monero project and has no obligation to us at all. He is welcome to contribute based on the project being open source as I discussed in my previous message. Useful contributions would likely take the form of code or well formed mathematical analysis. That is exceedingly rare here, but it does happen.

In case the issue of Linux comes up again, I will point out that I have personally made contributions to Linux. They took the form of recommended code changes coupled with test cases that clearly and explicitly demonstrated the benefit of the proposed code changes. If I simply posted about how this or that was a possible flaw without doing the work to support my claims, I would likely be ignored or ridiculed, as I have seen happen to many people in the Linux developer community.

TFM: "Entanglement" is no more an issue than reversal of the often-untraceable transfer of coins after a long (but ultimately temporary) chain fork, particularly through exchanges and other intermediaries. In both cases, when the fork is resolved one way or another, some transactions will be unwound, and those who accepted coins as valid on the wrong fork without a sufficient number of confirmations (always a judgement call) are out of luck. The only possible difference would be the ability to blacklist "bad" coins in traceable chains but not Monero, and this is a feature not a bug.


robinwilliams
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 11:06:38 PM
 #1836

gotit - my bad
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 11:16:12 PM
Last edit: October 03, 2014, 11:32:42 PM by TheFascistMind
 #1837

One person's FUD is another person's eureka instigator.

I'm waiting for that to happen even once. Then I will be convinced.

Some Bitcoin devs thought selfish mining was FUD.

I understand you want BCX to walk them through an attack with more details, but you know even most very smart Bitcoin devs didn't think selfish mining was real after the white paper was published until they went and built simulations to disprove it and ended up proving it.


In this space the reasonable a priori belief is that FUD is just FUD.

That does not mean it can't be reevaluated in light of new evidence, but without evidence, no, and without reevaluation the a priori remains rationally useful.

Irrational.

FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) is the reality because you don't know how vulnerable XMR is or is not. Thus it is healthy and should be priced in. Controlling information flow to prevent credible FUD dissemination is very unhealthy and prevents Antifragility. Note I am distinguishing credible and rational discussion of concepts from pure chicken little noise from n00bs.

http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals

Quote from: myself, who ever I am
Knowledge Anneals

Unsophisticated thinkers have an incorrect understanding of knowledge creation, idolizing a well-structured top-down sparkling academic cathedral of vastly superior theoretical minds. Rather knowledge primary spawns from accretive learning due to unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market. Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math).

Note I traded emails with Taleb and it seemed he basically concurred.


The code is open to all eyeballs, just as is Linux. Github, including developer's forks on github are open. Discussions on #monero-dev and other suitable channels are also open.

There is nothing being hidden, but we await actionable competently analyzed information. So far there has been none.

If the XMR code wasn't a shitload of C and written in some higher-level language such as Scala, I would enjoy coding it. Sorry I don't use C any more except for the optimized smallish portion of a code base. I wrote 10s of 1000s of lines of assembly and C code in the 1980s. Enough of that.

http://copute.com/img/types.png

I sat on the developer IRC for a while and I see mostly talk about the nitty gritty details about the source code. Sorry I am a high-level thinker. And thus I also like to code in high-level paradigms.
Liquid71
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 842
Merit: 1000


There is NO Freedom without Privacy


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 11:19:17 PM
 #1838

My vocal opposition is due to your shills

Then it is based on a false premise, since we have never employed any shills.

Given the foundation of your position being false, you might want to reconsider it, at least if you are going to be honest and logically consistent about it at all. Obviously you are not forced to.

You don't have to employ shills to have shills

Actually we do, if you know what the word means. Shills are people who act without disclosing their affiliation. If they had some affiliation, they would be shills, but they don't so they are not. They are just supporters (with whom you can certainly disagree) or possibly shills for someone else doing a reverse psychology attack. (Third possibility being detractors who are not shills doing a reverse psychology attack.)



nioc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008


View Profile
October 03, 2014, 11:57:03 PM
 #1839

A direct question that has no hope of being answered directly.

Why are you attacking Monero?

Here is my guess...

He already told the devs with a public post that too fast of difficulty adjustment and throwing away 20% of the timestamps are weaknesses. The devs were given approximately 25 days to rectify those flaws, and thus far afaik have not done so. Perhaps the devs didn't see any flaws in those design decisions. I thus expended some effort to broad-stroke outline some ideas of potential attacks that require one of those weaknesses.

I understand you want BCX to walk them through an attack with more details, but you know even most very smart Bitcoin devs didn't think selfish mining was real after the white paper was published until they went and built simulations to disprove it and ended up proving it.

Denial and confirmation bias makes climbing the nice wall inefficient. The most efficient is action and demonstration.

I have experienced many times in my life the "not invented here" syndrome and it is very inefficient to fight hierarchies and vested interests to get something done. Much easier is to do what one can do without being dependent on some slow moving molasses.

The other possibility is that he wants to maximization the amplification of his reputation, since it was slandered here. Also I can't rule out the possibility that he has some level of distaste for the hierarchy of XMR and its public face (although that might just be me projecting my distaste for centralized paradigms), but for political reasons I doubt he would want to let that be known.

Hopefully he will answer you too.

P.S. BCX also indicated another of the weaknesses is a coin killer (something about anonymity and wallets), meaning it can't be fixed. So helping the devs in that case wouldn't be evolution, it would be delaying killing what can't live. I am not sure if he meant he would be attacking that weakness though. Maybe not. Maybe he is only trying to wake up the community. And maybe that "coin killer" weakness is only theoretical and hadn't been fully developed into a deployable attack. I lean to this interpretation because BCX has only mentioned TW like aspects in the past days and he confirmed a "decline in price" differentiated that from the other choice of "price to 0".

Edit: in most cases I agree with filing a bug report with the developers. But in the case that forced evolution is timely and a bug report would have to be prioritized, I might choose the former too. But I've never played the role BCX does. I would instead spend my time creating a coin without the weakness I found. If I was a developer for XMR, I would be attempting to change the design, but I would probably be met with some resistance since no attack has been demonstrated yet. Refer to the upthread exchange with fluffypony wherein he stated that until an attack was demonstrated, they could assume they could unwind any damage from a future attack, and that he had time to go think at the beach with his wife (the implication was that I was too stressful and paranoid).

There is nothing that teaches better than the shock of having one's confirmation bias shattered rather than giving one a long period of time to think they discovered and rectified their bias on their on volition.


Couldn't have said that better if I had said it myself!


~BCX~

LOL OK.

It seems then that the bonus question was answered.

Being that I have somehow missed the answer to the original question, the bonus will not be forthcoming at this time.
TheFascistMind
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 04, 2014, 12:01:54 AM
Last edit: October 04, 2014, 12:14:36 AM by TheFascistMind
 #1840

so there paying u to find flaws and ur just badmouthing them and saying tehy don't care?

No that is a mischaracterization. What happened was that a bounty was offered for revealing an exploit that was shown to be stronger than what we had already published. The exploit turned out to have no obvious relevance to BCX, but nevertheless the requirements were met and the bounty was paid.

Agreed, except "a bounty" was paid and so far not "the bounty". Or at least last time I checked only 7.5 of 10 had been paid. Note smooth's group and jl777 paid instantly. It was explained to me that we have Christian leader who doesn't follow the Biblical instruction to pay wages daily upon agreed completion of work. A rich man floating on a poorer man's income is a sin according to the Bible. I used to do payables net 30 etc, until I became of aware of this Biblical verse and it shamed me.

The exploit turned out to have no obvious relevance to BCX...

Smooth is referring to the fact that I have not shown any proof that the private keys can be cracked, I only pointed to some simultaneous equations that are revealed when the spender of the ring is revealed per my (or their published) algorithm. One case of the simultaneous equations has been shown by their mathematicians to be equivalent to Diffie-Hellman exchange thus proven to be uncrackable by current assumptions. However, not all of the cases were disproven. Thus he is factually stating any relevance to BCX is unproven and not obvious. He is not saying there is no possible relevance, although I am assuming he thinks the probability is exceedingly small thus the onus on someone other than them to prove it is relevant.

Note afaics the mathematical point of Taleb's Antifragility is that many improbable long tail events accumulate.

Yet I think the algorithm they paid a bounty for may have an obvious relevance to BCX. If a BCX chain attack gets hopelessly wound in a Gordian knot, my algorithm may be able in some cases to untangle the anonymity so that it can be determined which transactions actually spent the stolen coin base rewards. I don't know how realistic it is until it is coded, tested, and characterized.

Useful contributions would likely take the form of code or well formed mathematical analysis. That is exceedingly rare here, but it does happen.

In case the issue of Linux comes up again, I will point out that I have personally made contributions to Linux. They took the form of recommended code changes coupled with test cases that clearly and explicitly demonstrated the benefit of the proposed code changes. If I simply posted about how this or that was a possible flaw without doing the work to support my claims, I would likely be ignored or ridiculed, as I have seen happen to many people in the Linux developer community.

Agreed. But you are conflating apples (Linux) and quarks (crypto-currency) because Linux is an effort to copy an existing operating system (Unix) and concept which was already fleshed out in the real world. Whereas, crypto-currency is still very much in the formative, research, experimentative, conceptual stage.

I am 80% certain that this cultural stance is going to be why XMR is beaten by another effort that understands better how to spur innovation by not suppressing or expecting a Cathedral style of progression.

TFM: "Entanglement" is no more an issue than reversal of the often-untraceable transfer of coins after a long (but ultimately temporary) chain fork, particularly through exchanges and other intermediaries. In both cases, when the fork is resolved one way or another, some transactions will be unwound, and those who accepted coins as valid on the wrong fork without a sufficient number of confirmations (always a judgement call) are out of luck.

Shocking.  Shocked

You are equating the ability for a user to wait for say 6 confirmations to have a mathematically quantifiable probability of assurance, with the risk of a coin vulnerability allowing spends of any age to be double-spent (reverting a spend is double-spending).
Pages: « 1 ... 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 [92] 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!