delete

[rangedriver]

I can't be the only person to have figured this out surely.

Why's no-one talking about the elephant in the room?

[nioc]

If only Richard Feynman was around, he could figure out all of this.

[Coinshot]

Did not follow it closely, did the attack happen or not?

XMR price is above 0.003 so I am guessing no attack.

There is still uncertainty about the attack.

Its still overtime for timewarp attack. It is not happening.

Was good entertainment for some time.

[rdnkjdi]

and an extended Monero sale!

I think the Monero price has more to do with the bitcoin price than anything.  Whales getting out of the market because they're concerned at seeing how it reacts to the Paypal / Circle news.  What should've served as Viagra did absolutely nothing creates downward pressure on people going from altcoin -> bitcoin -> fiat.

Just my .02.  I don't think an attack is priced in right now.

[rdnkjdi]

geez man let me shill in peace Sad

   Lol I'm sorry.  Tend to be a debbie downer

[iCEBREAKER]

Why are people bumping the thread of the discredited ignored drunk troll (sic)? Why is he still unbanned and free to post threats on this forum?

Although his contributions were real and important I'm disappointed how TFM is giving public-plausible-theoretical-statistical back to BCX, satoshi knows what he said to BCX behind the scenes now.

I am unsure how you wound up not on my ignore list.  But he isn't thread banned because

1 - This is not a moderated thread.

2 - It is not intended to shill for Monero.

3 - Discussion is open to anyone and the goal of TFM is not to make the public feel reassured against possible attacks.  Those are not his motivations & as someone who's interested in a secure coin these discussions bother me absolutely not at all.

4 - Your insecurity about Monero's security being discussed in public is pathetic.

1 - I can say whatever that is not against the rules plus I don't want to back a terrorist publicly

2 - I can shill Monero if I want and you'll never see what hit you

3 - He is doing harm and adding substance to the FUD and helping the terrorist

4 - I dont give 2 tacoshis about your opinion, as far as I know you were heavy anti-xmr troll not a long ago so you are pretty burned on everyones book already

5 - Please ignore me so I don't need to read your weak, neutral-evil BS attacks.

6 - Welcome to my ignore-list as well.

It takes a special kind of coward to engage in a discussion, but then publicly announce they will henceforth Ignore the other participant.

It takes a special kind of attention whore to loudly announce they "don't give 2 tacoshis" about someone's opinion, in the midst of contradicting themselves by addressing that opinion.

It takes a special kind of greedy hypocritical shithead to desire threads be kept free from FUD, while pumping/hype/shilling is allowed.

It takes a special kind of idiot to accept the broadening of the once-narrow term 'terrorist' to include anything that hurts their little feelings.

You sir, are all four kinds of "special."  Congratulations Nekomata, you win teh prize!  

[iCEBREAKER]

-_- if you didnt noticed I didn't actually ignored rdnkjdi, as I already said Im completely against the terroristic approach BCX is using and I rather lose all my moneros than agree with him

There you go again, misusing the word 'terrorist' as a cheap way to polarize and a lazy shortcut to claim victory on the moral high ground.   

Who exactly is feeling terror because of BCX's antics?  And what political goals is he attempting to push through with violence?

And how is violence possible over TCP/IP? 

The existence of the term 'cyber-terrorist' demonstrates one must stretch the original concept via metaphor in order for it to remain valid when applied across orthogonal domains.

Killing Olympic athletes to support the PLO is terrorism.  Killing school children to support Chechen independence is terrorism.  Killing two skyscrapers worth of workers to support global jihad is terrorism.

Encouraging an altcoin to improve its security and DDOSing an exchange is not terrorism.

The Republic of Tacopia does not yet exist, and thus has no citizens available to be terrorized.  At worst, BCX is guilty of cyber-bullying.

Please calm your tacoshis, and spare us the hysterical, overwrought rhetoric!

[rdnkjdi]

iCEBREAKER you look really weird blowing BCX on a public forum.

I know this is personal, every time some one disagree with you, and call your shitty ideas shitty, you take your time and strike back in another thread for whatever reason, don't think anyone else can't see how your little mind works.

BCX should be viewed as an environmental variable.  Not more or less.

[rdnkjdi]

iCEBREAKER you look really weird blowing BCX on a public forum.

I know this is personal, every time some one disagree with you, and call your shitty ideas shitty, you take your time and strike back in another thread for whatever reason, don't think anyone else can't see how your little mind works.

BCX should be viewed as an environmental variable.  Not more or less.

"It wasn't just online talk; it wasn't just pretend," Turner said. "Just because it was on the computer doesn't make it any less of a crime."

No idea how this relates.  After reading this ... it makes me question if we should have an anonymous currency at all.
 

[Nxtblg]

The existence of the term 'cyber-terrorist' demonstrates one must stretch the original concept via metaphor in order for it to remain valid when applied across orthogonal domains.

And you're surprised by that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Language

I hope the shock doesn't drive you schizophrenic.

[TheFascistMind]

An additional conceptual idea of the way to attack the Cryptonote difficulty adjustment algorithm but noting I haven't studied the source code to see if the way the calculation is performed has such a weakness, is the conceptual potential to continuously drive up the difficulty by setting timestamps carefully so that the "longest gaps" (the timestamps which would minimize difficulty) are the 20% discarded. Thus in theory incrementally on each increase in difficulty, some miners would stop mining, thus the attacker's percent of the hashrate would continually grow eventually attaining 51% and taking over the coin.

We would expect to eventually (if attacker ramped up to his available hashrate) see the effect of declining average number of blocks per minute and the network hashrate would decline.

Whereas I see on a quick perusal on the block chain explorer > 1 block per minute average recently, so apparently such an attack in not underway.

Rather I am still contemplating that if BCX is attacking now, it is probably some form of dilution of the network hashrate by getting the some percent of the network to mine on his forks (possibly combined with some variant of selfish mining) while obscuring his hashrate from difficulty adjustment by leveraging the 20% discard in the Cryptonote difficulty adjustment algorithm. BCX had specifically mentioned fast adjustment (720 blocks = 12 hours) and the 20% discard as weaknesses, neither of which have been changed apparently thus "forced evolution" required.

[TheFascistMind]

Edit: Nekomata if there exists a weakness and BCX didn't exploit it, then eventually others would. He first tried to warn the developers there are such weaknesses, but he wasn't interested in attacking. Then somehow he got incited to attack because everyone was challenging his reputation. He already stated the weaknesses. What does it teach the community if he just hands over the code for his attack and doesn't actually perform it? Answer: nothing. Kids only learn not to touch the hot burners on the stove when they touch them and burn their fingers. Any way, that is my 2 cents on a speculation as to his motivation. I think BCX was not particularly thrilled with the Risto+MEW herding paradigm (or perhaps I am just projecting my own opinion), but he saw some positive attempts to create value and thus wasn't that motivated to attack. I think events after that demonstrated that he is not respected and would have to force the respect that he feels he has earned from his past peformance. I think BCX genuinely wants to see innovation and not shit. Again this is wild speculation and I could be entirely wrong. I don't hold any CN coins as an investment, thus I don't feel harmed by BCX. I contemplated buying XMR on the dip with my (receipt of only partial payment for the) bounty, but I changed my mind based on a few things I'd rather not say. But in my theory, that is the entire point, I shouldn't be holding as an investment something which has unresolved weaknesses (and the attitude towards the issue is mixed). I have attempted to try to enumerate potential vulnerabilities in the hope of helping to incite improvements, as well for improving my own understanding of the design of crypto-currencies.

Edit#2: I understand there is a theory that BCX needs political ("FUD") support to drive the price down and thus I would be contributing to him getting cheaper coins. Risto has stated he thinks the dip in the XMR price is mostly correlated to the decline in the BTC price. My interest is in designing the best crypto-currency. I approach this thread with the attitude of investigation, exploring, and learning. I never invest in anything that depends on politics. Thus you will never find me sensitive to all the political elements of an issue. I am sensitive to at least take the time to explain. Thus if there is anti-FUD campaign underway, I would naturally call BS on it when it is distorting facts such as the claim upthread that an event would occur every hour when the calculated probabilities are more in the realm of days to months. I understand that the objective is to just calm the naive investors and try to eliminate discussion which is perhaps irrelevant any way and which just leads to confusion for naive readers. If from my perspective it seems to be a disinformation campaign then thus I would stand against it. I guess what I am saying is I believe in a flat, open source Inverse Commons, which means we lay everything out in the open. Whereas, in a managed information state, the n00bs are only told what they need to hear or could understand and any theories about vulnerabilities would be discussed only by experts in private and n00bs would be in the dark until and iff an attack is proven.

iCEBREAKER you look really weird blowing BCX on a public forum.

I know this is personal, every time some one disagree with you, and call your shitty ideas shitty, you take your time and strike back in another thread for whatever reason, don't think anyone else can't see how your little mind works.

BCX should be viewed as an environmental variable.  Not more or less.

"It wasn't just online talk; it wasn't just pretend," Turner said. "Just because it was on the computer doesn't make it any less of a crime."

No idea how this relates.  After reading this ... it makes me question if we should have an anonymous currency at all.

1. You don't get to decide, nature does.

2. Electronic networks have raised the government's asymmetric power thus destroying the healthy balance that existed before, and thus without any escape value they can unwittingly (selfishly) drag us into the abyss of a Dark Age.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/28/illegal-search-seizure/

COMMENT: Don’t you think the government should be able to get access to someone’s contacts if it helps solve a crime?

REPLY: You act as if no crime could have been solved before smart-phones. The old fashion way way back in ancient times before smart-phones, you had to go to a judge and tap someone’s phone and give just cause. Today, they just seize everyone’s phone calls and store everything. What you ASSUME is that everyone who works for government is honorable. James Otis in his speech that moved John Adams put it this way warning that “the liberty of every man [was being placed] in the hands of every petty officer.”

I just flew to Florida. Some TSA agent enjoys the power trip. My checked bag was broken into the lock and two zippers were just cut off destroying the bag. I say this bluntly because I was not the only one. At least 6 other bags were destroyed the same way. US Air says they do not cover zippers. US Air said TSA should have put a slip in there to notify that they inspected the bag. There was no slip in anyone’s bags. Sorry, this is the petty officer enjoying power. It is what Snowden has warned, anyone can type in your name and it all comes up. They can be bribed by an adversary, or they may just be your adversary. IT IS WRONG!

They solved crimes before 911 and smartphones. This power-trip is destroying everything that made LIBERTY something to be proud of. LIBERTY is indeed buried with the sands of time and it is destroying American technology. Comey can only see his personal power. What did the FBI do before smartphones?

[nutildah]

Let me redo this more carefully. We were deceived by the screen capture.

Yes but this kind of activity just isn't happening on the Monero blockchain anymore.

I think you are working with Bitcoin Express and that somebody paid the both of you to wreak havok in the Monero community. Its cute and somewhat entertaining, but you guys really should put up or shut up by now. No more words. Howabout some actions.

You're welcome for the screenshot BTW.

[TheFascistMind]

I think you are working with Bitcoin Express and that somebody paid the both of you to wreak havok in the Monero community.

I have no affiliation with BCX.

Any one who knows me well, will vouch that I am fiercely independent. And I believe BCX is the same. Perhaps that is why gained some respect for him, yet I am also thinking he might be a full of shit, poser.

(I don't like friendships built on the sinking sand of surety)

[TheFascistMind]

If only Richard Feynman was around, he could figure out all of this.

 

I suppose many readers didn't know you probably meant this.

[TheFascistMind]

Afaics, ignoring decentralized checkpoints should be plausible since the attacker would control the decentralized consensus.

Ignoring centralized checkpoints is not so feasible, since you've got to convince others not to run the reference client.

Applying the decentralised checkpoints isn't based on consensus though.  It is a decision each miner may make on their own.
They can also be delivered out of band, so DDoS pfft.
It allows each miner to select which chain they like.  

So if BCX forks with TW or other method, that fork ends up back where it started, back in the sandbox along with the little shovels, buckets, and Stoli empties.

There are certain further improvements to this innovation that may yet come, but the rapid response to the only plausible indicated threat (which isn't even all that plausible IMHO) remains an underrated achievement.  BCX shares some of the thanks/blame for this forced evolution.

You said to me upthread you like disagreement. So please pardon that I need to point out that afaics miner's choice doesn't resolve the issue that once a 51% fork has run for a while and many users get their transactions intertwined with it, you can't untangle it to revoke it any more, especially given the anonymity with the ring signatures.

Sorry.

(note I wrote this already far upthread)

[TheFascistMind]

Upthread an assertion that the 4 blocks in 1 minute event would occur ever hour was implied to mean "no evidence for" [...]

Indeed it means that the fact "several instances of 4 blocks in one minute" is no evidence for anything.

Surely you know the difference between  "X is not evidence of attack"  and "X is evidence that there is no attack".

Surely you know the difference between "I didn't inhale" and "I don't smoke", or "I didn't have sexual relations with that woman" and "yeah she sucked my cock but I didn't gratify her".

[NewLiberty]

I think you are working with Bitcoin Express and that somebody paid the both of you to wreak havok in the Monero community.

I have no affiliation with BCX.

Any one who knows me well, will vouch that I am fiercely independent. And I believe BCX is the same. Perhaps that is why gained some respect for him, yet I am also thinking he might be a full of shit, poser.

(I don't like friendships built on surety)

Why do people think we are one in the same?

It is an interesting idea.

~BCX~

ROFL
(more funny idea than interesting idea)
Now I'm the one with NEFT shooting out my nostrils!  
This was the best one yet, and bonus points for the fast response time.

[BitcoinDN.com]

ROFL
(more funny idea than interesting idea)
Now I'm the one with NEFT shooting out my nostrils!  
This was the best one yet, and bonus points for the fast response time.

Of course it was, I posted one then the next.


~BCX~

We spoke before.

Did the devs not reach out as you asked to me in PM? They have, but you continue with your attack. What is your motive to attempt to destroy a decentralized community? Again, I urge you to reconsider and to promote both a healthy mindset and action on this earth.

[NewLiberty]

Afaics, ignoring decentralized checkpoints should be plausible since the attacker would control the decentralized consensus.

Ignoring centralized checkpoints is not so feasible, since you've got to convince others not to run the reference client.

Applying the decentralised checkpoints isn't based on consensus though.  It is a decision each miner may make on their own.
They can also be delivered out of band, so DDoS pfft.
It allows each miner to select which chain they like.  

So if BCX forks with TW or other method, that fork ends up back where it started, back in the sandbox along with the little shovels, buckets, and Stoli empties.

There are certain further improvements to this innovation that may yet come, but the rapid response to the only plausible indicated threat (which isn't even all that plausible IMHO) remains an underrated achievement.  BCX shares some of the thanks/blame for this forced evolution.

You said to me upthread you like disagreement. So please pardon that I need to point out that afaics miner's choice doesn't resolve the issue that once a 51% fork has run for a while and many users get their transactions intertwined with it, you can't untangle it to revoke it any more, especially given the anonymity with the ring signatures.

Sorry.

(note I wrote this already far upthread)

Thank you for this.  I'd missed it so I appreciate the extra effort.

That would be true, if not for the fact that the MONERO DEVS ALREADY DID JUST THAT!

When we had that bad transaction a couple weeks back, remember?
Chain was in contention for 30 blocks, and all transactions replayed from the two chains except the coinbase ones (which in that case there weren't any to speak of) and the chain was reintegrated within that period (30 minutes or so).  So not even a fork in the end.

Dagnabbit I was hoping to learn something with this disagreement.

Maybe they won't be as good next time, but they have had some practice already, and I'm guessing with the generous warning they will be better prepared if it ever happens again.  My understanding is that they don't get unwound, they are retransmitted, so no user intervention needed.