delete

[TheFascistMind]

It is the "next month", and Cryptonote is alive. There is no real evidence of attack along those lines, but CN will certainly be attacked in the future using various paths. I would join NewLiberty in saying that our real test is how to make maximum good come out of this attack threat, which demonstrated our commitment to defend Monero, proved that the coin is not so easy to attack, and encouraged the owners to join the MEW in much higher numbers than anticipated. This is a good start.

I just caution you on celebrating too soon. You might end up being correct and BCX may be full of shit, or he might have been thwarted already by the checkpointing.

But I am not yet convinced that anyone has a model that can tell us there is no evidence of an attack. Apparently our models are blind and tell us nothing. Distinguish between null set (empty) and an undefined set (no information). Refer to my prior reply to xulescu and NewLiberty.

Perhaps I can be convinced we have a model that is telling us there is no evidence. I am open minded. Let me read any rebuttals that follow.

Edit: in short, don't confuse lucky hubris with repeatable science though I suppose your argument is speculators operate with imperfect information and form probabilities. Although we may not have technical information, you may have other information that is feeding your calculation, e.g. experience at analyzing personalities, motives, etc.

Edit#2: normally I would agree with "status quo" absent a model with clear information. But in this case, BCX has taken down coins in the past. I've read that he did threaten Litecoin and ended up not following through with the attack and instead profited on buying the dip. But did he actually say the attack had begun? Apparently Litcoin had then a much higher network hashrate than XMR does now.

[1714194768]

1714194768

[TheFascistMind]

The probability of observing 4 blocks in a minute when those come from Poisson distribution (the probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time and/or space if these events occur with a known average rate and independently of the time since the last event - Wikipedia) is P(X=4) = 0.01532 (calculation here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Poisson+distribution+X%3D4+mean%3D1). This makes it happen about 22 times a day which is once each 65 minutes on average. When the difficulty changes those numbers could slightly vary. We don't have any statistical evidence about something fishy occurring.

Did you miss the entire discussion about permutations of consecutive independent trials (i.e. not separated by 65 minutes each)?

[rpietila]

But I am not yet convinced that anyone has a model that can tell us there is no evidence of an attack.

"No evidence" (to me, at least) just means "no evidence". I also have no evidence that I have cancer, yet it is still possible that I have cancer, I just don't have evidence.

Edit: in short, don't confuse lucky hubris with repeatable science though I suppose your argument is speculators operate with imperfect information and form probabilities.

What I said is that CN will certainly be attacked in the future. Thus P("attack in any given day from now on") >> 0, and if P("BCX attack") is low enough, it does not make a meaningful contribution to the total propensity of attack, and, from a speculator's standpoint, is meaningless.

Speculators are interested in the total probability, and whether the price has over- or underreacted to its changes. XMR price is low atm, but imo it can mainly be attributed to overall weakness in all coins. When BTC starts to rise (or even before if it takes long), I have a conviction that XMR will be one of the best performing alts.

I try to move my contributions to other threads and the MEW however, so thank you for discussion!

[TheFascistMind]

But I am not yet convinced that anyone has a model that can tell us there is no evidence of an attack.

"No evidence" (to me, at least) just means "no evidence". I also have no evidence that I have cancer, yet it is still possible that I have cancer, I just don't have evidence.

No evidence for nor against (no medical exam), is different than no evidence for (completed a medical exam). I am positing that we have the former in this case.

Programmers have these sort of very precise logic skills and demarcation of boundaries of logic (compartmentalization and orthogonality), otherwise bugs appear.

Edit: in short, don't confuse lucky hubris with repeatable science though I suppose your argument is speculators operate with imperfect information and form probabilities.

What I said is that CN will certainly be attacked in the future. Thus P("attack in any given day from now on") >> 0, and if P("BCX attack") is low enough, it does not make a meaningful contribution to the total propensity of attack, and, from a speculator's standpoint, is meaningless.

Speculators are interested in the total probability, and whether the price has over- or underreacted to its changes.

This is astute but only if BCX doesn't have a coin killer attack that can only be fixed by abandoning the anonymity, which seemed to be what he was implying initially (although we may have read too much into his statement and or he may have backed away from that interpretation). Again if it wasn't BCX and if he hadn't been able to predict I could find some potential flaw in the anonymity combined with some unprovable, dubious issue with the rings and private keys, then I would rate his probability of a coin killer to be very low. But...

I must say that I never considered your perspective because I am skeptical about Cryptonote having a long life span, which is a prerequisite for your mathematical point to be valid. I also assumed any successful attack on CN (especially any that exploited de-anonymization) would open the door for competing anonymity technologies but an attack isn't a prerequisite to my skepticism about CN's life span. See I am not calculating as an investor, rather as a technologist.

OTOH, I also considered the possibility that my suggestion for mitigation could make CN stronger. Thus I saw the potential outcome to be much more bimodal or dichotomous thus risky, than you do.

In short, you are calculating black swans (long-tail events) by being diversified, but you may not be reminding your followers of this.

XMR price is low atm, but imo it can mainly be attributed to overall weakness in all coins.

I also thought this. BCX seems to have little effect on the price, except for an initial panic perhaps to shake out weak hands.

[equipoise]

The probability of observing 4 blocks in a minute when those come from Poisson distribution (the probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time and/or space if these events occur with a known average rate and independently of the time since the last event - Wikipedia) is P(X=4) = 0.01532 (calculation here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Poisson+distribution+X%3D4+mean%3D1). This makes it happen about 22 times a day which is once each 65 minutes on average. When the difficulty changes those numbers could slightly vary. We don't have any statistical evidence about something fishy occurring.

Did you miss the entire discussion about permutations of consecutive independent trials?

Yes, I missed it and I don't have time to read it all. It seems you are observing a long random sequence of blocks from a Poisson distribution and AFTER you know the sequence you tell us it's very rear long sequence. What if you calculate the probability from the genesis block to before the BCX exploit using your method? Is the XMR blockchain going to be an impossible sequence, which can't happen in our universe?

[NewLiberty]

4 times in 1.5 hours. 3 months ago. Prob lots more times, not really interested in staring at it longer.


111083   2014-07-02 12:34:33 (3 months ago)   23745   6   5a7b9f85576f7fa233bf26136f4bb04c6d2b7f2fe45369d7ee898a7c8a67e312
111082   2014-07-02 12:34:23 (3 months ago)   332   1   206bfef0b9c4879cb86a79c55976bf858b1dac5e5ced2f5951e6307291762596
111081   2014-07-02 12:34:00 (3 months ago)   1052   2   600d7d9f0ce11927608ee8ab015d68d19213a8abfad57838793467312671f06e
111080   2014-07-02 12:34:00 (3 months ago)   2307   2   19afd9e24ed461a5d3df71a3a0542bb291973a4a35e9870b297902bc6491d52c

30 minutes

111054   2014-07-02 12:06:15 (3 months ago)   332   1   58c9694ae3c8c219f88f15b560ef7f863d7caec14aba0a85a5979691be168eb5
111053   2014-07-02 12:06:26 (3 months ago)   4542   2   96a032abc59270c680f35767445850ac84576f28c12b745e11712269164d7f81
111052   2014-07-02 12:05:59 (3 months ago)   332   1   83eb435ed4851b463515b574b707d65fa9310c65e8df3485cf947b4fd89eb8b1
111051   2014-07-02 12:05:36 (3 months ago)   23993   2   d2c8d8f54a725093addbe824269eb288c7a7355e62f26a13cd1313629a75d994

40 minutes

111013   2014-07-02 11:20:08 (3 months ago)   3002   2   582d9455918fed0285b742b6cda1413b43944d1ae2577f6ddec5f616bf13dc6b
111012   2014-07-02 11:19:48 (3 months ago)   332   1   5e0d1c38a911fcf9f7d3bde985a13b8f9cdb0e27df4553da2ff43c317206fb25
111011   2014-07-02 11:19:43 (3 months ago)   332   1   63c481e4eedad60e3b2526cee67ad35c284c0dd80fd931af53274feb81b78bc1
111010   2014-07-02 11:19:36 (3 months ago)   331   1   86886a411e5ee4886b6979a704ca5866369da1d803a0d33699e09859a1b8a8ea

ten minutes

110999   2014-07-02 11:10:34 (3 months ago)   331   1   66ce7489994b30c1128609c99340b91b6002f49018f7f97d9fbc42c8fe9ebbfd
110998   2014-07-02 11:10:03 (3 months ago)   2223   2   e6f39c9954ca256cb44138102b22bf60d3b67874f116789a879ac0c2aa82bc75
110997   2014-07-02 11:09:31 (3 months ago)   331   1   efba3ba1b70fda6dd7677f872aa1fa83345e9d8668ac702670f5be467049bcd4
110996   2014-07-02 11:09:39 (3 months ago)   5584   2   300c1b2934e60040d256556dd580610fb50640339d46d077005d906ea0b7b016

...

...

90000   2014-06-18 00:28:57 (4 months ago)   331   1   e7b31b49633084bae03c9b6e0ea592e3a9e7a86625d094f21ef9268d2020f83c
89999   2014-06-18 00:28:53 (4 months ago)   331   1   4edc506643a50cd79fe3c7117a2054b2661e05cd9b4e2071c1f6d5ac4e04281d
89998   2014-06-18 00:28:49 (4 months ago)   692   2   1aa0404dc484ccb9f7df07918203e26c44442a5fd3708e20534fae1909095379
89997   2014-06-18 00:28:32 (4 months ago)   13996   2   22f56466512b866b4eabed7d1d2cabcb71e1fcabb6b15a808a54f4fdfd5b3af3
89996   2014-06-18 00:28:21 (4 months ago)   18119   3   bb8a5303e7d8b36cfbb8864b25ef88f454c09b0c45a5a9c5c74f0e2ba5a6499f

Thank you.
More evidence of miners with inaccurate system clocks...

You went above and beyond the call to debunk the Concern Trolling
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll

I also tried to explain why this isn't important a few times myself, but seems they got carried away over the argument about the math to research the unnecessary concern.

[TheFascistMind]

Of course that exact sequence likely never happened again, and that proves nothing.

Correct. Nothing has been proved for nor against. I never posited otherwise. Read more carefully please.

EDIT 2: Before you set your hair on fire and run like a headless chicken again

When did I ever cry chicken little in this thread? Just try to quote me.

[TheFascistMind]

You went above and beyond the call to debunk the Concern Trolling
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll

I also tried to explain why this isn't important a few times myself, but seems they got carried away over the argument about the math to research the unnecessary concern.

Upthread an assertion that the 4 blocks in 1 minute event would occur ever hour was implied to mean "no evidence for" (and bring on the ridicule of BCX and premature celebrations of victory) and it was not admitted that it was "no evidence for nor against" (inconclusive).

I corrected the math to show there was indeed a rare event, but made no assertions of abnormality nor attack. My point in doing so was to point out that there is "no evidence for nor against" (inconclusive).

That is an extremely relevant concern. And I won the argument. Period. Until someone shows that they have a model that would signal an ongoing TW attack.

Edit: BCX pointed to that rare event implying it might indicate something is going on. But I don't think we can distinguish it from noise (i.e. BCX could be making vacuous points) due to the unreliability of the timestamps (and it is even alleged that network hashrate variance and propagation plays a role via orphan rate in the unreliability, although I'd want to quantify that before I made that assumption). One could try to write a script to do an exhaustive computation of all rarer events.

Edit#2: I know XMR people would like to see closure on this and want to say "if you haven't proven anything, then we don't have to prove anything either". Normally I would agree, but as I said BCX has met his word in the past and he did point me towards an anonymity issue and a dubious ring private key issue. That gives him some credibility. His use of vacuous points subtracts from his credibility, unless the full poker hand is considered.

[NewLiberty]

But I am not yet convinced that anyone has a model that can tell us there is no evidence of an attack.

"No evidence" (to me, at least) just means "no evidence". I also have no evidence that I have cancer, yet it is still possible that I have cancer, I just don't have evidence.

No evidence for nor against (no medical exam), is different than no evidence for (completed a medical exam). I am positing that we have the former in this case.

Programmers have these sort of very precise logic skills and demarcation of boundaries of logic (compartmentalization and orthogonality), otherwise bugs appear.

There isn't going to be any evidence of an attack in where you are looking (time stamps of various miners' blocks compared to each other) simply because it is the wrong type of examination.

Using rpeitila's example you won't find skin cancer from a liver biopsy.  Whether the carefully chosen example from the block chain is anomalous or not, is not going to help you.  It would not show what you are thinking it would show.  Please waste no more of your time on this?

This entire dialog on this line of inquiry probably has BCX shooting Stoli through nostrils with hilarity for all the time and emotion wasted on it.

What's more silly?
Even if the chosen example is very rare, and only occurs once a week, there have been a couple weeks of data from which to pull such an example since the initial threat.

[NewLiberty]

You went above and beyond the call to debunk the Concern Trolling
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll

I also tried to explain why this isn't important a few times myself, but seems they got carried away over the argument about the math to research the unnecessary concern.

Upthread an assertion that the 4 blocks in 1 minute event would occur ever hour was implied to mean "no evidence for" (and bring on the ridicule of BCX and premature celebrations of victory) and it was not admitted that it was "no evidence for nor against" (inconclusive).

I corrected the math to show there was indeed a rare event, but made no assertions of abnormality nor attack. My point in doing so was to point out that there is "no evidence for nor against" (inconclusive).

That is an extremely relevant concern. And I won the argument. Period. Until someone shows that they have a model that would signal an ongoing TW attack.

Edit: BCX pointed to that rare event implying it might indicate something is going on. But I don't think we can distinguish it from noise (i.e. BCX could be making vacuous points) due to the unreliability of the timestamps (and it is even alleged that network hashrate variance and propagation plays a role via orphan rate in the unreliability, although I'd want to quantify that before I made that assumption). One could try to write a script to do an exhaustive computation of all rarer events.

Edit#2: I know XMR people would like to see closure on this and want to say "if you haven't proven anything, then we don't have to prove anything either". Normally I would agree, but as I said BCX has met his word in the past and he did point me towards an anonymity issue and a dubious ring private key issue. That gives him some credibility. His use of vacuous points subtracts from his credibility, unless the full poker hand is considered.

You won the argument on the math.  I granted that in my initial post many hours ago.   But...
It isn't relevant, simply because it can't be relevant.   The time stamp of the miner's computer effects nothing because it isn't used for anything meaningful.  There isn't a security issue there.

Edit:  If anything BCX's commenting on it is evidence of "no attack" forthcoming.  Why bother with meaningless concern trolling if you have rocket launchers under your bed?   

[TheFascistMind]

NewLiberty why are we talking past each other? It seems you are not listening to what I am saying. I don't like hubris when we are dealing with a proven coin killer. Asserting that something only happens once per hour, when in fact the calcuation is once every 3 months, is a form of hubris and premature confidence.

I like facts. I was calling BS on that factoid.

That it is irrelevant is further reason to not use as hubris as was done (not by you, but I didn't see you interjecting).

Edit: I believe it was you who wrote something like we would find many occurrences in the block chain. Don't have time to go searching for a quote. Apologies if I am mistaken.

[NewLiberty]

NewLiberty why are we talking past each other? It seems you are not listening to what I am saying. I don't like hubris when we are dealing with a proven coin killer. Asserting that something only happens once per hour, when in fact the calcuation is once every 3 months, is a form of hubris and premature confidence.

I like facts. I was calling BS on that factoid.

That it is irrelevant is further reason to not use as hubris as was done (not by you, but I didn't see you interjecting).

We agree on the math.  I've been asleep for the last couple hours so came in on the end of this (but after I'd already mentioned it was not a useful line of inquiry).

But the argument isn't meaningful.  Those time stamps are there for other reasons that may someday in the future be useful (like contract enforcements, or marking an anniversary, or something)  It does not have any affect on the algorithms that govern the block chain.

[TheFascistMind]

Those time stamps are there for other reasons that may someday in the future be useful (like contract enforcements, or marking an anniversary, or something)  It does not have any affect on the algorithms that govern the block chain.

Are you stating that timestamps aren't used to calculate the difficulty? Are you stating there are no possible manipulations of the difficulty via timestamps that could be exploited? If yes, where I can read the analysis?

Edit: I am genuinely interested in analysis of difficulty attacks as it helps me with my work. So I am curious if you know something I don't. Because I am not 100% certain there are no such exploits.

Edit#2: I realize it can be a pain to refute such general attack vectors, and the onus should be on the attacker to prove he has an attack. This is what BCX's reputation has afforded him. I thinking he won't trash his reputation.

[NewLiberty]

Those time stamps are there for other reasons that may someday in the future be useful (like contract enforcements, or marking an anniversary, or something)  It does not have any affect on the algorithms that govern the block chain.

Are you stating that timestamps aren't used to calculate the difficulty? Are you stating there are no possible manipulations of the difficulty via timestamps that could be exploited? If yes, where I can read the analysis?

Correct.

I went down this path a good while back myself.  I even pestered a couple of the devs for a minute to confirm my assessment in the code.
If there is a record of that part, it would be in the IRC log, it was only a few lines.  I didn't want to waste much of their time with it as it is only a matter of perception and not a technical problem needing to be fixed.

I wrote a few words about it yesterday.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg9039996#msg9039996

If anything, that BCX pointed to it as meaningful, is less evidence of an attack, not more.

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” 

[TheFascistMind]

Those time stamps are there for other reasons that may someday in the future be useful (like contract enforcements, or marking an anniversary, or something)  It does not have any affect on the algorithms that govern the block chain.

Are you stating that timestamps aren't used to calculate the difficulty? Are you stating there are no possible manipulations of the difficulty via timestamps that could be exploited? If yes, where I can read the analysis?

Correct.

I went down this path a good while back myself.  I even pestered a couple of the devs for a minute to confirm my assessment in the code.
If there is a record of that part, it would be in the IRC log, it was only a few lines.  I didn't want to waste much of their time with it as it is only a matter of perception and not a technical problem needing to be fixed.

I wrote a few words about it yesterday.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg9039996#msg9039996

If anything, that BCX pointed to it as meaningful, is less evidence of an attack, not more.

Does XMR still throw away 20% of the timestamps which are the statistical outliers when computing the difficulty?

So thus I could mine a chain with a much higher cumulative difficulty without triggering a difficulty adjustment, i.e. he could be putting his hashrate into the network undetected.

Have you analyzed this genre of attack vectors?

[NewLiberty]

Those time stamps are there for other reasons that may someday in the future be useful (like contract enforcements, or marking an anniversary, or something)  It does not have any affect on the algorithms that govern the block chain.

Are you stating that timestamps aren't used to calculate the difficulty? Are you stating there are no possible manipulations of the difficulty via timestamps that could be exploited? If yes, where I can read the analysis?

Correct.

I went down this path a good while back myself.  I even pestered a couple of the devs for a minute to confirm my assessment in the code.
If there is a record of that part, it would be in the IRC log, it was only a few lines.  I didn't want to waste much of their time with it as it is only a matter of perception and not a technical problem needing to be fixed.

I wrote a few words about it yesterday.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg9039996#msg9039996

If anything, that BCX pointed to it as meaningful, is less evidence of an attack, not more.

Does XMR still throw away 20% of the timestamps which are the statistical outliers when computing the difficulty?

So thus I could mine a chain with a much higher cumulative difficulty without triggering a difficulty adjustment.

Have you analyzed this genre of attack vectors?

Yes, XMR still throws away 20% difficulty anomalies, those timestamps are not used for determining difficulty.  
Yes, if <20% of the blocks were at much higher difficulty within a 720 block sliding window, it would not trigger a difficulty adjustment.

Chain contention (which would be needed for a successful TW) is based on total sum difficulty, so it would essentially be a 51% attack that is stored up and then dumped on the chain all at once at a later date causing chain contention over which fork is longer, and grabbing all the block rewards for the stored period.  It is defeated by checkpoints.

If BCX is running a forked chain with >50% of the hashpower of the live chain and maintaining that for 22 days in a sandbox, it is a grand waste of effort.  We would also see nothing of it in the live chain.

[TheFascistMind]

Those time stamps are there for other reasons that may someday in the future be useful (like contract enforcements, or marking an anniversary, or something)  It does not have any affect on the algorithms that govern the block chain.

Are you stating that timestamps aren't used to calculate the difficulty? Are you stating there are no possible manipulations of the difficulty via timestamps that could be exploited? If yes, where I can read the analysis?

Correct.

I went down this path a good while back myself.  I even pestered a couple of the devs for a minute to confirm my assessment in the code.
If there is a record of that part, it would be in the IRC log, it was only a few lines.  I didn't want to waste much of their time with it as it is only a matter of perception and not a technical problem needing to be fixed.

I wrote a few words about it yesterday.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg9039996#msg9039996

If anything, that BCX pointed to it as meaningful, is less evidence of an attack, not more.

Does XMR still throw away 20% of the timestamps which are the statistical outliers when computing the difficulty?

So thus I could mine a chain with a much higher cumulative difficulty without triggering a difficulty adjustment.

Have you analyzed this genre of attack vectors?

Yes, XMR still throws away 20% difficulty anomalies, those timestamps are not used for determining difficulty.  
Yes, if <20% of the blocks were at much higher difficulty within a 720 block sliding window, it would not trigger a difficulty adjustment.

Chain contention (which would be needed for a successful TW) is based on total sum difficulty, so it would essentially be a 51% attack that is stored up and then dumped on the chain all at once at a later date causing chain contention over which fork is longer, and grabbing all the block rewards for the stored period.  It is defeated by checkpoints.

If BCX is running a forked chain with >50% of the difficulty of the live chain and maintaining that for 22 days, it is a grand waste of effort.

I keep trying to posit there are other forms of difficulty attacks that can't be defeated with checkpoints. I been hinting at it for many days now.

What % of hashrate is needed for selfish mining attack?

How much can he amplify his hashrate by hiding it in the 20%?

Remember he said he needed only 20% of the hashrate. Seems obvious to me what he is doing.

Perhaps he can further amplify it by getting miners to join his pools which are gaining an edge in payouts, but I don't assume that is necessary.

[TheFascistMind]

Those time stamps are there for other reasons that may someday in the future be useful (like contract enforcements, or marking an anniversary, or something)  It does not have any affect on the algorithms that govern the block chain.

Are you stating that timestamps aren't used to calculate the difficulty? Are you stating there are no possible manipulations of the difficulty via timestamps that could be exploited? If yes, where I can read the analysis?

Correct.

I went down this path a good while back myself.  I even pestered a couple of the devs for a minute to confirm my assessment in the code.
If there is a record of that part, it would be in the IRC log, it was only a few lines.  I didn't want to waste much of their time with it as it is only a matter of perception and not a technical problem needing to be fixed.

I wrote a few words about it yesterday.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789978.msg9039996#msg9039996

If anything, that BCX pointed to it as meaningful, is less evidence of an attack, not more.

Does XMR still throw away 20% of the timestamps which are the statistical outliers when computing the difficulty?

So thus I could mine a chain with a much higher cumulative difficulty without triggering a difficulty adjustment.

Have you analyzed this genre of attack vectors?

Yes, XMR still throws away 20% difficulty anomalies, those timestamps are not used for determining difficulty.  
Yes, if <20% of the blocks were at much higher difficulty within a 720 block sliding window, it would not trigger a difficulty adjustment.

Chain contention (which would be needed for a successful TW) is based on total sum difficulty, so it would essentially be a 51% attack that is stored up and then dumped on the chain all at once at a later date causing chain contention over which fork is longer, and grabbing all the block rewards for the stored period.  It is defeated by checkpoints.

If BCX is running a forked chain with >50% of the difficulty of the live chain and maintaining that for 22 days, it is a grand waste of effort.

I keep trying to posit there are other forms of difficulty attacks that can't be defeated with checkpoints. I been hinting at it for many days now.

What % of hashrate is needed for selfish mining attack?

How much can he amplify his hashrate by hiding it in the 20%?

Remember he said he needed only 20% of the hashrate. Seems obvious to me what he is doing.

Perhaps he can further amplify it by getting miners to join his pools which are gaining an edge in payouts, but I don't assume that is necessary.

How will your checkpoints work if his attack catapults his effective hashrate to 51%? He can then ignore the checkpoints and replace with any chain he wants.

[TheFascistMind]

If there is an attack on the private keys using the de-anonymization, then if the attacker controls the winning block, he can take the coins that were sent in the transaction. He wouldn't need to control the entire chain. Even 1% of the hashrate, he could do it 1% of the time.

Again no such vulnerability has been demonstrated nor proven. BCX alleged a coin killer. That would be one, if he had found some way to factor the private key from that information.

Note this is FUD. Because no such vulnerability has been demonstrated nor proven.

I am just making the point that a potential difficulty attack is an orthogonal issue.

[slapper]

What I said is that CN will certainly be attacked in the future.

CN is not a coin. CryptoNote is a technology. XMR is an implementation (clone) of the reference implementation of CryptoNote (aka Bytecoin).

You need to stop dragging all of CryptoNote down when XMR gets attacked via a lone nut or some fundamental flaw in math, even if the XMR currently has the higher market cap. Since you swayed so many people to keep away from BBR, it is your responsibility too if something happens exclusively to XMR (terminally or otherwise).

When AuroraCoin got attacked by BCX, it wasn't an attack on Bitcoin or CryptoCurrencies. It was specifically on AuroraCoin.

I know you know this, but I am just letting you know you cannot wordsmith away, just like you did in the first couple of months to brainwash people into buying into a flawed coin like XMR, the ones who are tirelessly defending it even when facts after facts have stared them straight in the face.