Topic: delete - page 2. (Read 27672 times)

Among people preferring to believe crazy theories and unwilling to look at the facts, it likely does. I'm not concerned with them, they are unreachable and unpersuadable.

For people grounded in reality, crazy theories are simply crazy and say more about the people repeating them than anyone else.

I hope you are successful with a coin. I don't wish upon you the hostility (some likely real, and some likely manufactured) that will come with that, but if it happens, you will see how this really works. But perhaps you can simply hide and release it, without any public interaction. No doubt that would be more a more pleasant process.

Agrees with what one of our cryptographers said about q_i and w_i. I think they have a more complete writeup in progress.

I don't blame you about the code. We have people doing that but it is a major task.

That word "crazy" just incites more animosity.


Irrelevant.


Exactly.


You are inciting animosity again with that. It appears to be a pompous attitude (whether it is or not the best is to STFU and again I am saying to myself too so please don't take it personally).


The distinction was the talk going on about DOGE was the way the coin was being used as a currency. The tipping for posting commentary. Go find that discussion between kbh and Anonymint in rpietila's speculation thread for the details.

In short, let the users of the coin talk. Not a few key personalities over and over again.

Any way I don't have any more time to try to hash out that theory.

Peace.

Okay my hunch appears to be incorrect.

https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf#page=9

There is no additional information gained from each ring signature even if they all use the same Pi, because the qi and wi are chosen randomly.

So I didn't find any weakness in the math, unless it is something in the modular math.

So BCX may mean the "implementation" has an error not the math of the NIZKP, in which case after the attack it would be fixable and the anonymity going forward would be fixed. BCX may be implying (note he didn't exclude that) the exploit can only break the anonymity up to the point of a fix of the implementation.

I don't have time to go hunting in the implementation. Not even for 50 BTC.

People can come up with whatever crazy theories they want. All of the core participants, and many of the active community supporters predate rpietila's involvement at all. I know a number of them from the OTC trading thread I ran, which attracted a lot of BTC "Heros" and many others, when rpietila wasn't involved at all. I'm still in touch with many of them.

It is true that perception matters though, it is just that people will believe what they want to believe even when it is totally dead wrong. Nothing we can do to change that.

I also don't agree that hiding in a hole and coding solves these sorts of problems, at all, especially when you have something already working (sort of). These problems are basically social, not coding. The main thing we will likely to do overcome them is outgrow this cesspool of trolling and hate.

DOGE got, and gets, massive amount of hate, BTW. Nobody escapes it.

Perceptions vary. Some apparently see it as that, and others apparently see it as hoodwinked sheep following rpietila. Others such as myself have a technological opinion that it can't possibly achieve the ideal I have.

More saliently, it is that key Monero personalities so vocally (to the point it is perceived as spamming the forum by some) and sometime condescendingly defend the above that annoys further those who have an opposing perspective.

In short, the community wants freedom of opportunity (to dream), not preaching from one blackhole (sucking up everything) perspective. And then wants to respond to results, not preaching a perspective.

Dogecoin got people excited. The results were in proportion to the talk. The amount of talk that goes on about Monero is relatively speaking far out-of-proportion to the lackluster results.

No reply you can make will make it better. The best reply is to STFU and go do some programming. And that STFU applies to me also.
 

I think he understands less well than I do, but STFU and prove it applies here in spades.

That sums up Monero better than just about any other description I could come up with. So perhaps that explains a good measure of its success and popularity in this community.

Your suggestion is that Monero does not exemplify these things does not hold up against the significant popularity it has gained here.


There is no centralization in Monero. It is probably the most decentralized coin project. How can you get any more decentralized than a bunch of people some of whom don't even know each other's names, collaborating on the Internet to work on some code (and a few other resources like a web site, IRC channel, etc.)? That's exactly what it is.

I stand by my belief that what gets a visibility in this environment attracts supporters and detractors, including some very loud and ugly ones. That has been true of every single coin that has become at all popular (with a couple of exceptions I mentioned such as NMC, because no one seems to pay any attention to it at all), and I certainly wouldn't exclude Bitcoin as you did. Bitcoin gets plenty of hate, perhaps the most of all (in line with its profile). I think you have missed some of the threads attacking the Bitcoin Foundation or various individual developers or other people involved with Bitcoin.

Have a listen to Andreas' segment about Monero on Let's Talk Bitcoin. He sums up the disgusting level of attacks that comes out of this community and culture on everything and everyone quite well.

I'm sure you could find something and say "if you got rid of this or change that you would have fewer haters" but it is also likely the case that getting rid of this or changing that would disappoint, disillusion, and drive away some supporters. You simply can't please everyone.

Finally, some of the push back comes in response to statements from our supporters, not us, and to be fair I don't care for some of our supporters either. But we are inclusive, and don't chase anyone away. That includes some polarizing figures.

This sums it up perfectly.

The underlying psychological reason people are offended by Monero is because the community's idealism is "we are the underdogs fighting the establishment for the greater good" (with copious delusion, naivete, and repressed selfish motives). So anything that smacks of centralization and establishment creates animosity unless it is Bitcoin because Bitcoin has already achieved that ideal (or so the community thinks, but I think we are fooled). The more decentalized an effort is, the less it can be attacked. The key personalities of Monero have put bullseyes on their foreheads.

I wrote upthread that I learned it is best to "tread softly and carry a big stick".

Actually one-time pads are a form of encryption.

So the pedantic and anal lose this time 

Agreed, it is the common misnomer one-way encryption because there is no inverse function, so given BCX is not that technical I think it is a reasonable error on his part. Even I could have made that mistake because (I've heard that one-way encryption term from my use in protecting passwords when I've been a programmer before I become an autodidact cryptographer of sorts and) I don't focus too carefully on my words and my brain is more interested in the creativity in any issue.

My understanding is BCX didn't create his exploits (he has admitted he doesn't even know how to code), rather he is a coordinator of resources and depends on people more technical than himself such as ArtForz.

I just awoke. Will now see if I can break the math of the NIZKP. Should have the answer shortly. Perhaps I was incorrect.

i.e. it doesn't make sense because sentence construction (and even paragraph construction if you read the whole thing).

The 'it' only makes sense if he lumping the ring-signatures together with ECDH key exchange. Ring-signatures can I guess be considered a form of encryption because they scramble who is the signer. The secret can be decrypted only by someone who has the private key of the signer.

That's not what BCX said. He said the "way it is implemented" (with "it" referring to encryption) is the source of the break down.

His statement makes no sense as gmaxwell correctly pointed out and trying to spin it into something other than a nonsensical statement is not helpful.

That is independent of any other flaws that might exist, which could very well include flaws that BCX does not know about.

My vertical is about 9 inches. Flaccid.

Agreed.


No inconsistency.

Novices like you don't seem to understand that anonymity isn't encryption. And the encryption part of CN which hides the one-time destination key doesn't have to be broken for the anonymity to be broken.

Thanks, now I'll have to clean all the perfectly good beer off my screen.

Security of ECDH key exchange is trivially provable. The only thing I can think of that *might* be insecure is the ring signatures themselves, though I don't know how.

He didn't say that. He said the break down (his term) is "how it is implemented" and by "it" he was referring to the encryption.

It makes no logical sense as gmaxwell pointed out.

Perhaps BCX wants to clarify what he meant so as to avoid being accused of leaving things deliberately ambiguous so he can make up whatever he wants to claim it meant later (even if that is not the case).

100%.  Announcing this with no proof looks a lot more like market manipulation then anything else.  If this is true, then why not publish?