delete

[illodin]

In fact - he's given way more of a heads up (perhaps to pet his ego more than to help - but whatever) than an attacker with the primary goal of malicious intent would.  I'm not sure BCX even knows what his end game is.

The reason is that it will allow him a way to back out. He can just say that the devs fixed his exploit or that the devs and community is working hard to improve the coin so he respects that or w/e excuse he can come up with.

[iCEBREAKER]

~BCX~

Can't decide between

http://shop.theoatmeal.com/products/sriracha-popcorn

or

http://www.unclewoodys.com/product/truffle-salt/

     

[JorgeStolfi]

crypto currency and anonymity  is a "do not trust" system but come to think of it rpietila is the only person with a name, picture and info about him on this thread..i'm not saying that we follow him, maybe we can learn something from him.

Actually there are a few people in this forum who are open about their identities.  Methinks they tend to be the best ones. 

[drawingthesun]

This is going to be exciting, please don't disappoint BCX!

[iCEBREAKER]

http://www.unclewoodys.com/product/truffle-salt/

wth theres mushroom with that corn lol

Yes, truffle salt popcorn is amazing with bubbly and not bad with Chard either.

Sriracha requires a hearty red, so I'll save it for after the whites.  My 2009 Cab Franc needs a while to breathe.

I wonder, are TacoTime and BCX getting pumped up in their respective montages right now?   

[79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX]

even thinking we exert any control at all in how people act towards a coin without controlling it thru technology / blockchain to me is a result of a lagging worldview.

indeed. it is to be expected that, if a coin can be hacked, eventually it will. on the other hand, withstanding sustained attacks is a precondition for viability.

of course, first movers bear the risk of being wrong in their assessment that the probability of a coin-killing attack is nil. naturally, they are rewarded by standing to reap more rewards than those who let time separate the wheat from the chaff. using open or veiled threats to dissuade attacks is a waste of time and can only provide a feeble sense of security.  it shows lack of confidence in diligence done prior to investment.

[TheFascistMind]

Why is a troll trolling Anonymint?

i'm less of a troll than most of the posts in this thread dumbass  

I'm cool with it. No worries.

Can someone please point me to a resource which explains the TW attack in more detail? I've seen ArtForz's post showing how the timestamps can be backed up in time for coins which don't overlap the retarget of difficulty. Is there still a TW vulnerability for coins that overlap their difficulty retarget windows?

The last timewarp discussion was during the AUR debacle
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552895.0

Saw that in the past when I was too tired. Still tired, but it causes me wonder if someone can do a TW attack, can't they steal all the coins that were created by mining rewards (coinbase tx) in all the blocks in their chain?

Thus isn't that a form of stealing wallets in the current live chain that are derived from those coinbase outputs?

But it isn't stealing, because those wallets never exist in the new chain. It is simply following the protocol. Now if he sells those coins (if possible but apparently not likely), the new owners are not going to agree to rollback of the block chain.

I assume this is common knowledge right? That is what TW attacks do correct?

[fivebells]

Could someone please post an update on where the technical discussion of BCX's claim and related thoughts stands, so I don't have to shovel through all this drama?

[tacotime]

Formal response from core team forthcoming.

[ChancellorOnABrink]

Formal response from core team forthcoming.

http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/11111/111119513/3513936-dis_gon_b_gud.gif

[drawingthemoon]

Saw that in the past when I was too tired. Still tired, but it causes me wonder if someone can do a TW attack, can't they steal all the coins that were created by mining rewards (coinbase tx) in all the blocks in their chain?

Thus isn't that a form of stealing wallets in the current live chain that are derived from those coinbase outputs?

But it isn't stealing, because those wallets never exist in the new chain. It is simply following the protocol. Now if he sells those coins, the new owners are not going to agree to rollback of the block chain.

I assume this is common knowledge right? That is what TW attacks do correct?

And that is why he may have alluded to the necessity of an Exchange for this to fully work.

Poloniex freeze in 1 . .. 2...

[YarkoL]

But it isn't stealing, because those wallets never exist in the new chain. It is simply following the protocol. Now if he sells those coins (if possible but apparently not likely), the new owners are not going to agree to rollback of the block chain.

I assume this is common knowledge right? That is what TW attacks do correct?

That's one way it works. ArtForz introduced it as "A very profitable 51% attack".

Though I don't know if it has been actually done in its full glory. Seems to me that
it would be more common if it were that easy.

[znaky]

The poloniex website is very slow for following price live so I created a service: http://moneromarkets.com

[TheFascistMind]

Your mathematicians didn't address that r_s = q_s - c_sx mod l is also known, where _qs is unknown.

q_s is unknown (and random) which makes the above equation more or less useless for solving for x, this will be addressed in a later memo.

So sure are we. Subtraction may play differently in modular arithematic. I will wait to see what your memo says.

A single modular linear equation with two unknowns can't be solved. You can't argue or troll with that, it's maths.

So I take it you know fuck all about number theory.

So I take it you know fuck all every mathematical relationship in the universe known and to be found.

And now we have 3 equations with 3 variables with one employing multiplication 'bxG' and another subtraction 'q_s - c_sx'. Let's think about how subtraction and multiplication interact in the simultaneous solution space and see if it doesn't narrow the solution space.

I just realized there is an additional simultaneous equation. I will PM the devs about it. Don't know if it makes a vulnerability any more likely. Probably not.

[Hueristic]

For the record, I've stated something upthread that I shouldn't have, but I can't rectify it without making the dominoes cascade more, so note I will have something to clarify later after this BCX affair is long done.

This?

Whether BCX publishes the known spenders of rings or not is irrelevant, because it can be calculated by anyone at any time in the future.

He (or anyone) can't publish known spenders because of stealth addresses. All addresses on the blockchain are one-time-use, so there is nothing on the blockchain to link your transactions with each other so as to create a virtual "identity." In effect this is a potential compromise to "untracability" in cryptonote, which would allow some transactions to link with with each other, but not "unlinkability".

How successful that is depends a lot on how probable these linkages are to be made, which we don't know. It also remains to be seen feasible the algorithm is to perform, and what steps can be used to control the impact. We don't know any of these yet.

In any case it is interesting work that will help improve the technology (all cryptonotes) going forward. Anonymint deserves credit for coming up with it.
 

Just wondering, couldn't you just extract the stealth addresses over time to link them?

XMR dies today  

I bet not.

As do the buyers in the last 10 hours.




BTW this thread has become one serious Cluster Fuck!

[NewLiberty]

But it isn't stealing, because those wallets never exist in the new chain. It is simply following the protocol. Now if he sells those coins (if possible but apparently not likely), the new owners are not going to agree to rollback of the block chain.

I assume this is common knowledge right? That is what TW attacks do correct?

That's one way it works. ArtForz introduced it as "A very profitable 51% attack".

Though I don't know if it has been actually done in its full glory. Seems to me that
it would be more common if it were that easy.

Why not more common?  TW takes significant resources to execute against a live chain or it will be simply discarded as insufficient difficulty.
Most folks are less keen to exhaust resources in an attempt to destroy things than they are to create them, but it takes all kinds.
This is especially true with the additional resilience added over the years to modern crypto code.

There are a variety of potential effects depending on the peculiarities of the code and network:
Difficulty adjustment manipulation
Network congestion
Coinbase wins and fostering 51% type effects are among these effects, and there may be others.

Forking during such an event compounds the problems, as it reduces the effective mining until they are unified on a good chain, and done spinning resources on verifying that effort.

[iCEBREAKER]

[Skinnkavaj]

would be fun if someone put up a bounty on BCX personal details.

[Oscilson]

would be fun if someone put up a bounty on BCX personal details.

I do not want him to be hunted at this stage.

[dEBRUYNE]

would be fun if someone put up a bounty on BCX personal details.

If he isn't really attacking I can't see any benefit comming from that. Better leave him alone then.