delete

[nioc]

The universe has no edge

Yes, it is a very dull place, mostly.

I understand the way you meant it yet I would like to make the following comment based/inspired in part on/by it's literal meaning.

For those of you who would like to go to outer space, where do you think you are?  You will find neither a more hospitable place nor one with more wonder.

[1714776045]

1714776045

[1714776045]

1714776045

[YarkoL]

For those of you who would like to go to outer space, where do you think you are?  You will find neither a more hospitable place nor one with more wonder.

Save perhaps for inner space 

[Spoetnik]

Summary ?

Scam coin.

move along.. nothing to see here.



- so there you have it.. my opinion (the correct one)

Jackpotcoin!!!!!!!!!!

Your funny LOL

and the rest of you as usual still babbling on with complicated nonsense i say too bad you didn't invest all your mensa caliber genius into a coin worth while  

because after all you got my opinion on Monero (the Correct one) what more do you want ?

[TheFascistMind]

Mixing whether it be done by centralized exchanges or by large anonymity sets increase the threat of domino cascade

Exchanges are just an example of a commerce transaction...

Incorrect. The distinction is an exchange acts (by its Terms Of Service) as an unallocated pool for all participants thus it warrants that every coin in the pool is fungible, whereas without explicit anonymity mixing a vendor spends a traceable coin on a transparent block chain and the trail of culpability stays only with that coin, not mixed with all the other coins spent to that vendor.

Blacklisting entire anonymity sets is legally and politically plausible

It is largely useless, since you are blacklisting coins that might well have already been spent...

...because you would be blacklisting many and even most coins after some rounds of mixing.

I am contemplating you imply effectively that rings may so radically cross-mixed that blacklisting anything blacklists everything.

Note the algorithm I did for the bounty. If that algorithm is worthy, then appears to be the mixing is going need to be much less overlapping otherwise anonymity is lost. So we might discover that blacklisting is viable for Cryptonote because either we mitigate which means less ring overlap, or some of the rings are de-anonymized.

Thus I maintain, "the jury is out, we need more study".

There is a very narrow window of opportunity to actually know whether coins are unspent, before they are used by anyone in a mix. And once they are used, it is only a short time from there before exponential spreading means they are then mixed all over the place and downstream blacklisting is impractical.

A significant feature of ring signatures is the spender decides (i.e. has autonomy of) what to mix with, thus the authorities can make the spenders culpable for mixing with blacklisted anonymity sets. If blacklisting one coin blacklists the entire block chain then as new coins are mined, spenders might choose not to mix them at all.

If we are speculating, then heck the US Justice department is attacking UBS and the entire nation of Switzerland, surely they aren't afraid to attack all the users of a $5 million market cap anonymous coin, or even all the users of a $10 billion market cap coin.

This is why I stated upthread IMO the key issue is what can the authorities actually enforce. If the miners are too decentralized and anonymous (and note mining is not even anonymous in XMR) and spenders have no control over whom they mix with, who will the authorities attack?

I thought about it in April when rpietila first asked me about Bitmonero, and I liked the non-simultaneity (autonomy) and the cryptographic clarity (e.g. no dubiously underspecified DRK masternodes, but which has hence potentially become muddled, but jury is out), but every other aspect I disliked about ring signatures (as I enumerated upthread). Now with the algorithm I presented for the bounty, I am thinking the spender is not even fully autonomous to choose the public keys in his/her ring, but we don't have yet a working characterization of that algorithm thus, "the jury is out, we need more study".

because with a crack on private keys only the attacker can double-spend his coins

Or did you mean "without?"

Correct.

That being the case, what you said is untrue. Anyone can double spend, simply by spending on whatever fork does not survive...

I've already covered my proposed solution to this in detail in the Longest Chain Rule thread in the Developers subforum. I don't want to repeat what I've already argued there about how to handle forks. Apparently gmaxell disagreed with me, but he refused to tell me why. Also I've done some additional thinking about that hence, but my thoughts are not loaded in my mind at the moment and I don't want to go digging right now.

[Cryptobro]

what more do you want ?

Would you keeping your opinions to yourself from now on be too much to ask?

[Spoetnik]

what more do you want ?

Would you keeping your opinions to yourself from now on be too much to ask?

yes that is too much to ask..
don't try and stiflle and encroach on my creativity and my masterful insights !
Satan gave me a gift and i intend on using it ..i've got my mouth to feed dammit !
when your this good at Crypto they call you Spoetnik

so why not share the mystique and allure that is Spoetnik with all ?

anyway i can't keep my "opinions" to my self because my opinions are truths read the Spoetnik'isms carefully !
the truth is everywhere and the truth is me.. i am in the believers hearts !
the crypto-church of Spoetnik is the one true way.. the path to righteousness.
i implore you all to let Spoetnik into your hearts and let Spoetnik lead you to salvation
i can help you crypto-sinners but you must have faith in my ways, Spoetnik works in mysterious ways
be free and multiply my crypto believers !
And remember Spoetnik loves you all  

[smooth]

Mixing whether it be done by centralized exchanges or by large anonymity sets increase the threat of domino cascade

Exchanges are just an example of a commerce transaction...

Incorrect. The distinction is an exchange acts (by its Terms Of Service) as an unallocated pool for all participants thus it warrants that every coin in the pool is fungible, whereas without explicit anonymity mixing a vendor spends a traceable coin on a transparent block chain and the trail of culpability stays only with that coin, not with all the other coins spent to that vendor.

This is a distinction without an ultimate difference, most certainly to the affected party. You buy (or sell) socks, you get (or give) the socks, and coins end up other than with the person who sold the socks, then someone is screwed. Such a person doesn't really care about unallocated pools and other technicalities. If one person ends up with socks and coins, then double spending has occurred, and this is equally a potential problem on traceable and untraceable chains given chain forks and hash rate based attacks.

I am contemplating you imply effectively that rings may so radically cross-mixed that blacklisting anything blacklists everything.

Note the algorithm I did for the bounty. If that algorithm is worthy, then mixing is going need to be much less overlapping otherwise anonymity is lost.

I wasn't referring to overlapping at all, just the exponential growth of mixes. If one recipient mixes with 5 others and each of those mixes with 5 others, even if there is no overlap, then after a relatively small number of steps, a huge number of coins become mixed. (In fact wouldn't reduced overlap speed this up?) It is entirely possible that somewhere down in this wide swath of mixing, the original apparent owner has moved his coins somewhere far away on the chain before the original outputs were blacklisted, rendering the blacklist invisibly ineffective. But even if not, the number of outputs included in the downstream set is large enough that attempting to impose some tracing-based blacklist becomes equivalent to to a coin ban.

More study is always needed, but again we are back to "there might be a flaw." Yes there might be. Anywhere and everywhere. Provide actual analysis or just continue to make these vague sweeping generalities that signify nothing.

A significant feature of ring signatures is the spender decides (i.e. has autonomy of) what to mix with, thus the authorities can make the spenders culpable for mixing with blacklisted anonymity sets.

Not if the mixing occurred before the blacklisting. Thus the point that blacklisting is only relevant to fungibility if it occurs in a very narrow time window. Once the horse (and his DNA) is out of the barn, there is no turning back.

The original coins can possibly be blacklisted (though as you point out this depends on control over miners and other systemwide considerations) and with identical caveats people can be prevented from mixing with the original coins again, but an effect on fungibility of previous spends of those coins is impractical.

I've already covered my proposed solution to this in detail in the Longest Chain Rule thread in the Developers subforum. I don't want to repeat what I've already argued there about how to handle forks. Apparently gmaxell disagreed with me, but he refused to tell me why.

If I had to guess I would speculate something to do with the signal-to-noise issue I referenced earlier.

[NewLiberty]

Certainly ring sigs don't automatically cause massive numbers of otherwise-unrelated transactions to suddenly depend on a rejected fork, especially if the fork is of limited duration. Granted there are slightly more dependencies, but that is quantitative difference not a qualitative one.

I posited to NewLiberty upthread that the development of a Gordian knot would depend on the duration of such an attack.

I argue it it also qualitative because my outputs get mixed in rings without my permission. Thus I can't spend in times of such an attack without incurring the risk that my spend must be unwound. Whether I know an attack is underway is irrelevant.

The Gordian knot problem remains interesting to me because it suggests an avenue of protocol improvement making CN more robust.
It presents a special case of managing a transaction where some ring signer (such as may result from a coinbase spend) is not valid due it being on a fork-to-be-orphaned, but the transaction ought be valid.

There is already some buttressing for this (in that fresh block rewards are unspendable for a good number of blocks).  Which in practicality, amounts to a race between miners fixing checkpoints, and block rewards becoming spendable (this is the case for all coins not just CN, XMR however has a leg up in these races because no recompile is needed for the checkpoints).

[TheFascistMind]

Mixing whether it be done by centralized exchanges or by large anonymity sets increase the threat of domino cascade

Exchanges are just an example of a commerce transaction...

Incorrect. The distinction is an exchange acts (by its Terms Of Service) as an unallocated pool for all participants thus it warrants that every coin in the pool is fungible, whereas without explicit anonymity mixing a vendor spends a traceable coin on a transparent block chain and the trail of culpability stays only with that coin, not with all the other coins spent to that vendor.

This is a distinction without an ultimate difference, most certainly to the affected party...

The cost is charged to all customers of the exchange, whereas in the vendors case it is only charged to the last single bagholder holding that specific coin.

I am contemplating you imply effectively that rings may so radically cross-mixed that blacklisting anything blacklists everything.

Note the algorithm I did for the bounty. If that algorithm is worthy, then mixing is going need to be much less overlapping otherwise anonymity is lost.

I wasn't referring to overlapping at all, just the exponential growth of mixes. If one recipient mixes with 5 others and each of those mixes with 5 others, even if there is no overlap, then after a relatively small number of steps, a huge number of coins become mixed.

Mathematically can't get exponential growth of mixing without exponential growth of overlap, unless the supply of transaction outputs is also growing exponentially (which since outputs have to be same sized I think implies unless coin money supply is growing exponentially and/or velocity is falling exponentially). Any way, I have not formalized that and I am not going to. You guys are invested in ring signatures and thus you need to know.

attempting to impose some tracing-based blacklist becomes equivalent to to a coin ban.

No only a ring > 1 input ban, i.e. ban on anonymity.

More study is always needed, but again we are back to "there might be a flaw." Yes there might be. Anywhere and everywhere. Provide actual analysis or just continue to make these vague sweeping generalities that signify nothing.

Some specifics have been provided.

I never heard of dedicated and concerned developers that expected everything to be handed to them on a silver platter in completely polished form so they don't have to do any work.

Only doing the work and proving out everything will convince more people. There are no shortcuts. Even if I go away, I am not the cause of the price moving one direction or the other. Even rpietila would agree I have no impact on the price.

If XMR had responded to BCX's points about the quick difficulty readjustment and 20% discard with a whitepaper about such issues and the Cryptonote solution, then I would be more impressed.

I have been writing my own whitepaper over these days about issues that were raised in this thread.

A significant feature of ring signatures is the spender decides (i.e. has autonomy of) what to mix with, thus the authorities can make the spenders culpable for mixing with blacklisted anonymity sets.

Not if the mixing occurred before the blacklisting.

There will always be new coins mined that are not yet mixed with anything. I already made that point once. Thus the entire coin is never banned unless new coin rewards have stopped (but then the coin will be dead anyway according to my theory).

You keep repeating your point that authorities won't blacklist because it blacklists the entire coin. And I keep making the point that they don't care. If you fuck with their control over money, they will do anything they can effectively do, even probably taking us to nuclear war if it will achieve their aims. Rather you have to think more in terms of what they can and can't do operatively, not what you think they can't do because you think it is unreasonable.

Also orthogonally you repeatedly ignore the point that I am not convinced you can have that widespread mixing without having de-anonymization on a large scale. We need my algorithm to be tested so we can know. If that is not a high priority for you all, then fine. I am stating my opinions.

Thus the point that blacklisting is only relevant to fungibility if it occurs in a very narrow time window. Once the horse (and his DNA) is out of the barn, there is no turning back.

Again you ignore ongoing coin rewards (otherwise coin is dead) and de-anonymization (by my algorithm and also users that volunteer their passwords in exchange for an agreement to unlock their coins from the blacklist). Thus the real pinch point is if the authorities control the mining.

Since how many months have I been stating that I don't think anonymity mixing on the block chain is the killer feature that drives a coin to be #2 or #1. I don't think fungibility can be protected that way, but rather the choke point is the control over mining.

If I had to guess I would speculate something to do with the signal-to-noise issue I referenced earlier.

I could claim similarly about your posts. I think it is the nature of debate.

[smoothie]

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:

"evidence" with no proof that it is evidence at all....

Sorry try again.

[smoothie]

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  

I was under the impression that rpietila only invested in XMR and BTC.

Can you link or post PMs that prove your claim?

[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

"evidence" with no proof that it is evidence at all....

Sorry try again.

I was providing evidence that 'shrill' and 'supporter' have become confusing for readers to discern.

[TheFascistMind]

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  

I was under the impression that rpietila only invested in XMR and BTC.

Can you link or post PMs that prove your claim?

smooth corrected me by quoting where rpietila posted that he had changed his mind and didn't invest in Auroracoin.

I was nearly certain he was going to invest and assumed his did. I was pretty strongly against investing in it.

[smooth]

Mathematically can't get exponential growth of mixing without exponential growth of overlap, unless the supply of transaction outputs is also growing exponentially. know.

It is exponential spreading, not growth, and only up to the point where the count of active outputs is approached. Each output is being mixed with an exponentially-declining share of an exponentially greater number outputs. This doesn't require arbitrary growth of overlap, in fact you can't even have arbitrarily high overlap in general because the amount of overlap is exactly equal to the amount of mixing in the aggregate. What may be required to protect against failure is to ensure that overlap is not excessively concentrated (if that even occurs with significant probability).

attempting to impose some tracing-based blacklist becomes equivalent to to a coin ban.

No only a ring > 1 input ban, i.e. ban on anonymity.

Okay, authorities may ban anonymity. Thank you for pointing that out.

I never heard of dedicated and concerned developers that expected everything to be handed to them on a silver platter in completely polished form so they don't have to do any work.

I expect nothing. I'm simply pointing out that if you want to be listened to by people with any real technical competence (as opposed to others who don't have the background to even tell the difference between valid and invalid claims), you need to focus your comments in a way that rises above the noise floor of many vague and poorly supported claims (yours and others'). Especially here, where frankly a lot of people are either ignorant, full or shit, or have a hidden agenda (or perhaps all of these). It is up to you whether you want that or not.

If XMR had responded to BCX's points about the quick difficulty readjustment and 20% discard with a whitepaper about such issues and the Cryptonote solution, then I would be more impressed

We can't and won't respond with a whitepaper to every vague claim of "there might be a flaw" that is posted on bitcointalk whether that is from you or BCX or anyone else. We can and do produce whitepapers, notes, etc. when we have some interesting and competently performed and presented analysis to share. We will likewise read and pay close attention to such competently performed and presented analysis that comes from others.

You keep repeating your point that authorities won't blacklist because it blacklists the entire coin. And I keep making the point that they don't care. If you fuck with their control over money, they will do anything they can effectively do, even probably taking us to nuclear war if it will achieve their aims. Rather you have to think more in terms of what they can and can't do operatively, not what you think they can't do because you think it is unreasonable.

That is misrepresenting my point. They won't blacklist because it is ineffective: 1) because the output may have already been spent (and it is unknowable whether that is the case); and 2) because downstream blacklisting will be ignored by anyone using the coin at all. And if they do, it won't accomplish much, because, well, it is ineffective (or effective only insofar as a ban is effective).

They might resort to nuclear war. I take no position on that, only that blacklisting given intractability and non-transparent spending is ineffective.

If I had to guess I would speculate something to do with the signal-to-noise issue I referenced earlier.

I could claim similarly about your posts. I think it is the nature of debate.

If you were trying to "debate" with gmaxwell in place of providing meaningful detail about whatever it is you think was some important point about blockchain design, then I'm not surprised that he ignored or disagreed with your points, whether or not they may even be correct, as I frequently do, and as will virtually any serious practitioner. You don't effectively convey technical information with debate, you do so with technical writing, simulations, implementations (code), math, etc.

[TheFascistMind]

If you were trying to "debate" with gmaxwell in place of providing meaningful detail about whatever it is you think...

Afaics detail is there. You can read the thread.  Here is gmaxell's post.

[smoothie]

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:

"evidence" with no proof that it is evidence at all....

Sorry try again.

I was providing evidence that 'shrill' and 'supporter' have become confusing for readers to discern.

Next time you should be clear on this. Hard to determine the context of your intentions when you do not specify them.

[cAPSLOCK]

The universe has no edge

Yes, it is a very dull place, mostly.

A sharp wit I see!

[cornfeedhobo]

Meanwhile, the exchanges are see large volumes at low prices.

If this isn't market manipulation, I don't know what is.

Look at BCX's post history https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=29445;sa=showPosts

He has never pulled off a TW attack. He has only made claims about them, but admits he "never got to wear the badge" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=546338.msg5961485#msg5961485

Everything he has done has been FUD with no proof. Never has he demonstrated any coin killing capabilities.

Other notable failures:
Failed to attack namecoin:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.0
Failed to attack litecoin:     https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94912.0

Someone has even gone so far as to create a petition to have him arrested https://www.change.org/p/bitcoinexpress-have-him-arrested

[TheFascistMind]

This discussion is very tiring.

Mathematically can't get exponential growth of mixing without exponential growth of overlap, unless the supply of transaction outputs is also growing exponentially.

Each output is being mixed with an exponentially-declining share of an exponentially greater number outputs.

My bounty algorithm shows that old outputs will mix until they hit their trigger of maximum mixes then the sender is de-anonymized. Thus the exponentially growing supply of outputs is continually being pruned, either by a mitigation you will implement or by de-anonymization if you don't implement mitigation.

attempting to impose some tracing-based blacklist becomes equivalent to to a coin ban.

No only a ring > 1 input ban, i.e. ban on anonymity.

Okay, authorities may ban anonymity. Thank you for pointing that out.

Incorrect, they only blacklisted illegal activity. The anonymity died as an artifact. This can be an important distinction for legal and politically correct "standards" (aka propaganda).

I never heard of dedicated and concerned developers that expected everything to be handed to them on a silver platter in completely polished form so they don't have to do any work.

I expect nothing. I'm simply pointing out that if you want to be listened to by people with any real technical competence (as opposed to others who don't have the background to even tell the difference between valid and invalid claims), you need to focus your comments in a way that rises above the noise floor of many vague and poorly supported claims (yours and others'). Especially here, where frankly a lot of people are either ignorant, full or shit, or have a hidden agenda (or perhaps all of these). It is up to you whether you want that or not.

Ditto.

If XMR had responded to BCX's points about the quick difficulty readjustment and 20% discard with a whitepaper about such issues and the Cryptonote solution, then I would be more impressed

We can't and won't respond with a whitepaper to every vague claim of "there might be a flaw" that is posted on bitcointalk whether that is from you or BCX or anyone else.

Thus that is a difference between XMR and my style. Different culture. I took BCX's points seriously and made some interesting discoveries from it.

You keep repeating your point that authorities won't blacklist because it blacklists the entire coin. And I keep making the point that they don't care. If you fuck with their control over money, they will do anything they can effectively do, even probably taking us to nuclear war if it will achieve their aims. Rather you have to think more in terms of what they can and can't do operatively, not what you think they can't do because you think it is unreasonable.

That is misrepresenting my point. They won't blacklist because it is ineffective: 1) because the output may have already been spent (and it is unknowable whether that is the case); and 2) because downstream blacklisting will be ignored by anyone using the coin at all. And if they do, it won't accomplish much, because, well, it is ineffective (or effective only insofar as a ban is effective).

And you continue to ignore my repeated point that if they control the mining, they can effectively ban.

[TheFascistMind]

Meanwhile, the exchanges are see large volumes at low prices.

If this isn't market manipulation, I don't know what is.

Look at BCX's post history https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=29445;sa=showPosts

He has never pulled off a TW attack. He has only made claims about them, but admits he "never got to wear the badge" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=546338.msg5961485#msg5961485

Everything he has done has been FUD with no proof. Never has he demonstrated any coin killing capabilities.

Other notable failures:
Failed to attack namecoin:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=43465.0
Failed to attack litecoin:     https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=94912.0

Someone has even gone so far as to create a petition to have him arrested https://www.change.org/p/bitcoinexpress-have-him-arrested

That is interesting. What about his posts about his claimed attack on Auroracoin?

That post about the 51% attack is I think what happened after his TW attack had lowered the difficulty so much but had not yet reached the point where he could 51% attack?