Author

Topic: [BCN] Bytecoin. Secure, private, untraceable since 2012 - page 399. (Read 1070067 times)

sr. member
Activity: 421
Merit: 250
I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

I agree that bytecoin is necessary to promote as BCN. But I found this thread when did search BTE in the forum.

Why do you search for such thing ? Grin

I wanted to know BTE is dead or alive  Grin
sr. member
Activity: 692
Merit: 254
terra-credit.com

This came up in the How-To topic I assume it's some kind of bug. Did you encounter it multiple times?

I'm not sure if it's happened before (on my comp), but it was going on for at least half hour to an hour.

My comp was due for a reinstall/flash anyways . . actually I was going to do it today oddly enough. Will update if it continues after fresh installs.

Probably I've confused this problem with something else. Actually your problem looks like a double spend attempt.

Yeah, just stopped being lazy and looked at the source . .

Code:
   if(!kept_by_block)
    {
      if(have_tx_keyimges_as_spent(tx))
      {
        LOG_ERROR("Transaction with id= "<< id << " used already spent key images");
        tvc.m_verifivation_failed = true;
        return false;
      }
    }


Seems like a transaction that's already in a block is being tried to be spent?

Question is . . would this be a legit attack or is it a bug due to ring signature usage/tx collisions? Guess i'll be looking more.

That variable looks like a boolean that's determined by comparing the tx to I assume the chain.

Currently there is a transaction in transaction pool that won't go away even when the block is found. Maybe this problem is some how connected.
sr. member
Activity: 692
Merit: 254
terra-credit.com

This came up in the How-To topic I assume it's some kind of bug. Did you encounter it multiple times?

I'm not sure if it's happened before (on my comp), but it was going on for at least half hour to an hour.

My comp was due for a reinstall/flash anyways . . actually I was going to do it today oddly enough. Will update if it continues after fresh installs.

Probably I've confused this problem with something else. Actually your problem looks like a double spend attempt.
sr. member
Activity: 692
Merit: 254
terra-credit.com
Still no official exchange?

Google doc is not good enough for you? Grin
hero member
Activity: 532
Merit: 500
You have eyes but can see Mt. Tai?!
Still no official exchange?
sr. member
Activity: 692
Merit: 254
terra-credit.com
So has anyone gotten this one?





This came up in the How-To topic I assume it's some kind of bug. Did you encounter it multiple times?
legendary
Activity: 988
Merit: 1108
As it' s said in their whitepaper CryptoNight is "a new memory-bound algorithm for the proof-of-work pricing function. It relies on random access to a slow memory and emphasizes latency dependence. As opposed to scrypt every new block (64 bytes in length) depends on all the previous blocks. As a result a hypothetical "memory-saver" should increase his calculation speed exponentially".
More info you can get by yourself here.

So scrypt gives us ASIC-resistance, but this algo is much better at this field.
From 128KB (scrypt) to 2MB (CryptoNight) is a factor 16 increase in memory usage.

To improve ASIC-resistance further, you'd like to require hundreds of MB,
but that would make verification even slower than it already is.

Other memory-bound proofs-of-work avoid this problem (at the cost of introducing more parrallellism)
by having an asymmetry between computation and verification.
E.g. Momentum, memory-coin 2, my own Cuckoo Cycle, or Coelho's scheme
( "An (Almost) Constant-Effort Solution-Verification Proof-of-Work Protocol based on Merkle Trees" AfriCrypt 2008, Fabien Coelho)

Nice to see you took note of this, that's good news!

Would you mind going over some of the parallels/differences between some of these PoW's compared to this one? I'd especially like a comparison between this one and yours, as I've read some of your posts about it and have a little bit of an understanding.

I'm not really familiar with MMC2 (I know it uses AES, but not much more) or Coelho's scheme though.

I'll stick with         CryptoNight      vs      Cuckoo Cycle, assuming a size 2^{32} for the latter
memory                2MB                         512MB
memoy-hardness   solid                         can run twice as slow in 384MB, or 50% faster in 768MB
                                                          hardness hypothesized; not proven
parallellizable        not                          at least 20+ threads (probably less than 100)
access pattern       random                     random
latency                 low (cache)                high (main memory)
verification            slow                         instant
%computation       probably > 90%          33%
%memory             probably < 10%          67%
legendary
Activity: 988
Merit: 1108
As it' s said in their whitepaper CryptoNight is "a new memory-bound algorithm for the proof-of-work pricing function. It relies on random access to a slow memory and emphasizes latency dependence. As opposed to scrypt every new block (64 bytes in length) depends on all the previous blocks. As a result a hypothetical "memory-saver" should increase his calculation speed exponentially".
More info you can get by yourself here.

So scrypt gives us ASIC-resistance, but this algo is much better at this field.

From 128KB (scrypt) to 2MB (CryptoNight) is a factor 16 increase in memory usage.

To improve ASIC-resistance further, you'd like to require hundreds of MB,
but that would make verification even slower than it already is.

Other memory-bound proofs-of-work avoid this problem (at the cost of introducing more parrallellism)
by having an asymmetry between computation and verification.
E.g. Momentum, memory-coin 2, my own Cuckoo Cycle, or Coelho's scheme
( "An (Almost) Constant-Effort Solution-Verification Proof-of-Work Protocol based on Merkle Trees" AfriCrypt 2008, Fabien Coelho)

newbie
Activity: 1
Merit: 0
There is no point in posting private messages to that user on the CentOS forums because I have deleted it. Those that have already done so should know that:

a) it was first registered on the 11th April 2014 so probably has nothing whatsoever to do with the place you've allegedly decoded it from
b) I have also deleted all users who have posted private messages to it and will do so again if it comes back
c) I suspect you've all been had.

Without knowing details of how this works, anyone who has posted anything to that user should carefully review if the information that they have posted there is of any sort of security concern. The user you posted to is almost certainly a fake and may just be there to harvest your details.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
What's the current block reward? I finally have a non-zero balance. It's about 153k BCN and I don't know if I got it because my solo miner finally succeeded or if I got a handout from DStrange's giveaway. Cheesy
newbie
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

I agree that bytecoin is necessary to promote as BCN. But I found this thread when did search BTE in the forum.

Why do you search for such thing ? Grin
sr. member
Activity: 421
Merit: 250
I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

I agree that bytecoin is necessary to promote as BCN. But I found this thread when did search BTE in the forum.
newbie
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

Well BCN's popularity has grawn mach so may be it's time. BCN became distinct enough not to mention "not BTE".

Well BTE looks dead for a while now anyways. So I think it won't be a problem.
member
Activity: 109
Merit: 10
I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?

Well BCN's popularity has grawn mach so may be it's time. BCN became distinct enough not to mention "not BTE".
newbie
Activity: 53
Merit: 0
I have a 50+ i5 cpus that could work on this. Do I need to install wallet on each of the machines? Or there is a miner to point out to single server wallet/comp ?


Best decision for you will be 1 wallet and 50 daemon's. Use start mining command with your wallet's address. Using this setup on 3 PC's - no problems detected for now.
sr. member
Activity: 373
Merit: 250
I was thinking that our way of marking Bytecoin is pretty lame. Why do we say "not BTE" at all? There was a confusion at first, but at the moment the topic have gone pretty far so we can put it just "BCN". After all, the second Bytecoin is not marked as "not BCN". Do we need this at all?
full member
Activity: 139
Merit: 100
Pool is ok with me, but I will then loose all these interesting mysteries solving with blocks? Secret messages etc... ?

I was under the impression that the codes were intertwined with the blockchain which you can get at regardless. Considering that you did by chance stumple upon something, the odds that you will be at your computer the time it happens is slim, especially seeing how you have so much to give to the network.

Also, there are plenty of mystery to this from all the clue they have left so far, a new on was posted on their site just a day ago.

I wonder who was the first one to solve it and did he/she receive a reward. And what is it. Yes, I'm curious guy Cheesy

well, it definitely wasn't me. Sent a BCN address to the wyw... user on centos.org - no luck Sad
member
Activity: 148
Merit: 10
Pool is ok with me, but I will then loose all these interesting mysteries solving with blocks? Secret messages etc... ?

I was under the impression that the codes were intertwined with the blockchain which you can get at regardless. Considering that you did by chance stumple upon something, the odds that you will be at your computer the time it happens is slim, especially seeing how you have so much to give to the network.

Also, there are plenty of mystery to this from all the clue they have left so far, a new on was posted on their site just a day ago.

I wonder who was the first one to solve it and did he/she receive a reward. And what is it. Yes, I'm curious guy Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 994
Merit: 500
Pool is ok with me, but I will then loose all these interesting mysteries solving with blocks? Secret messages etc... ?

I was under the impression that the codes were intertwined with the blockchain which you can get at regardless. Considering that you did by chance stumple upon something, the odds that you will be at your computer the time it happens is slim, especially seeing how you have so much to give to the network.

Also, there are plenty of mystery to this from all the clue they have left so far, a new on was posted on their site just a day ago.
sr. member
Activity: 328
Merit: 250
I have a 50+ i5 cpus that could work on this. Do I need to install wallet on each of the machines? Or there is a miner to point out to single server wallet/comp ?


Wallet on one machine that can sync with the network. You will need the bytecoind node updated and running on all machines so that you can detect and mine blocks. You then just start mining to one wallet address. Your other option which would be easier since you have so much is the Pool. Minergate.com  Windows binary and Ubuntu 10.4 Deb

Pool is ok with me, but I will then loose all these interesting mysteries solving with blocks? Secret messages etc... ?
Jump to: