1. Some coins have much higher network hashrate (difficulty) thus can't be as realistically attacked by someone with BCX's level of alleged resources.
As you have said before, BCX doens't really matter. If there is a vulnerability, and BCX doesn't exploit it, someone else may, and probably will. I find hash rate attacks uninteresting and by now they should be well understood by all cryptocoin participants (if not, then caveat emptor applies).
Hashrate attacks combined with alleged new vulnerabilities in Cryptonote are not yet fully understood.
2. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have ring signatures which make the block chain untracable and thus make it implausible (or very difficult) to do manual repair by segregating the stolen coinbase and double-spent traces from the transactions you'd like to keep.
So you are talking about blacklisting. Because otherwise there is no manual repair. One fork wins, the other fork loses.
You are referring the block hash being immutable with the transactions in the block. That immutable relationship is not commutative because the transactions are orthogonal to the block hashes.
Thus you can add the good transactions (from the bad fork) back to your good fork if you can untangle them. No blacklisting needed.
3. Non-Cryptonote coins do not have throw away 20% of the timestamp information upon difficulty adjustment. I know you think the vulnerability I have broad-sketched above is not sufficiently detailed to warrant any concern, but nevertheless this is a risk that doesn't exist in other coins.
More vague uncertainty and doubt without some sort of positive statement.
I have described a specific set of steps for an algorithm upthread.
Nothing in life is entirely certain. There are degrees of contribution and certainty. Apparently you think my contribution on that is immaterial?
4. BCX killed Auroracoin
This is disputed, but again you are personalizing the issue with respect to BCX. I don't.
You don't evaluate people based on their performance thus their likelihood of achieving their stated goals?
I am not aware of it being disputed. How certain is that dispute you claim?
Thus from my perspective at least, it gives the appearance you are still doing FUD control and refusing to be open-minded, rational, and objective. And this is the cultural problem of Monero.
Again personalizing. I disagree with your characterizations but they don't really matter.
Show some actual work, shut up, or continue to FUD. There is no fourth way.
Past days I have been discussing ideas about potential attacks. I have no idea why you would characterize this as not being actual work. I've already explained to you that it is part of my actual work. If XMR can benefit too great. I share for any eyeball that wants to avail. Perhaps you think I am doing this to intentionally hurt XMR or perhaps you think I am do this to waste my time. The former is not true because I can't hurt XMR with my words long-term. And the long-term is all that matters to me in crypto-currency. As for wasting my time, the exploration of attack ideas is very productive work for me, but this silly arguing with you is a waste of our time. I am surprised you came to some feeling where you felt I was trying to non-constructive. I expect that you can see I am trying to do useful work. But apparently you've become convinced that only code is useful (or something like that).
Scala, math, pseudocode, even precise English that doesn't rely on phrases such as "it might be possible to" or "it can't be proven that this isn't a flaw." Or a simple precise example of a set of actions that can be taken by an attacker to accomplish something. It doesn't matter which.
I have given you pseudocode for the bounty. I never heard back if it needed more details.
You actually did this in describing the existence of stronger-than-MRL-0001 deanonymation attack (though not its scope and practical effect).
Oh I see you are recognizing that. Thanks.
Since then you have contributed no substantive information to this thread, just repeated over and over again the same vague warnings about time warps, simultaneous equations, entanglement and similarly ill-defined and underdefined notions.
Or to borrow one of your favorite quotes, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code." I don't even ask for actual code, just specifics.
Look it is a process man. You don't eat the pie before it is cooked.
Interaction spawns insights.
I have provided a lot of specifics over the past 2 days. Maybe not the specifics you want, but they are leading some where (I think).
I would have removed that 20% crap from the difficulty adjustment immediately.
All the difficulty attacks have had one common denominator. They all were based on exploiting information that was thrown away. For example, KGW has a weakness that you can push the difficulty way up instantly, then bring it down fast but stay under the threshold for adjustment.
It is very intuitive to me mathematically that you've got aliasing error in your difficulty adjustment.
I don't have to code a damn thing to see that.
