delete

[AdamWhite]

I am so hungry. For example, I posited a way to continually increase the difficulty by always structuring the attackers blocks to make the fastest block solutions in the discarded 20% set, thus skewing the statistics of the hashrate. I wrote the caveat that I hadn't studied the implementation to see if this was feasible.

I have an admittedly basic understanding of cryptocurrencies.. but can you please provide a little more detail into how this might be possible? Wouldn't you only know the fastest block solutions after the fact?  

[1714953355]

1714953355

[1714953355]

1714953355

[1714953355]

1714953355

[1714953355]

1714953355

[1714953355]

1714953355

[slapper]

You also can't roll back the clock.

I know that and I know it is one big problem that cannot be solved. What followed was completely biased opinions for months trying to sway people to join the cult and jaundiced information. It is certainly not all FUD, but a major part of it. Well played though because now the dumb carry the torch and recklessly try to confirm their biases.

You are fooling yourself with a victimization complex if you think "it is all FUD" though.

Not really a victim and certainly not a fool. When people try to borrow money to dump a coin to obvilion amongst a straight up smear propaganda campaign because they cannot roll back the clock, tech and innovation still can't be beat.

[Hueristic]

nothing is absolute

This is a contradictory statements.

Yet one I agree with.

Since you are claiming authority and not sufficient explanation of the science to convince me you actually know what you are talking about, what are your credentials relative to the head of research at IBM?

Years of dealing with "head Scientists" of semiconductor manufacturers.

[Liquid71]

It would have overtaken Darkcoin by now on its own merit.

Probably not, given that there is still no working GUI, etc.

For the most part I think the cheerleaders, shills, manipulators, etc. (on all sides) are mostly wasting their time and the current result is about the same as it would be without them

Maybe if you spent less time talking shit about every coin not named Monero on the forums and more time actually developing XMR you would have a GUI. 

[nioc]

The universe has no edge

Yes, it is a very dull place, mostly.

No edge is a fair bet.

Bet may be risky due to unknown influences.

[btc-mike]

Sorry but that is simply not clear at all.

Tacotime who is very experienced and respected in the community, has been involved with many coins, and is a very serious cryptocoin developer himself (MC2), is adamantly opposed to the ring signature trimming for example. The anonymity "improvements" have been strongly panned by the cryptonote developers. I don't think we have stated a position officially but we definitely have some issues with them as well, and definitely don't think they are the best way to "solve cryptonote flaws." The proof-of-work has plusses and minuses, but in reality both are somewhat questionable compared to something more of a hash-based standard. I happen to personally agree with you on emission curve, but others argue that it is better to reduce inflation a bit more quickly to achieve better store-of-value properties.

Facts:
BBR has a smaller blockchain, syncs faster, and has an official gui.
XMR has a dev team, unofficial guis.
Neither BBR or XMR is used in any significant way

Opinions:
Tacotime's opinion may be biased. The privacy of neither approach to ring signatures has been thoroughly tested.
Cryptonote devs? They have their own agenda.
Some say BBR has better emission curve (you, rpietila) but who knows. Cryptocurrencies are too new.
BBR is better
XMR is better

[nioc]

under the influence

poly entendre

[smooth]

Facts:
BBR has a smaller blockchain, syncs faster, and has an official gui.
XMR has a dev team, unofficial guis.
Neither BBR or XMR is used in any significant way

Opinions:
Tacotime's opinion may be biased. The privacy of neither approach to ring signatures has been thoroughly tested.
Cryptonote devs? They have their own agenda.
Some say BBR has better emission curve (you, rpietila) but who knows. Cryptocurrencies are too new.
BBR is better
XMR is better

Reasonable characterizations. My earlier objection was not to any of these facts, but to the stated opinion that the changes made by BBR are "improvements." Factually they are changes. Whether they are improvements is opinion. Other than syncing faster and blockchain being smaller, which you covered.

I would put under facts, that the BBR blockchain is not independently verifiable, because signatures necessary to check transactions have been removed (trimmed). Whether that is "good" or "bad" is opinion of course.

[Spoetnik]

Significant BCX posts about the Auroracoin fiasco:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=528446.msg5869690#msg5869690

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=530104.msg5893601#msg5893601

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=530752.msg5907110#msg5907110

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=538085.msg5926339#msg5926339

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=538085.msg5926370#msg5926370

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=538085.msg5932754#msg5932754

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=545475.msg5955259#msg5955259

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=545475.msg5956944#msg5956944

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=545475.msg5957057#msg5957057

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=545475.msg5959303#msg5959303

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=545475.msg5960759#msg5960759

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=545475.msg5961339#msg5961339

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=546338.msg5961947#msg5961947

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=546338.msg5962162#msg5962162

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=546338.msg5962247#msg5962247

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=546338.msg5963479#msg5963479

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=546338.msg5996370#msg5996370

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=546338.msg6011558#msg6011558

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552895.msg6021008#msg6021008

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=546338.msg6021281#msg6021281

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552895.msg6022109#msg6022109

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=523963.msg6046666#msg6046666

LOL wow you got a lot time on your hands don't you ?

or maybe i am thinking that because of my own laziness ?
i can barley muster up the effort for some snotty remarks about how great i am AHHAHA

edit:
Oh and by the way...

Monero.

[smooth]

Not really a victim and certainly not a fool. When people try to borrow money to dump a coin to obvilion amongst a straight up smear propaganda campaign because they cannot roll back the clock, tech and innovation still can't be beat.

You realize people have borrowed XMR for shorting too right? Three guesses who they borrowed from (not recently and now repaid).

And for that matter, XMR has also been subjected to of a lot of FUD and trolling (and as I said shorting and dumping). Perhaps it would be a lot higher were it not for that! It is certainly possible, yet I don't run around saying "XMR is only #13 due to FUD!" Otherwise it would be higher than DRK!

Claiming with high confidence that everything that happens is due to some hostile and deliberate scheme without being able to prove that degree of causality (and you can't because no one can prove the reasons for what happens in these markets) denotes a degree of paranoia, delusion, victimization complex, or something along those lines. It can't be entirely rational for the reason I stated.

[robinwilliams]

the only reason darkcoin is where it's at is due to manipulation.  1000K dark per mixer node + lowering the emission allows early adopters to artifically hold up high price.

it will finish it's downfall soon ... first mover advantage squandered by greed

[slapper]

Not really a victim and certainly not a fool. When people try to borrow money to dump a coin to obvilion amongst a straight up smear propaganda campaign because they cannot roll back the clock, tech and innovation still can't be beat.

You realize people have borrowed XMR for shorting too right? Three guesses who they borrowed from (not recently and now repaid).

It is not apples to apples. When BBR was being shorted, it had no support due to FUD spread by a certain camp in order to consolidate newbies into the coin that got launched earlier, in hopes that it wouldn't recover from there. XMR shorting was profitable due to a larger community, a much much higher valuation and support from lying scumbag bald BTC whales. It was for profit.

BBR shorting was at a loss or at the very least not-for-profit. Either way it had no where near the yields. But you knew this or should know this. Do you just have way too much time on your hands?

And for that matter, XMR has also been subjected to of a lot of FUD and trolling (and as I said shorting and dumping). Perhaps it would be a lot higher were it not for that! It is certainly possible, yet I don't run around saying "XMR is only #13 due to FUD!" Otherwise it would be higher than DRK!

You retards were asking for it. A lot of us kept saying don''t troll on other threads or forums or what not unless someone is spreading false information, and people would come on their own to XMR after discovering CN. But some retarded members thought it was their birth right to troll other threads now that whitepaper has been vetted, open tens of threads, spread FUD about other coins and a bunch of other shit. You don't go to the neighbor's house and call their house ugly (even if it is), you don't spam incessantly about your house even if it is the prettiest in the hood. It is just bad marketing. But then you retards never listened to those of us who said it. It took fake shills like MoneroMan88 to wake you guys up and stop the spam fest.

Claiming with high confidence that everything that happens is due to some hostile and deliberate scheme without being able to prove that degree of causality (and you can't because no one can prove the reasons for what happens in these markets) denotes a degree of paranoia, delusion, victimization complex, or something along those lines. It can't be entirely rational for the reason I stated.

This is not a court or a scientific experiment to prove schemes. There is more than enough instances of participation that can be deduced from post history of individuals. Don't blame me for your ineptitude. I am the least of your problems.

[crypto_zoidberg]

.....
Tacotime who is very experienced and respected in the community, has been involved with many coins, and is a very serious cryptocoin developer himself (MC2), is adamantly opposed to the ring signature trimming for example.
.....

Tacotime was also criticized bbr aliases idea. Now you implemented aliases in Monero 

Anyway, can you say at least one real argument against removing RS under checkpoints ?

Zoidberg

[smooth]

.....
Tacotime who is very experienced and respected in the community, has been involved with many coins, and is a very serious cryptocoin developer himself (MC2), is adamantly opposed to the ring signature trimming for example.
.....

Tacotime was also criticized bbr aliases idea. Now you implemented aliases in Monero  

In a different way that addresses the issue of namespace management and squatting, which I'm pretty sure is what we said we would do at the time. It has other tradeoffs, as do all implementations of anything, I suppose.

Anyway, can you say at least one real argument against removing RS under checkpoints ?

It isn't possible to independently verify the chain. This significantly elevates the trust model for checkpoints from choosing among valid chains to trusting that the chain below the checkpoint was valid before being trimmed. Again, tradeoffs....

[othe]

Tacotime was also criticized bbr aliases idea. Now you implemented aliases in Monero  Grin

No he didn´t like how its done and that miners can register random alias´ for exchanges and co. and misuse them easily.
But please don´t flip his words, the bbr alias tacotime is not from him for example and shows the problem he had with the way its done.

[Anotheranonlol]

The proof-of-work has plusses and minuses

Could you elaborate on the con's of Wild Keccak's proof-of-work function approach implemented in Boolberry over vanilla cryptonight implemented in bytecoin, quazarcoin,aeoncoin monero etc?

Seems that it satisfies the same ASIC resistant properties of cryptonight, whilst being much faster to validate, therefore resulting in a more pleasant user experience and better DoS resistance (In independent tests BBR synchronized from scratch in about 12 minutes, whilst XMR synced in about 3.5 hours) which is around 17 x faster.

Whilst you may not agree with the numbers there  (obviously the 17x slower syncing of monero was not simply down to using cryptonight instead of wild keccak) with same transaction flow, BBR was still demonstrated to synchronize 4x faster - of course we know that there are not 4x as many blocks in XMR than BBR, that seems to go against your claims.

Sure - its major advantage right now derives from its better choice of block time, the fact that it didn't have an early-stage dust problem, and that its transaction fees weren't as easily exploitable for DoS attacks.

That is incorrect on all three counts. Take a look at the details (proportion attributable to these factors, etc.) and you will see that these are not the main reasons for the block chain being smaller and faster. Even the difference in PoW is relatively unimportant right now (but might have some advantage -- or disadvantage -- in the future).

Could you give more details to the disadvantage it might have in the future that you alluded to there?

[smooth]

It is not apples to apples. When BBR was being shorted, it had no support due to FUD spread by a certain camp

Welcome to the rough and tumble world or altcoins. Are you new around here?

In case there is no misunderstanding, I'm not praising these tactics or saying I had anything to do with them, but I recognize them as reality (long before Monero).

And as I said, Monero has been on the receiving end of it, as well, and right from the start, well before any of the reasons you claim we "deserve it" (irrelevant anyway, as you don't really get what you deserve here, you get what you get).

It's just part of the air.

[smooth]

Could you elaborate on the con's of Wild Keccak's proof-of-work function approach implemented in Boolberry over vanilla cryptonight implemented in bytecoin, quazarcoin,aeoncoin monero etc?

1. Getting pool support, miner support, etc. was much slower and contributed to the lag of uptake of the coin. There are still many more pools for even the failed cryptonight coins than for BBR.

2. A much higher GPU performance ratio, especially earlier. Arguably a plus or minus depending on your point of view.

3. Lag on getting optimized miners, which also contributed to the lag of uptake, and also contributed (much) more to the dumping than the claims of manipulation. BTW, for the conspiracy theorist(s) who think(s) all BBR dumping was manipulative, it is well documented that XMR had a lag in getting optimized miners and this contributed to hundreds of thousands of USD of dumping. The difference is that XMR had the demand to absorb those coins, and BBR did not. Nevertheless I count this as a negative on WK because of the one-month launch lag. BBR could have piggybacked on the optimization (de-unoptimization) curve of the rest of the cryptonotes and avoided its privileged mining period almost entirely.

Seems that it satisfies the same ASIC resistant properties of cryptonight

In reality who knows.

Whilst you may not agree with the numbers there  (obviously the 17x slower syncing of monero was not simply down to using cryptonight instead of wild keccack) with same transaction flow, it was demonstrated to synchronize 4x faster - of course we know that there are not 4x as many blocks in XMR than BBR, that seems to go against your claims.

When crypto_zoidberg measured it he confirmed that only a portion of the difference in sync time was due to PoW. My recollection (not 100%) is that he was slightly surprised that portion was as small as it was. This is not rocket science, you can measure the PoW time on a typical computer at about 20ms, which means 50 PoW verifies per second. Roughly an hour worth of (XMR) blocks per second at that rate. A week takes a few minutes.

BTW, I slightly questioned the 4x number when it was reported because during the period in question XMR had 2.5x the number of blocks of BBR (and therefore 2.5x the number of coinbase transactions, etc.), while on average it would have 2x. A small difference but likely significant on a few of the measurements and the 4x overall result. No question it is still faster to sync, I have acknowledged that several times.

some advantage -- or disadvantage -- in the future[/b]).

Could you give more details to the disadvantage it might have in the future that you alluded to there?

Only in so far as we will have to see what the future holds.

I'm always skeptical of homebrew PoW (and crypto generally). Cryptonight probably qualifies as that too, but at least it was already in use on several coins, well on its way to being optimized by the time BBR launched, etc. If you're going replace homebrew, you should probably replace it with non-homebrew.

[NewLiberty]

Sorry but that is simply not clear at all.

Tacotime who is very experienced and respected in the community, has been involved with many coins, and is a very serious cryptocoin developer himself (MC2), is adamantly opposed to the ring signature trimming for example. The anonymity "improvements" have been strongly panned by the cryptonote developers. I don't think we have stated a position officially but we definitely have some issues with them as well, and definitely don't think they are the best way to "solve cryptonote flaws." The proof-of-work has plusses and minuses, but in reality both are somewhat questionable compared to something more of a hash-based standard. I happen to personally agree with you on emission curve, but others argue that it is better to reduce inflation a bit more quickly to achieve better store-of-value properties.

Facts:
BBR has a smaller blockchain, syncs faster, and has an official gui.
XMR has a dev team, unofficial guis.
Neither BBR or XMR is used in any significant way

Opinions:
Tacotime's opinion may be biased. The privacy of neither approach to ring signatures has been thoroughly tested.
Cryptonote devs? They have their own agenda.
Some say BBR has better emission curve (you, rpietila) but who knows. Cryptocurrencies are too new.
BBR is better
XMR is better

I would fully support BBR.

~BCX~

It will be great for crypto generally when you do.
XMR and BBR have a very friendly rivalry, though highly vocal and bitter foes spout off from each camp at the periphery. 
The ring signature's prospects are new and developing.  There is far more future than history in this, and thus, opportunity.
Especially for someone that values their privacy as you do.

XMR is sort of running away with the competition now, so it would be great to have a closer battle.  More evolution from both.
You would likely be welcomed among XMR's noble opposition.

The endgame is possibly for these to ultimately join, or create a new joint effort coin, or something else, who knows?
As an admitted XMR fan, I put my support (and a bit of money) on that horse in this race, but I'd be foolish if I were not also owning BBR and saving up for what may yet come.

[TheFascistMind]

What can you do about it besides being concerned about it?

Distribute the coin to non-investors.

Btw, has anyone paid close enough attention to the selfish-mining paper to observe that as the attackers hashrate approaches 50% of the network, his portion of the blocks won goes to 100%.  

Bitcoin often has a single pool with 50% of the network hashrate.

There is a fundamental problem here. All the anonymity tech in the world is sort of useless against the state under this current situation. We need to fundamentally rethink the longest chain rule as it is currently formulated.

Some ideas were presented by ethereum.