Topic: CryptoNote technical discussion and Chess Challenge - page 58. (Read 96133 times)
I would go here for g6 to prepare Lg7.
With their queen on e3 they may want to put their bishop on b2. Why not play g6 and Bg7 now to make that harder for them?
Nf6 is my preference here. It is the best square for that knight and lets us retain flexibility of where to develop our bishop (g7 or e7) for another move or two depending on how white responds.
Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Monero has chosen to play Qe3. Now it is time for Team Boolberry to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
black to move
1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4 Nc6
6.Qe3
Based on the votes in this thread Team Monero has chosen to play Qe3. Now it is time for Team Boolberry to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
black to move
1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4 Nc6
6.Qe3
Qd2. I do not like the weak c2 after Qe3.
I will make the 3rd vote for c4. We will have to make a new move at some point because black ended up with a good position in the World Cup game. I have an idea about when we can do something different, but I don't want to disclose that yet.
White was playing with the goal of securing a draw in that game. Sometimes when you work too hard to limit complications you end up making suboptimal moves. My comment is not meant to imply c4 was a bad move. I am just referring to the goal of white in that game.
6.Qd3 because I think we may want our bishops on e2 and e3.
I support Qe3
Coinshuffle as a concept has added value even on a cryptonote coin itself.
Without something like coinjoin/coinshuffle you an infer that inputs to a transaction are controlled by the same party. This in turn requires additional measures which are inconvenient and not really desirable (MRL-0004 suggests at least sometimes sending a torrent of microtransactions rather than a single large one to spend multiple outputs rather than combining them).
Certainly coinshuffle is also needed if his supernet system includes coins that aren't anonymous, but that's a different issue.
Without something like coinjoin/coinshuffle you an infer that inputs to a transaction are controlled by the same party. This in turn requires additional measures which are inconvenient and not really desirable (MRL-0004 suggests at least sometimes sending a torrent of microtransactions rather than a single large one to spend multiple outputs rather than combining them).
Certainly coinshuffle is also needed if his supernet system includes coins that aren't anonymous, but that's a different issue.
Just when I feel like I am starting to understand the basics in this thread now you start talking about the combination of things.
Here is a problem some of you chess addicts may like to solve while I continue to study cryptography:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12620343
Qe3
Who will blink first?
Who will blink first?
Current position
Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play Nc6. Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
white to move
1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4 Nc6
Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play Nc6. Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. I will plan to count votes again tomorrow at approximately 0:00 UTC.
Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)
white to move
1.e4 c5
2.Nf3 d6
3.d4 cxd4
4.Qxd4 a6
5.c4 Nc6
...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.
I should have added more context. I think jl777 is concerned with immediate transfers between SuperNET coins, some of which are not anonymous.
I commented on the BBR Speculation thread (without having seen this comment). It certainly does make sense that if you are considering a decentralized exchange where some of the coins are not anonymous, then timing correlation and the level of background activity on a cryptonote does matter. I'm somewhat skeptical of decentralized exchanges overall due to the inherent lack of privacy. It's certainly nice not to be goxed, but part of the purpose of centralized exchanges and brokers is to maintain a degree of client privacy.
You comments were very hopeful. I don't know how closely he will watch that thread but I am curious what his response would be. Based on what you said one of my original questions to jl777 (why use CoinShuffle and CryptoNote instead of just CryptoNote) still seems to be a valid one. I am guilty of not spending time in SuperNET slack to read about the reasons for their specific plans. I might take some time over the next week to try to learn more.
Coinshuffle as a concept has added value even on a cryptonote coin itself.
Without something like coinjoin/coinshuffle you an infer that inputs to a transaction are controlled by the same party. This in turn requires additional measures which are inconvenient and not really desirable (MRL-0004 suggests at least sometimes sending a torrent of microtransactions rather than a single large one to spend multiple outputs rather than combining them).
Thank you again. I need to reread the CoinShuffle paper I linked in the OP of this thread!
http://crypsys.mmci.uni-saarland.de/projects/CoinShuffle/coinshuffle.pdf
...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.
I should have added more context. I think jl777 is concerned with immediate transfers between SuperNET coins, some of which are not anonymous.
I commented on the BBR Speculation thread (without having seen this comment). It certainly does make sense that if you are considering a decentralized exchange where some of the coins are not anonymous, then timing correlation and the level of background activity on a cryptonote does matter. I'm somewhat skeptical of decentralized exchanges overall due to the inherent lack of privacy. It's certainly nice not to be goxed, but part of the purpose of centralized exchanges and brokers is to maintain a degree of client privacy.
You comments were very hopeful. I don't know how closely he will watch that thread but I am curious what his response would be. Based on what you said one of my original questions to jl777 (why use CoinShuffle and CryptoNote instead of just CryptoNote) still seems to be a valid one. I am guilty of not spending time in SuperNET slack to read about the reasons for their specific plans. I might take some time over the next week to try to learn more.
Coinshuffle as a concept has added value even on a cryptonote coin itself.
Without something like coinjoin/coinshuffle you an infer that inputs to a transaction are controlled by the same party. This in turn requires additional measures which are inconvenient and not really desirable (MRL-0004 suggests at least sometimes sending a torrent of microtransactions rather than a single large one to spend multiple outputs rather than combining them).
Certainly coinshuffle is also needed if his supernet system includes coins that aren't anonymous, but that's a different issue.
...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.
I should have added more context. I think jl777 is concerned with immediate transfers between SuperNET coins, some of which are not anonymous.
I commented on the BBR Speculation thread (without having seen this comment). It certainly does make sense that if you are considering a decentralized exchange where some of the coins are not anonymous, then timing correlation and the level of background activity on a cryptonote does matter. I'm somewhat skeptical of decentralized exchanges overall due to the inherent lack of privacy. It's certainly nice not to be goxed, but part of the purpose of centralized exchanges and brokers is to maintain a degree of client privacy.
You comments were very hopeful. I don't know how closely he will watch that thread but I am curious what his response would be. Based on what you said one of my original questions to jl777 (why use CoinShuffle and CryptoNote instead of just CryptoNote) still seems to be a valid one. I am guilty of not spending time in SuperNET slack to read about the reasons for their specific plans. I might take some time over the next week to try to learn more.
...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.
I should have added more context. I think jl777 is concerned with immediate transfers between SuperNET coins, some of which are not anonymous.
I commented on the BBR Speculation thread (without having seen this comment). It certainly does make sense that if you are considering a decentralized exchange where some of the coins are not anonymous, then timing correlation and the level of background activity on a cryptonote does matter. I'm somewhat skeptical of decentralized exchanges overall due to the inherent lack of privacy. It's certainly nice not to be goxed, but part of the purpose of centralized exchanges and brokers is to maintain a degree of client privacy.
...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.
I should have added more context. I think jl777 is concerned with immediate transfers between SuperNET coins, some of which are not anonymous.
...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.
i was talking BTC -> XMR -> BTC
if only XMR is involved (or any other cryptonote coin) its not a problem at all - even if moved immediately.
I understood what you meant. The context here was for transactions between coins within SuperNET, some of which might not be anonymous. I think we are all in agreement about purely CryptoNote transactions.
...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.
i was talking BTC -> XMR -> BTC
if only XMR is involved (or any other cryptonote coin) its not a problem at all - even if moved immediately.
...
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
That makes sense to me. Basically if you withdraw a very large quantity (of BBR, XMR) from a known entity and then move it all again a few minutes later blockchain analysis and common sense could help form a very strong presumption (not proof) of the relation of those transactions. The more transactions that occur and the longer the time period between such transactions the harder they would be to connect.
... but one does not move it right away. Instead one moves a different amount after a random period of time with a significant mixin.
Jump to: