delete

[CoinHoarder]

It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time.

I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

So.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack?

Bla bla bla... I'm a troll... Bla bla bla

My question was directed towards someone that has insight into the vulnerability and sufficient technical knowledge to answer my question... Such as a Monero developer or Anonymint... Not trolls. :p

[infofront]

Fair enough. I am not in XMR because of the hardcore trolling that makes it seem more like a pump and dump. The arrogance of many involved with XMR comes off as desperation to me, but CZ and some of the others are keeping me interested enough to follow since they don't seem to be in it for a quick buck but to genuinely build something. Time will tell.

There are 10,000+ Monero users, and only a handful of trolls.

[robinwilliams]

It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time.

I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

So.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack?

lol i've been rooting 4 bcx but he didn't find some secret exploit  

sry bcx luv u man but you didn't.

too bad about the checkpoints ... wanted 2 watch it burn

[infofront]

It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time.

I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

So.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack?

I know that checkpoints are used to defend against a 51% attack. I would assume they could be used to secure the chain from a TW exploit as well, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

[Coolstoryteller]

Wow, in a few hours XMR will be worth nothing. All those bagholders are gonna cry today.

Taking advice from a shill like Bob is the worst thing anyone can do.

MEW - Monero Economy Workgroup communication

Keep up the good work. Crypto is all about putting new primitives under the most stress possible to test their limits. BCX's attack should be looked on as a positive contribution to the codebase, not a negative.

rpietila is the most arrogant, delusional and mentally unstable shill on the forums..maybe you should take your own advice.
You don't know what the attack is, if there is one, if it's successful or a failure. You can't look at it as a positive until there is an attack and you can evaluate if it strengthens the codebase or destroys it.

That's true, but it is a positive that crypto_zoidberg, AnonyMint and jl777 are helping with the codebase. That was my point.

Fair enough. I am not in XMR because of the hardcore trolling that makes it seem more like a pump and dump. The arrogance of many involved with XMR comes off as desperation to me, but CZ and some of the others are keeping me interested enough to follow since they don't seem to be in it for a quick buck but to genuinely build something. Time will tell.

I'm not familiar with arrogance in XMR. I was mining XMR for a few months, I haven't sold any though. I try not to pay too much attention to the fluff from the shills. Cryptonote coins have a different codebase from Bitcoin, so there is going to be some hurdles getting to the level of Bitcoin's code where many developers have contributed to it. It's an interesting project though, one definitely worth watching.

[nutildah]

I am not in XMR because of the hardcore trolling that makes it seem more like a pump and dump.

This. A good coin doesn't require cheerleading squads and pumper bands beating the drum 24/7. A good coin is quiet and sells itself.

[smoothie]

It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time.

I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

So.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack?

It worked for Litecoin in 2012 when BCX claimed to be "attacking" Litecoin then failed and ended up creating drama via another means on these forums. Those back then who were around know what I am talking about.

[Bobsurplus]

It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time.

I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

So.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack?

It worked for Litecoin in 2012 when BCX claimed to be "attacking" Litecoin then failed and ended up creating drama via another means on these forums. Those back then who were around know what I am talking about.

I remember this, but times have changed and xmr is different.

[siameze]

This. A good coin doesn't require cheerleading squads and pumper bands beating the drum 24/7. A good coin is quiet and sells itself.

This is about the most truthful statement I have read on these forums in a while, and sadly it will most likely be ignored.

[infofront]

I am not in XMR because of the hardcore trolling that makes it seem more like a pump and dump.

This. A good coin doesn't require cheerleading squads and pumper bands beating the drum 24/7. A good coin is quiet and sells itself.

Coins don't talk - individuals do. In a community as large as Monero's, there are bound to be some idiots and trolls. There's nothing anyone can do about them since there's no moderation here.

Also, there are anti-monero trolls posing as pro-monero trolls, like Moneroman88.

[NewLiberty]

It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time.

I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

So.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack?

Bla bla bla... I'm a troll... Bla bla bla

My question was directed towards someone that has insight into the vulnerability and sufficient technical knowledge to answer my question... Such as a Monero developer or Anonymint... Not trolls. :p

Checkpoints would require a TW attack to start after the CP, and is a manual intervention.  The devs probably did it to help restore calm more than anything else.

However, there may be a way to obsolete the need for adding this type of checkpoint to prevent TW and similar types of attack vectors in new coins.  The threatened attack has caused me to offer a minor new thought on the matter, but it is more the sort of thing that ought be implemented with care, not as a haphazard incident response to a threatened emergency.  

This notion may also be entirely wrong headed and need to be reworked a few times before it makes it into codebase, if it works at all.  The take home message for me is that we don't always have the luxury of advance warning for an attack.  This idea, or something like it, is needed for an ongoing protection in perpetuity.  I've left it with the dev team to evaluate and am comfortable that they are capable to do so.

[Hueristic]

OMG  
This thread reads like a script from a Mexican soap opera on meth
"yo mama is a hooooa!!"
"wuut??? I saw you having sex with sheep!!"

Isn't this whole story supposed to be about currency, technology and shit like that?
Makes Monero look bad, IMO

Why do you face a sheep over the cliff while fucking it?












































































So it'll Push BACK!!! 

[TheFascistMind]

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.

This is all conceptual in my head. I haven't studied past attacks. Just thinking while I was eating.

Absent forking to divide and DDoS to lower the legitimate network hashrate and assuming the longest chain rule metric is the lowest cumulative hash sum (i.e. highest cumulative difficulty), I am positing it would be impossible to unwind past blocks if the attacker doesn't have > 50% of the network hashrate. Is this correct?

The attacker can induce forking and wasted legitimate network hashrate by withholding his block solutions until another is found. This causes the entire network to work on block that will be one of the forks, while the hacker has moved forward calculating the next block for his fork which increases the probability his fork will win. Isn't this the selfish mining attack, not the time warp?

The time warp may come into play in complex ways. For example if the attacker can mess with the timestamps to drive the difficulty higher for the legitimate fork while mining on his fork in such a way that the network doesn't converge on one fork, then effectively he has a much higher hashrate because part of the legitimate network is mining his fork. I can intuitively think discarding outliers in CN may open up possibilities. Fast adjusting difficulty algorithms such as KGW enable the attacker to bump up the difficulty on the legitimate chain then pull hashrate away to his chain slowly enough to avoid a difficulty retarget.

[oliveforever]

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.
....
the development and future of Monero will be as decentralised as the cryptocurrency itself.

MEW is:
- a voting system for XMR holders to vote proportionally to their holdings, and
- the project platform for XMR enthusiasts to take action based on the decision of the community.

Who belongs to it now?
It is not yet established, but we have and initial workgroup of about 15 people, developing the thing, distilling the vision and discussing the practicalities

...

What is required for joining?
Short answer: that you are interested XMR holder with a significant holding (at this stage 2,000-5,000 XMR) or even more interested, if the holding is smaller.


Is it possible to become an anonymous member?
...

To become an executive, a background check and reputation thread test will be conducted.

Membership fee.. Sound familiar?

4. Rather high percentage of all moneros outstanding are owned by the people in the group;

MEW - dressed up bitcoin foundation. Despite what is wrote certain entities are aiming to control Monero at the top like puppetmasters.
Eschew this if you know what is best for the coin.

[fluffypony]

MEW - dressed up bitcoin foundation. Despite what is wrote certain entities are aiming to control Monero at the top like puppetmasters.
Eschew this if you know what is best for the coin.

MEW is not part of the Monero core team, and we are not part of MEW. They have zero control over the decisions the Monero core team make, and no influence on us. They are always welcome to make suggestions (as anyone can) and we appreciate the financial support, but that is where the line starts and ends.

[TheFascistMind]

It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time.

I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

So.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack?

I know that checkpoints are used to defend against a 51% attack. I would assume they could be used to secure the chain from a TW exploit as well, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

If my recent conceptual post is correct, the check points might not help because the legitimate and bad forks could be intermixed?? So you'd be unwinding legitimate transactions? I am the wrong person to ask. I have no experience with these sort of attacks. This is mostly off the top of my head in the span of a couple of hours. The anonymity issue was something I felt more qualified to delve into.

[oliveforever]

MEW - dressed up bitcoin foundation. Despite what is wrote certain entities are aiming to control Monero at the top like puppetmasters.
Eschew this if you know what is best for the coin.

MEW is not part of the Monero core team, and we are not part of MEW. They have zero control over the decisions the Monero core team make, and no influence on us. They are always welcome to make suggestions (as anyone can) and we appreciate the financial support, but that is where the line starts and ends.

Of course MEW have influence on Monero core team.  You visit Rpietila for Pinot Grigio and pole cigar smoking sessions regularly.
You mean to say your good buddy, the guy at the top of the Monero pyramid with uncuntainable ego won't be tempted whisper softly anything in your ear for his own agenda?

[NewLiberty]

It seems that Monero will not be able to fix the vulnerability in time.

I noticed today they added checkpoints in preparation for the attack: https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero

So.. what does this mean? Will the checkpoints sufficiently defend against the attack?

I know that checkpoints are used to defend against a 51% attack. I would assume they could be used to secure the chain from a TW exploit as well, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

If my recent conceptual post is correct, the check points might not help because the legitimate and bad forks could be intermixed?? So you'd be unwinding legitimate transactions? I am the wrong person to ask. I have no experience with these sort of attacks. This is mostly off the top of my head in the span of a couple of hours. The anonymity issue was something I felt more qualified to delve into.

A CP means that any fork (such as a TW chain) would have to start after the CP.  I don't see any way to intermix blocks of chains after a fork, but certainly TX could end up on both chains if that is what you are suggesting?

The anon issue is interesting to me as well.  It would seem if rings are poisoned with known keys in order to surface a TX true endpoints, then if there are multiple non-cooperating entities doing this, it could prevent the success of either.

[TheFascistMind]

This. A good coin doesn't require cheerleading squads and pumper bands beating the drum 24/7. A good coin is quiet and sells itself.

This is about the most truthful statement I have read on these forums in a while, and sadly it will most likely be ignored.

It won't be ignored. I said it a long time ago in private.

[nakaone]

This. A good coin doesn't require cheerleading squads and pumper bands beating the drum 24/7. A good coin is quiet and sells itself.

This is about the most truthful statement I have read on these forums in a while, and sadly it will most likely be ignored.

It won't be ignored. I said it a long time ago in private.

it was for quite a long time silent around xmr.

after that some overenthusiast came (quite normal) followed by trolls which I have not seen in amount and trickyness ever before.

it would probably be the sadest event when they manage to destroy this really valueable project.