Topic: delete - page 10. (Read 165497 times)

By my calculation, it is about 4:42 PM GMT on October 12.  

Any news on progress?  Any definitive statement you can make about this?  

Last I read, a "Decline" was promised.  That has been the case.  XMR is down 25% since the announcement (then at .003685, now at .002876).  Are your actions a proximate cause?  Is this whatever-it-is now over?

BCX, you made a definitive announcement that moved the market at the time.  It would only be fair to give a statement now that the deadline has passed.

I'm no expert, but I would imagine some kind of statement by the President.

What excactly are we looking to confirm if attack was successful or not?

mmmmmm hhhhhmmmmm ..we all here to secure networks lol

these Chinese guys REALLY wanted to secure the network so they bought this..
https://archive.today/JIVYq

UnunoctiumTesticles is a Isotope! LMFAO

Being that only 3 or 4 atoms of Uuo have existed it is not known what state they exist in but the latest prediction is that it is a solid due to relativistic effects.

IIT we are currently waiting for relativistic effects.

So the 11th is almost gone, and nothing.  BitcoinAssPress has one day left to be an asshole.  After the 12th, he's just a dick.

Beside ~bcx~™ letting some gas out to stink up this thread, nothing. 

Hashrate went up to 27Mh today, maybe he's throwing some hash in today to help secure the network. yea!!

you should be concerned about his Counter-Strike !

ya good question, did anything happen yet ?

and is this Monero business still a thing ?

wow that is so last month ooooooold 

Did anything happen yet?

Yes, he's quite the noble gas,
but I'm concerned about his half-life. 

Yes, it is probably a good idea to repeat this on every page after all.

UnunoctiumTesticles is very entertaining.

me thinks you like your name .

where are these decentralized exchanges you are interested in?

Yes.

It is important the new poster understand his theories were already covered upthread.

If UnunoctiumTesticles sees "this was already discussed upthread" instead of walls of text that obfuscate that fact and try to make it is appear that there is no risk from centralized exchanges, then he (or she  ) might toss his balls into this thread to make that clear.

UnunoctiumTesticles is interested in decentralized exchanges.

UnunoctiumTesticles doesn't give a left statestical about political ramifications on BTT. UnunoctiumTesticles is interested in factual statements about the merits of technological alternatives. UnunoctiumTesticles contemplates that centralized exchanges present some risks which may in theory be alleviated with decentralized exchanges. Thus UnunoctiumTesticles is interested in unmasking the obfuscation (by the walls of text on this page) of the new poster's concern about centralized exchanges.

Yes this applies to most every cryptocoin, so really not a relevant topic even for the Monero "Free For All" thread.

Given that, I suspect "UnunoctiumTesticles" of being a shill from another coin applying fairly aggressive anti-Monero FUD tactics. Best to ignore.

The other mixing points were interesting though, although pretty well covered 50-100 pages ago.

Yes the probability for unmasking mixes via cross-correlating all overlapping groups of rings increases when the attacker owns some of the inputs of the rings. And this is not a linear relationship wherein if you know 10% of the inputs to a ring, then probability of being unmasked increases only by 10%. You would have to run some tests on a real block chain to see impacts of that 10% on unmasking, yet my intuitive guess is it will unmask non-linearly more percent as the percent rises. The bounty algorithm that AnnoyingMint provided was an attempt to test these unmasking effects. Testing the algorithm might provide insights into how to structure mixes to minimize (mitigate) probability of unmasking. Some of this would also apply to off chain CoinJoin-like mixes.

Yes centralized exchanges add risk, because one entity knows the identity of so many inputs of so many rings. Also if an attacker possessed those private keys from the centralized exchanges and could rewind the block chain with a 51% attack, he could in theory double-spend everyone's coins on the block chain. Checkpoints exist to try to unwind such, yet if a 51% attack was sustained and many users got their desired transactions intertwined with the attacker's sustained chain, one might be able to envision political fighting over which chain to revert to. Also centralized exchanges pool risk (e.g. cascade from double-spend attacks) and can be subject to massive theft (e.g. MtGotcha).

In short, centralized exchanges add risk, 51% attacks can possibly kill a coin, and widespread mixing increases cascade risk from double-spends. That cascade risk can minimized for non-51% attack scenarios by setting a wait before new transaction outputs can be respent, e.g. included as inputs in rings.

Thanks for the clarification. I was referencing the one time stealth addresses.