Pages:
Author

Topic: delete - page 10. (Read 165543 times)

sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
October 12, 2014, 11:52:53 AM


This is the exact thing the Auroracoin devs  said right up until a few hours before I predicted the TW would hit.

When it did, geez did the convo shift over to "Hey BCX, we're all civil blah blah blah, we didn't mean all those bad things...."


I said 22 days which is October 11-ish into early Oct 12 GMT

500 BTC challenge is still open to you

Let see just how sure you really are.


~BCX~

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.
legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
October 12, 2014, 11:46:09 AM
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.



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

hero member
Activity: 714
Merit: 504
October 12, 2014, 05:30:12 AM
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.



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

I'm no expert, but I would imagine some kind of statement by the President.
hero member
Activity: 538
Merit: 500
October 12, 2014, 04:29:00 AM
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.



What excactly are we looking to confirm if attack was successful or not?
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1011
FUD Philanthropist™
October 11, 2014, 09:55:53 PM

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

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


This is the exact thing the Auroracoin devs  said right up until a few hours before I predicted the TW would hit.

When it did, geez did the convo shift over to "Hey BCX, we're all civil blah blah blah, we didn't mean all those bad things...."


I said 22 days which is October 11-ish into early Oct 12 GMT

500 BTC challenge is still open to you

Let see just how sure you really are.


~BCX~


Did anything happen yet?

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
legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
October 11, 2014, 09:45:55 PM
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.

Yes this applies to most every cryptocoin...

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  Huh) 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.

UnunoctiumTesticles is very entertaining. Cheesy

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


UnunoctiumTesticles is a Isotope! LMFAO Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008
October 11, 2014, 09:20:56 PM
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.

Yes this applies to most every cryptocoin...

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  Huh) 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.

UnunoctiumTesticles is very entertaining. Cheesy
Yes, he's quite the noble gas,
but I'm concerned about his half-life. 


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.
legendary
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
October 11, 2014, 09:15:59 PM
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.

member
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
October 11, 2014, 08:41:13 PM

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

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


This is the exact thing the Auroracoin devs  said right up until a few hours before I predicted the TW would hit.

When it did, geez did the convo shift over to "Hey BCX, we're all civil blah blah blah, we didn't mean all those bad things...."


I said 22 days which is October 11-ish into early Oct 12 GMT

500 BTC challenge is still open to you

Let see just how sure you really are.


~BCX~


Did anything happen yet?
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1011
FUD Philanthropist™
October 11, 2014, 08:03:18 PM
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.

Yes this applies to most every cryptocoin...

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  Huh) 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.

UnunoctiumTesticles is very entertaining. Cheesy
Yes, he's quite the noble gas,
but I'm concerned about his half-life.  


you should be concerned about his Counter-Strike !
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1011
FUD Philanthropist™
October 11, 2014, 08:02:22 PM
ya good question, did anything happen yet ?

and is this Monero business still a thing ?

wow that is so last month ooooooold  Roll Eyes
full member
Activity: 124
Merit: 100
October 11, 2014, 07:45:01 PM
This is the exact thing the Auroracoin devs  said right up until a few hours before I predicted the TW would hit.

When it did, geez did the convo shift over to "Hey BCX, we're all civil blah blah blah, we didn't mean all those bad things...."


I said 22 days which is October 11-ish into early Oct 12 GMT

500 BTC challenge is still open to you

Let see just how sure you really are.


~BCX~


Did anything happen yet?
legendary
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
October 11, 2014, 07:04:08 PM
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.

Yes this applies to most every cryptocoin...

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  Huh) 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.

UnunoctiumTesticles is very entertaining. Cheesy
Yes, he's quite the noble gas,
but I'm concerned about his half-life. 
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
October 11, 2014, 12:24:07 AM
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.

Yes this applies to most every cryptocoin...

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

legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
October 10, 2014, 11:41:02 PM
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.

Yes this applies to most every cryptocoin...

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  Huh) 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.

UnunoctiumTesticles is very entertaining. Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008
October 10, 2014, 10:39:15 PM
me thinks you like your name .

where are these decentralized exchanges you are interested in?
full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
October 10, 2014, 10:05:14 PM
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.

Yes this applies to most every cryptocoin...

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  Huh) 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.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
October 10, 2014, 10:01:25 PM
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.

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.

full member
Activity: 154
Merit: 100
October 10, 2014, 09:53:48 PM
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.

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
October 10, 2014, 03:02:22 PM
I received the above PM from "The Fascist" aka "Anonymint". It seems as if he has also found an exploit.

I have no interest in buying any exploit or any interest in attacking Monero. I am neither for or against the coin.

I do however see a serious flaw inherent to all CN coins with Monero being the focal point.

With this exploit expanding into the wild, holding any sum of funds in XMR you cannot lose is foolish.

I can absolutely guarantee you as soon as this exploit is successfully deployed, every single exchange will halt trading
and there will a lot of people holding coins they cannot trade anywhere.

As Anonymint also indicated, this is indeed a coin killer.


~BCX~

Could there be a major flaw in how these currencies are being used right now? I can imagine a highly likely scenario where surely >50%, and probably much closer to 90% of all the xmr coins ever emitted currently have have moved through one single address?

Additionally, could the percentage of mined coins directly to that exchange address have a strong effect on anything?

Will having likely 90% of all coins ever currently minted using xmr as example, which is 21.37% of all coins that will exist currently routed through a single address, occasionally branching off for one or two transactions before going right back to that address bode well for the cryptographic anonymity provided by ring signatures?


Assuming you are talking about Poloniex, each new deposit of a customer is a new XMR address. And if I am not mistaken there is change address for each succession of withdrawals from users meaning the coins are never always sent from the same XMR address.

Did I miss something here concerning your thoughts?

Yes and no. There is a button to change payment ID but I think they go to the same address. However, on the blockchain they go to different addresses because stealth addresses are always one-time.



Thanks for the clarification. I was referencing the one time stealth addresses.
Pages:
Jump to: