Topic: delete - page 103. (Read 165547 times)

I am not afraid of forking.

I suggest that you read 18 USC 1030.  My lawyer tells me it is 5 years federal time - more if there are confounds - but there are no mandatory minimums.  Destroying millions of dollars of value - regardless of its format - is likely to involve the maximum.

Sock puppetmaster target acquired.

Not sure what's funny, you just got pwned. kthx im outta here. incredibly boring and way too tedious to analyze further. i would try and trade this situation but XMR has barely moved.

If you want to make money people, set some bids. I predict a dip and instant recovery from 0.0027-29 tomorrow back to 0.004 after this is laughed off.

Why does anyone give a shit about this "FUD"?

If there is any exploit in Monero, the coin will be forked again and the hole plugged, this will all be forgotten in a week.

He'll show his cards and that's that.

BcX is just a lonely bored wanker with nothing better to do than cash in on his Hero profile super-FUD for cheap XMR.

OldManKidd banned for 10 hours after you threatened the exchange (or what seemed like a threat).  See the quotes below.  Shortly after this, Polo had a DDoS attack.  "BitcoinEXpress" was the user.  This is the same user you confirmed was you earlier on.  See this post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8907819

How did this user gain access to your account?





Then this new user, bitc-2af6 comes on and tries to threaten the exchange again.



I'm betting this bitc-2af6 guy is just a troll but was the first part not you?

Plausibile deniability is smart. If I were him my Polo password would be "secret123"

He got scared of the FBI thingy and decided to deny what he did.. haha

Realistically all of these coins are immature solutions in a rapidly developing space. Any of them that fails to have multiple hard forks will be dead IMO.

What does this have to do with bcx attack?

Like it or not, your belief isn't required or needed.


~BCX~

We don't know until we have a simulation. It is possible we do nothing, because also for example there is the wrinkle of Sybil attack. I will not say more. Let's not give advice to a potential attacker in public messages. Let them work on it.

You will learn if you continue to deal with me that I'm not a backstabber. I'll pay the bounty out of my own pocket if need be (which have no reason to believe) if the conditions are met.

This is only true if the attack is feasible at all. As you said, if it takes a million years (using all feasibly available computing power) to find one link, then neither the attacker nor the defender need to do that.

EDIT: I see you added a similar condition to your post.

There may also be practical asymmetric defenses that mathematically ensure no unacceptable scope of weaknesses without actually finding the links, as there are against the MRL-0001 vulnerabilities. But we don't know until there is further analysis.

Only from my paranoid mind. Apologies. I've had a rough life, and have been backstabbed so many times in life...

Confirm all of this. I'd add there was some feedback from crypto_zoidberg along similar lines but I don't want get into the details of private conversations; we will work all this out. Many of the players right now are understandbly busy, others are in different time zones, etc. It takes time.


All of this is entirely reasonable and consistent with my understanding. I've heard nothing about lowering the bounty, not sure where that even came from.

Coding could take the form of a simulation along the lines of the code tacotime gave you BTW, with analysis of scaling parameters to suggest how it would extrapolate to a real blockchain. That is how our lab people produced MRL-0001. I doesn't have to be from a live blockchain.

I made the point that no matter how much computation my algorithm requires, CN coins will have to devote as much computation to it as an attacker can. Because afaics the only way to mitigate the attack, is to precompute the combinatorial intersections and disallow such combinations of inputs in rings before they can occur.

Thus I am thinking this computation will need to become part of the PoW. I am expecting CN will have all the mining clients computing the mitigation.

The caveat is that if the algorithm finds negligible senders in known realistic computational power, then my algorithm can be ignored. I doubt it.

I think you are referring to a username that ends with 88 and not me. For the record, I didn't want to get involved because I didn't like expending effort then being dependent on promises about a bounty. I try to avoid conflict by being in control of my own destiny at all times. I really, really, really hate being dependent on what other people do.

So when jl777 asked me if I could go deeper and try to find the attack, I really wanted to tell him no. Because I don't have the resources nor the desire to mount an attack to force my maximum restitution. But jl777 is such a nice guy, and he did offer 5 BTC, so I felt obligated to try. Once I had found something, I spoke with smooth, jl777, and crypto0_zoidbery (cc'd to rpietila and tacotime) about the terms of the 10 BTC bounty. We agreed that if I showed there is a vulnerability for which they don't already have a mitigation underway, then I get the bounty. Once they agreed, I proceeded.

So when rpietila and fluffypony seemed to indicate that I had found nothing, I felt they were trying to spin what I had provided to them, that is why I got pissed off. Then they explained to me that was not the case and they were awaiting further clarification on whether I had really found something or not. And that my effort is appreciated.

I had not provided to them running code for an attack. I have only provided pseudocode. And my latest insights were written in 3 paragraphs and not yet incorporated into the pseudocode. Smooth sees my algorithm can in theory find the sender of some of the rings. What is not clear is how it will perform. Will it take 1 million years to find 1 sender? I don't think so, but the math of the algorithm seems difficult to quantify. I suggested we code it and run it. I told smooth I can't do all the work, because that wasn't the terms of the 11 BTC bounty and frankly I've paid other programmers and earned myself $300 per hour. I for example paid Jeff Stock (former main programmer of Borland C), $30,000 for one week of work in 2000 on my CoolPage software. I explained to smooth that I didn't want to put a lot more work in without knowing from them what is the limit of my contribution so I can be paid, move on with my other work, and they can take it forward from there.

So now I am waiting for the feedback from smooth after he consults with everyone involved.

I would code it if I had a good understanding of the CN blockchain format. I don't. My attack is purely from a conceptual basis. So I think it is best I write the pseudocode only and they code and test it. If they feel they need to lower the bounty they pay me, then I want them to tell me now, before I do further effort on it.

Any way, what ever happens I want to move on asap. I hope we can find an outcome that delivers mutual respect, delivers value to CN, and everyone is happy.

I hope rpietila can afford 11 BTC. Actually jl777 offered 5 BTC, crypto_zoidberg 1 BTC, and rpietila et al 5 BTC.

I am not begging for money. It is a matter of principle only. If my algorithm fails testing, then I am owed nothing.

I did not DDOS Poloniex period.

I have no reason to.



~BCX~

So u r first test was?   Confused ...