delete

[smooth]

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.

The cultural stance is not significantly distinguished from the range of cultures I've seen on other open source projects on which and with which I've worked, which is quite a few.

Your characterization of it as a cathedral is straw man.

Perhaps it is a cathedral compared to your internal mental model of what constitutes bazzaar-style development, but by the standards of reality it is not.

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).

No, I'm saying that any recipient of any coin is vulnerable to a chain fork that removes the transaction they received. This is mitigated by a judgement of the recipient that they have waited "long enough" for such a chain fork to become unlikely. I said nothing about 6 confirms. In practice recipients make their own judgement about number of confirms. In Bitcoin many use less, and in altcoins many require far more. In all cases there is likely some sort implicit or explicit fraud scoring, but that is really none of my business and is up to the recipients to sort out. Ring signatures do nothing to change this except what they are intended to do (inhibit tracing, and thus indirectly blacklisting), and nothing here is remotely specific to Monero.

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.

Not exactly.I'm saying that useful contributions take the form of actual math or code. "There might be a flaw" is FUD almost by definition.

[smooth]

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.
And thus I also like to code in high-level paradigms.

1. There is exceedingly little C except the crypto libraries (essentially copied from another existing crypto library project), which we aren't working on because existing crypto libraries are fine (other than verifying that the code has not been tampered with and tracks upstream fixes if any).  The bulk of the project is C++

2. Simulations, prototypes or other contributions can be in any language. Tacotime's simulation used Python. Prototypes have also been doing in Python and then converted to C++. Other work has been done with Matlab, and probably some others I don't remember. Scala or well-presented math or anything else is welcome and useful. Vague assertions of uncertainty and doubt are close to the definition of FUD. No one is trying to suppress that even (futile in practice to even try anyway), but I am pointing out that it isn't useful to Monero any other project.

[TheFascistMind]

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.

The cultural stance is not significantly distinguished from the range of cultures I've seen on other open source projects on which and with which I've worked, which is quite a few.

Your characterization of it as a cathedral is straw man.

Perhaps it is a cathedral compared to your internal mental model of what constitutes bazzaar-style development, but by the standards of reality it is not.

Reality is the bazaar has been ongoing on this forum for years now. And you can't stop it. Don't you see all the experimentation in altcoins and all the wide-open discussion of ideas?

Your microcosm is your reality, but it is not the only reality.

For example, you were overruled on higher level of perpetual debasement. Some other coin will do what XMR doesn't.

My point is also that the Inverse Commons is not just intra-project, rather it is also inter-projects (as in the distinction between intrastate and interstate).

XMR is competing for developer resources, not developers competing to code for XMR as is the case for Linus.

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).

No, I'm saying that any recipient of any coin is vulnerable to a chain fork, which is a judgement of the recipient that they have waited "long enough" for such a chain fork to become unlikely. I said nothing about 6 confirms. In practice recipients make their own judgement about number of confirms. In Bitcoin many use less, and in altcoins many require far more. In all cases there is likely some sort implicit or explicit fraud scoring, but that is really none of my business and is up to the recipients to sort out. Ring signatures do nothing to change this except what they are intended to do (inhibit tracing, and thus indirectly blacklisting), and nothing here is remotely specific to Monero.

Afaics, you entirely missed my point.

You had a category error. You compare quantifiable (known a priori) probability with attacks that have no quantifiable (no known a priori) probability of assurance. You compare from the perspective of the user a knowable and user-selected risk with an unknowable risk and no possible user choice (other than to divest).

[smooth]

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.

The cultural stance is not significantly distinguished from the range of cultures I've seen on other open source projects on which and with which I've worked, which is quite a few.

Your characterization of it as a cathedral is straw man.

Perhaps it is a cathedral compared to your internal mental model of what constitutes bazzaar-style development, but by the standards of reality it is not.

Reality is the bazaar has been ongoing on this forum for years now. And you can't stop it. Don't you see all the experimentation in altcoins and all the wide-open discussion of ideas?

Your microcosm is your reality, but it is not the only reality.

For example, you were overruled on higher level of perpetual debasement. Some other coin will do what XMR doesn't.

My point is also that the Inverse Commons is not just intra-project, rather it is also inter-projects (as in the distinction between intrastate and interstate).

XMR is competing for developer resources, not developers competing to code for XMR as is the case for Linus.

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).

No, I'm saying that any recipient of any coin is vulnerable to a chain fork, which is a judgement of the recipient that they have waited "long enough" for such a chain fork to become unlikely. I said nothing about 6 confirms. In practice recipients make their own judgement about number of confirms. In Bitcoin many use less, and in altcoins many require far more. In all cases there is likely some sort implicit or explicit fraud scoring, but that is really none of my business and is up to the recipients to sort out. Ring signatures do nothing to change this except what they are intended to do (inhibit tracing, and thus indirectly blacklisting), and nothing here is remotely specific to Monero.

Afaics, you entirely missed my point.

You had a category error. You compare quantifiable (known a priori) probability with attacks that have no quantifiable (no known a priori) probability of assurance. You compare from the perspective of the user a knowable and user-selected risk with an unknowable risk and no possible user choice (other than to divest).

There is no such error. The same exact risk in kind exists with every other coin (including Bitcoin). The only difference is one quantity (how plausible such a fork is to occur). That is a judgement of the coin recipient. If your suggestion to them is to not accept any such coins ever, that's a valid point of view, but it applies equally to other coins as it does to Monero. Nothing presented is specific to Monero, except as I said the relative impossibility of blacklisting. Perhaps your advice is to not accept coins that don't allow for blacklisting, or perhaps I am misinterpreting.

[smooth]

"Conspiracy!"

Not exactly. People may well act as false an annoying supporters (and yes I have a particular ID in mind, but it is hardly unique), either just for kicks/attention or out of a genuine desire to do harm.

Although it is also true that some of the obviously fake supporters have been equally obvious sock puppet accounts, and were called out as such based on looking at their account profiles. That still doesn't demonstrate conspiracy though, since they could all be socks of the same person.

[nutildah]

OK guys lets stop giving Monero free press.

We all know it sucks.

Time to move on.

[robinwilliams]

well we now know who started this whole thing mr moneroman88 has been goxxed

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=809637.0

[TheFascistMind]

This post is just my personal preference. It should not be taken as representative of most developers...

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.
And thus I also like to code in high-level paradigms.

1. There is exceedingly little C except the crypto libraries (essentially copied from another existing crypto library project), which we aren't working on because existing crypto libraries are fine (other than verifying that the code has not been tampered with and tracks upstream fixes if any).  The bulk of the project is C++

Worse stench imo.

2. Simulations, prototypes or other contributions can be in any language. Tacotime's simulation used Python. Prototypes have also been doing in Python and then converted to C++. Other work has been done with Matlab, and probably some others I don't remember. Scala or well-presented math or anything else is welcome and useful.

I am the type of programmer who makes sure I understand all the code. I don't program blinded because I feel too handicapped if I attempt to do so (because I am always thinking total paradigm shifts, out-of-box, and global cascade, i.e. I load up the entire design in my head). So I don't just pop in an offer some code without investing myself in the code base of the project. I don't like to offer some half-assed simulation for example and then not be able to follow through with the implications found, etc..

I also like K.I.S.S.. Nothing irritates me more than projects that have so many dependencies I can't wrap my mind around it all. I believe in breaking large projects into smaller orthogonal projects with well defined APIs when desirable.

Vague assertions of uncertainty and doubt are close to the definition of FUD.

I don't care about any spin on the definition for political reasons. All I care about is what is productive or not towards the goal of refining crypto-currency.

No one is trying to suppress that even (futile in practice to even try anyway),

I have a copy of an IRC in my my private messages which refutes any claim there is no effort to suppress "FUD" (which might not necessarily mean trying to suppress my post but rather other less informed n00bs).

Any way, I don't care about that. The last point below is more relevant to me.

but I am pointing out that it isn't useful to Monero any other project.

If you are stating that the effort I put into this thread is not useful to XMR then that confirms for me, my pet theory of the reason XMR despite its formidable brain power won't be winning the crypto-currency race.

If you are claiming that no other project will benefit from my effort in this thread, I think that is myopic because for example I can see how the concepts I tossed around in this thread have aided my own project. Now you might mean any project that will ever be seen by the public, nevertheless it still seems highly presumptuous.

[TheFascistMind]

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.

The cultural stance is not significantly distinguished from the range of cultures I've seen on other open source projects on which and with which I've worked, which is quite a few.

Your characterization of it as a cathedral is straw man.

Perhaps it is a cathedral compared to your internal mental model of what constitutes bazzaar-style development, but by the standards of reality it is not.

Reality is the bazaar has been ongoing on this forum for years now. And you can't stop it. Don't you see all the experimentation in altcoins and all the wide-open discussion of ideas?

Your microcosm is your reality, but it is not the only reality.

For example, you were overruled on higher level of perpetual debasement. Some other coin will do what XMR doesn't.

My point is also that the Inverse Commons is not just intra-project, rather it is also inter-projects (as in the distinction between intrastate and interstate).

XMR is competing for developer resources, not developers competing to code for XMR as is the case for Linus.

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).

No, I'm saying that any recipient of any coin is vulnerable to a chain fork, which is a judgement of the recipient that they have waited "long enough" for such a chain fork to become unlikely. I said nothing about 6 confirms. In practice recipients make their own judgement about number of confirms. In Bitcoin many use less, and in altcoins many require far more. In all cases there is likely some sort implicit or explicit fraud scoring, but that is really none of my business and is up to the recipients to sort out. Ring signatures do nothing to change this except what they are intended to do (inhibit tracing, and thus indirectly blacklisting), and nothing here is remotely specific to Monero.

Afaics, you entirely missed my point.

You had a category error. You compare quantifiable (known a priori) probability with attacks that have no quantifiable (no known a priori) probability of assurance. You compare from the perspective of the user a knowable and user-selected risk with an unknowable risk and no possible user choice (other than to divest).

There is no such error. The same exact risk in kind exists with every other coin (including Bitcoin). The only difference is one quantity (how plausible such a fork is to occur). That is a judgement of the coin recipient. If your suggestion to them is to not accept any such coins ever, that's a valid point of view, but it applies equally to other coins as it does to Monero. Nothing presented is specific to Monero, except as I said the relative impossibility of blacklisting. Perhaps your advice is to not accept coins that don't allow for blacklisting, or perhaps I am misinterpreting.

Sorry there is a category error.

You erroneously equated different categories of risk as I already explained.

Now you are moving the goal posts and saying that all coins have this risk. That is a different point. And that point fails for numerous reasons:

1. Some coins have much higher network hashrate (difficulty) thus can't be as realistically attacked by someone with BCX's level of alleged resources.

2. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have ring signatures which make the block chain untracable and thus make it implausible (or very difficult) to do manual repair by segregating the stolen coinbase and double-spent traces from the transactions you'd like to keep.

3. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have throw away 20% of the timestamp information upon difficulty adjustment. I know you think the vulnerability I have broad-sketched above is not sufficiently detailed to warrant any concern, but nevertheless this is a risk that doesn't exist in other coins.

4. BCX killed Auroracoin (which btw rpietila invested in and asked my opinion about and I warned him it would be a pump and dump) and now he tells you what the vulnerabilities of XMR are, so these have to be taken as slightly more credible than if randomjoeblow said it.

Thus from my perspective at least, it gives the appearance you are still doing FUD control and refusing to be open-minded, rational, and objective. And this is the cultural problem of Monero.

[rangedriver]

[smoothie]

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, and I don't have to take your word that you don't employ shills. Out of respect for my own well being I choose not to.

Not employing shills is not "having" shills. As it could not be considered to be his shills if they weren't employed by Smooth.

You have unfounded assumptions about shills being around.

Seems like you may have gotten the word shill and supporter mixed up. Or are they the same to you?  

[TheFascistMind]

You have unfounded assumptions about shills being around.

Seems like you may have gotten the word shill and supporter mixed up. Or are they the same to you?  

Evidence:

https://i.imgur.com/wtnZlr0.jpg

[rangedriver]

You have unfounded assumptions about shills being around.

Seems like you may have gotten the word shill and supporter mixed up. Or are they the same to you?  

Evidence:

Believe me - I'm not posting because I'm in XMR. I'm posting because I was forced out of XMR. And more importantly I'm posting because I hate wankers and cunts that try to make themselves out to be some kind of protagonists of truth and virtuous social salvation while just being narcissistic wankers and cunts.

[smooth]

1. Some coins have much higher network hashrate (difficulty) thus can't be as realistically attacked by someone with BCX's level of alleged resources.

As you have said before, BCX doens't really matter. If there is a vulnerability, and BCX doesn't exploit it, someone else may, and probably will. I find hash rate attacks uninteresting and by now they should be well understood by all cryptocoin participants (if not, then caveat emptor applies).

2. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have ring signatures which make the block chain untracable and thus make it implausible (or very difficult) to do manual repair by segregating the stolen coinbase and double-spent traces from the transactions you'd like to keep.

So you are talking about blacklisting. Because otherwise there is no manual repair. One fork wins, the other fork loses.

3. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have throw away 20% of the timestamp information upon difficulty adjustment. I know you think the vulnerability I have broad-sketched above is not sufficiently detailed to warrant any concern, but nevertheless this is a risk that doesn't exist in other coins.

More vague uncertainty and doubt without some sort of positive statement.

4. BCX killed Auroracoin

This is disputed, but again you are personalizing the issue with respect to BCX. I don't.

Thus from my perspective at least, it gives the appearance you are still doing FUD control and refusing to be open-minded, rational, and objective. And this is the cultural problem of Monero.

Again personalizing. I disagree with your characterizations but they don't really matter.

Show some actual work, shut up, or continue to FUD. There is no fourth way.

Scala, math, pseudocode, even precise English that doesn't rely on phrases such as "it might be possible to" or "it can't be proven that this isn't a flaw." Or a simple precise example of a set of actions that can be taken by an attacker to accomplish something. It doesn't matter which.

You actually did this in describing the existence of stronger-than-MRL-0001 deanonymation attack (though not its scope and practical effect). Since then you have contributed no substantive information to this thread, just repeated over and over again the same vague warnings about time warps, simultaneous equations, entanglement and similarly ill-defined and underdefined notions.

Or to borrow one of your favorite quotes, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." I don't even ask for actual code, just specifics.

[TheFascistMind]

Believe me - I'm not posting because I'm in XMR. I'm posting because I was forced out of XMR.

No one can force you if you know what you are doing in the first place.

And more importantly I'm posting because I hate wankers and cunts that try to make themselves out to be some kind of protagonists of truth and virtuous social salvation while just being narcissistic wankers and cunts.

Your inadequate technical acumen appears to be the cause of your misplaced angst.

[slapper]

4. BCX killed Auroracoin (which btw rpietila invested in and asked my opinion about and I warned him it would be a pump and dump) and now he tells you what the vulnerabilities of XMR are, so these have to be taken as slightly more credible than if randomjoeblow said it.

So you were also complicit all along with the grand lie used to sucker in newbies for pumping XMR. Genuinely disappointed with the charades all around and you don't get a free pass either.  

MRO (Monero)
Okay, there was a reason why I wrote on alts. Cause I have just made my first altcoin investment ever! Monero has a trait which pretty much all other alts lack: slow and geometrically decreasing issuance. At present, only 5% of MRO is mined, and even after 4 years there will still be 20% left to be mined. There is no premine, and the community consists of several people Smiley Furthermore, it is at least currently a CPU coin, since the hashing algorithm is designed to make it difficult to implement for GPU let alone ASIC. These things make it "fair" so that there is no way to amass large stashes except by working for them in the competitive mining or buying in the open market.

tacotime, please rethink your strategy about developing for XMR. I hate to see someone of your stature in all this 

[CoinHoarder]

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, and I don't have to take your word that you don't employ shills. Out of respect for my own well being I choose not to.

Not employing shills is not "having" shills. As it could not be considered to be his shills if they weren't employed by Smooth.

You have unfounded assumptions about shills being around.

Seems like you may have gotten the word shill and supporter mixed up. Or are they the same to you?  

Technically, being a promoter of a cryptocurrency meanwhile having special interests (owning it, being a developer, etc) can be construed as being a shill.

The Merriam-Webster definition is:

1:  to act as a shill
2:  to act as a spokesperson or promoter <the eminent Shakespearean producer…is now shilling for a brokerage house — Andy Rooney>

and

a :  one who acts as a decoy (as for a pitchman or gambler)
b :  one who makes a sales pitch or serves as a promoter

So, everyone is a shill for whatever coin they own (if they post good things about it and defend it) regardless of owning extra accounts. Multi accounting is just a different more sneaky form of shilling. When people tell me I'm using the word shill wrong I point to the dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shill

[Spoetnik]

So you're claiming that Moneroman88 is Bluemenie?

No, Moneroman claimed he is BlueMeanie.

I am not BM.

you guys must have said his name 3x in a mirror.. he appeared now LOL

[Spoetnik]

Let me clear that up for you. There have never been Monero shills. We are well aware that it is quite easy and inexpensive to hire shills to post for or against any coin. We haven't.

Okay, so you're just fantastic at brainwashing people then. Good for you. The fact is, the Monero shills were the most annoying group of shills this forum has ever seen. This is why it drew so much hatred, this is why people are so effing sick of hearing about Monero all the time, this is why your coin has a negative reputation by this point. This is why the big money is currently moving on to the next scam... excuse me... project.

Is your vocal opposition to Monero also due to brainwashing? Because if not then it is equally likely (and in fact the case) that many people have looked at Monero the technology and the project and come to a different conclusion. Some of them are vocal about it, and some are more quiet, just as is the case with detractors.

You Monero Shills REALLY get off taking credit for Cryptonote don't you ?
In case people don't know Cryptonote was a coin cloning "Platform" designed to make cloning coins easier..
Monero is simply one of many !

[TheFascistMind]

1. Some coins have much higher network hashrate (difficulty) thus can't be as realistically attacked by someone with BCX's level of alleged resources.

As you have said before, BCX doens't really matter. If there is a vulnerability, and BCX doesn't exploit it, someone else may, and probably will. I find hash rate attacks uninteresting and by now they should be well understood by all cryptocoin participants (if not, then caveat emptor applies).

Hashrate attacks combined with alleged new vulnerabilities in Cryptonote are not yet fully understood.

2. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have ring signatures which make the block chain untracable and thus make it implausible (or very difficult) to do manual repair by segregating the stolen coinbase and double-spent traces from the transactions you'd like to keep.

So you are talking about blacklisting. Because otherwise there is no manual repair. One fork wins, the other fork loses.

You are referring the block hash being immutable with the transactions in the block. That immutable relationship is not commutative because the transactions are orthogonal to the block hashes.

Thus you can add the good transactions (from the bad fork) back to your good fork if you can untangle them. No blacklisting needed.

3. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have throw away 20% of the timestamp information upon difficulty adjustment. I know you think the vulnerability I have broad-sketched above is not sufficiently detailed to warrant any concern, but nevertheless this is a risk that doesn't exist in other coins.

More vague uncertainty and doubt without some sort of positive statement.

I have described a specific set of steps for an algorithm upthread.

Nothing in life is entirely certain. There are degrees of contribution and certainty. Apparently you think my contribution on that is immaterial?

4. BCX killed Auroracoin

This is disputed, but again you are personalizing the issue with respect to BCX. I don't.

You don't evaluate people based on their performance thus their likelihood of achieving their stated goals?

I am not aware of it being disputed. How certain is that dispute you claim?

Thus from my perspective at least, it gives the appearance you are still doing FUD control and refusing to be open-minded, rational, and objective. And this is the cultural problem of Monero.

Again personalizing. I disagree with your characterizations but they don't really matter.

Show some actual work, shut up, or continue to FUD. There is no fourth way.

Past days I have been discussing ideas about potential attacks. I have no idea why you would characterize this as not being actual work. I've already explained to you that it is part of my actual work. If XMR can benefit too great. I share for any eyeball that wants to avail. Perhaps you think I am doing this to intentionally hurt XMR or perhaps you think I am do this to waste my time. The former is not true because I can't hurt XMR with my words long-term. And the long-term is all that matters to me in crypto-currency. As for wasting my time, the exploration of attack ideas is very productive work for me, but this silly arguing with you is a waste of our time. I am surprised you came to some feeling where you felt I was trying to non-constructive. I expect that you can see I am trying to do useful work. But apparently you've become convinced that only code is useful (or something like that).

Scala, math, pseudocode, even precise English that doesn't rely on phrases such as "it might be possible to" or "it can't be proven that this isn't a flaw." Or a simple precise example of a set of actions that can be taken by an attacker to accomplish something. It doesn't matter which.

I have given you pseudocode for the bounty. I never heard back if it needed more details.

You actually did this in describing the existence of stronger-than-MRL-0001 deanonymation attack (though not its scope and practical effect).

Oh I see you are recognizing that. Thanks.

Since then you have contributed no substantive information to this thread, just repeated over and over again the same vague warnings about time warps, simultaneous equations, entanglement and similarly ill-defined and underdefined notions.

Or to borrow one of your favorite quotes, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." I don't even ask for actual code, just specifics.

Look it is a process man. You don't eat the pie before it is cooked.

Interaction spawns insights.

I have provided a lot of specifics over the past 2 days. Maybe not the specifics you want, but they are leading some where (I think).

I would have removed that 20% crap from the difficulty adjustment immediately.

All the difficulty attacks have had one common denominator. They all were based on exploiting information that was thrown away. For example, KGW has a weakness that you can push the difficulty way up instantly, then bring it down fast but stay under the threshold for adjustment.

It is very intuitive to me mathematically that you've got aliasing error in your difficulty adjustment.

I don't have to code a damn thing to see that.