scroll scroll scroll
and now i want to know WHO is "Risto" ?
AND !
WHY should i give a flying fuck ?
at least i know who BitcoinExpress is ! ...and i can attest to his past statements as being pretty damn solid.
Topic: delete - page 59. (Read 165547 times)
EDIT: Let me rephrase what you propose:
I have a fair coin and BCX asserted he can control the outcome of independent throws. So, I throw the coin 10 times and get 0001011010. Since the throws are independent, that should happen only once in 1024 throws. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG.
I have a fair coin and BCX asserted he can control the outcome of independent throws. So, I throw the coin 10 times and get 0001011010. Since the throws are independent, that should happen only once in 1024 throws. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG.
Correct. We would need to add up all the probabilities of every permutation, which is what I noted in my prior message.
However, your analogy is inapplicable. Do you know why?
Of course my analogy is inapplicable for a number of reasons. I do not pretend that is a model of the problem, but only exemplifies what you agree here (that absolute probabilities are meaningless).
But since I'm trying to get on the same wavelength with you, I'll ask: "Why is that?"
Afaics, because the probability of any trial is always 0.5 in your coin toss. Thus in your analogy there is no stratification of event classes. Whereas I showed that event is in a very rare class (given the Poisson distribution). Thus we wouldn't be including much less rare events in our consideration when summing all the probabilities of the event class we are interested in.
The details matter. Which is why I can't entirely trust closed source proclamations. Skepticism (independent verification and attempting to find an exception) is the basis of the scientific method. I would be a puppet or a clown otherwise.
Edit: I never wrote anything implying there must be something wrong. I am just skeptical of the claim that a rare event hasn't occurred. I am trying to convince myself that BCX doesn't have an attack sneaking up on us. I am playing devil's advocate trying to not blind myself with overconfidence. I think what may motivate BCX is defeating overconfidence. Or maybe he is just full of shit. I dunno. I was surprised to see him come back in the thread and reiterate his original 22 days estimate. It makes me laugh that posters here think he is being inconsistent when he wrote 22 days long before this thread started, if I remember correctly. And he never promised fireworks upon reaching the 72 hour deadline. Where is the inconsistency? I was also surprised to see him challenge the owners of this forum to prove that Moneroman88 is BCX. The DDoS on poloniex is baffling. There is some game theory going on here that I don't see. Ah maybe everyone is correct, he is just profiting on the movement in the price. And then I would be a pawn.
I have gap distributions and how these distributions change in time, I have autoregressors trained on the historical blockchain data, I watch 40 notes geographically around the planet and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG.
Now data or GTFO.
Now data or GTFO.
I don't see any data. Open source it.
For the third time, the burden of proof rests with you.
Moreover, I do not intend to open source my data because (1) most of it is simply the same blockchain that you can view yourself (2) I use some of my indicators for trading purposes (3) there is no reason you would believe any data dump I would release as supposedly from my nodes around the world.
EDIT: Let me rephrase what you propose:
I have a fair coin and BCX asserted he can control the outcome of independent throws. So, I throw the coin 10 times and get 0001011010. Since the throws are independent, that should happen only once in 1024 throws. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG.
I have a fair coin and BCX asserted he can control the outcome of independent throws. So, I throw the coin 10 times and get 0001011010. Since the throws are independent, that should happen only once in 1024 throws. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG.
Correct. We would need to add up all the probabilities of every permutation, which is what I noted in my prior message.
However, your analogy is inapplicable. Do you know why?
Of course my analogy is inapplicable for a number of reasons. I do not pretend that is a model of the problem, but only exemplifies what you agree here (that absolute probabilities are meaningless).
But since I'm trying to get on the same wavelength with you, I'll ask: "Why is that?"
However, your analogy is inapplicable. Do you know why?
Your math is right, but it doesn't answer any questions that need answering. I have gap distributions and how these distributions change in time, I have autoregressors trained on the historical blockchain data, I watch 40 notes geographically around the planet and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG.
Now data or GTFO.
Now data or GTFO.
I don't see any data. Open source it.
EDIT: Let me rephrase what you propose:
I have a fair coin and BCX asserted he can control the outcome of independent throws. So, I throw the coin 10 times and get 0001011010. Since the throws are independent, that should happen only once in 1024 throws. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG.
I have a fair coin and BCX asserted he can control the outcome of independent throws. So, I throw the coin 10 times and get 0001011010. Since the throws are independent, that should happen only once in 1024 throws. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG.
Correct. We would need to add up all the probabilities of every permutation, which is what I noted in my prior message.
However, your analogy is inapplicable. Do you know why?
I believe the math above is incorrect, because each 1 minute trial is independent (which is one of the requirements for a Poisson distribution). Thus we have four consecutive events, two are 4 blocks in a minute and two are 2 blocks in a minute. Thus the probability is as follows.
p = (14 / 4!e1)2 × (12 / 2!e1)2 ≈ 0.000795%, i.e. an occurrence expected roughly every 125,794 minutes which is every 87 days!
If my correction is correct, we do have evidence of something rarely occurring.
Man I'm tired of your fucking antics. Do you understand probabilities? Do you understand why your assumptions of independence go out the door? Do you understand that the absolute probability of a complex event is meaningless?
What you're doing is either intentional FUD, delusion or skipping or meds. I had an enormous respect for you when you had the AM handle. Ever since the BCX saga began you've been (publicly) nothing but a reckless agitator, shouting EUREKA for every bullshit possible omen.
I have gap distributions and how these distributions change in time, I have autoregressors trained on the historical clockchain data, I watch 40 notes geographically around the planet and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG.
Now data or GTFO.
Why are you so pissed off? If you have a refutation, then present it. Ad hominem doesn't add information for the readers.
Note you are so emotional, that you didn't even pay attention to what I wrote. I said my correction is to bring it into agreement with the requirements of a Poisson distribution. Note I didn't make any proof that a Poisson distribution applies here. So you are building an ad hominem strawman.
Note what I wrote is misleading because there innumerable other rare events, and when all those probabilities are summed, then the probability of any one of them occurring is much less rare than I stated above.
One objective is to refute the dismissal upthread stating that the above event could occur every hour. Please show me such an event occurring every hour.
another 4 blocks in the last minute.
By my math, with 1 block per minute mean rate, one should see 4 blocks in the same minute about once every hour or so. Is this correct?
OK, my apologies for the deviation from discourse standards. Your position therefore is that IF the Poisson distribution is correct AND events of comparable probability happen rarely THEN something is wrong.
I hold that the Poisson distribution is not justified for a number of factors, including variation in hash rate, geographics and clustering (nonuniformity) of block finds. I also hold that you can choose any consecutive 12 gaps and you will get a probability within a factor of 5 from your example's with confidence over 90%.
And again, the burden of proof rests with you. When one argues things did not change and the other argues they have, it is the latter who has to prove the change.
...
At some point I am sure the XMR team will realize they do indeed need my help and we may work something out.
But anyway the image below posted by nutildah is interesting. Check the blocks just prior to the circle.
Later guys.
~BCX~
At some point I am sure the XMR team will realize they do indeed need my help and we may work something out.
But anyway the image below posted by nutildah is interesting. Check the blocks just prior to the circle.
Later guys.
~BCX~
another 4 blocks in the last minute.
By my math, with 1 block per minute mean rate, one should see 4 blocks in the same minute about once every hour or so. Is this correct?
I see 12 blocks in 4 minutes.
We apply the Poisson distribution.
The probability that we will get 4 blocks in 4 minutes when the expected rate is 1 block per minute (4 blocks per 4 minutes) is:
p = 44 / 4!e4 ≈ 19.5%, i.e. an occurrence expected roughly every 5 minutes.
The probability that we will get 12 blocks in 4 minutes when the expected rate is 1 block per minute (4 blocks per 4 minutes) is:
p = 412 / 12!e4 ≈ 0.064%, i.e. an occurrence expected roughly every 1559 minutes which is every 26 hours.
And note that the probably we get 10 - 14 blocks in 4 minutes is going to several times higher because we sum the probabilities for each of 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, thus an occurrence expected several times per day.
I believe the math above is incorrect, because each 1 minute trial is independent (which is one of the requirements for a Poisson distribution). Thus we have four consecutive events, two are 4 blocks in a minute and two are 2 blocks in a minute. Thus the probability is as follows.
p = (14 / 4!e1)2 × (12 / 2!e1)2 ≈ 0.000795%, i.e. an occurrence expected roughly every 125,794 minutes which is every 87 days!
If my correction is correct, we do have evidence of something rarely occurring.
Thank you for undertaking this.
What we have in that sample is evidence that there are inaccurate clocks in some miners. (This much is clear from a time stamp preceding a block it has hashed as the previous in the chain.)
Those time stamps come from the computers of the miners, they are not the times that blocks are received.
NTP (network time protocol, used for clock syncing on computers) is a UDP protocol, it is not reliable, and miners may not even use it. It also has exploitable holes, MITM vulnerabilities and other issues. So yes, it could be malice (to generate unjustified fear), it could also be laziness, carelessness or even miner caution or tuning (avoiding an unprofitable process). What it isn't is evidence of an attack vector. There is no significant damage resulting from this sort of activity.
I looked at this earlier and wrote a bit more about it up-thread, here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9039996
If your curiosity compels you, it may be interesting to analyze this sample against the data set from the rest of the chain to more accurately assess how much of an anomaly it is (though it may not be worth the bother considering the negligible consequences), and so your calculations here, while accurate, start with this mistaken premise.
I believe the math above is incorrect, because each 1 minute trial is independent (which is one of the requirements for a Poisson distribution). Thus we have four consecutive events, two are 4 blocks in a minute and two are 2 blocks in a minute. Thus the probability is as follows.
p = (14 / 4!e1)2 × (12 / 2!e1)2 ≈ 0.000795%, i.e. an occurrence expected roughly every 125,794 minutes which is every 87 days!
If my correction is correct, we do have evidence of something rarely occurring.
Man I'm tired of your fucking antics. Do you understand probabilities? Do you understand why your assumptions of independence go out the door? Do you understand that the absolute probability of a complex event is meaningless?
What you're doing is either intentional FUD, delusion or skipping or meds. I had an enormous respect for you when you had the AM handle. Ever since the BCX saga began you've been (publicly) nothing but a reckless agitator, shouting EUREKA for every bullshit possible omen.
I have gap distributions and how these distributions change in time, I have autoregressors trained on the historical clockchain data, I watch 40 notes geographically around the planet and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG.
Now data or GTFO.
Why are you so pissed off? If you have a refutation, then present it. Ad hominem doesn't add information for the readers.
Note you are so emotional, that you didn't even pay attention to what I wrote. I said my correction is to bring it into agreement with the requirements of a Poisson distribution. Note I didn't make any proof that a Poisson distribution applies here. So you are building an ad hominem strawman.
Note what I wrote is misleading because there innumerable other rare events, and when all those probabilities are summed, then the probability of any one of them occurring is much less rare than I stated above.
One objective is to refute the dismissal upthread stating that the above event could occur every hour. Please show me such an event occurring every hour.
another 4 blocks in the last minute.
By my math, with 1 block per minute mean rate, one should see 4 blocks in the same minute about once every hour or so. Is this correct?
I believe the math above is incorrect, because each 1 minute trial is independent (which is one of the requirements for a Poisson distribution). Thus we have four consecutive events, two are 4 blocks in a minute and two are 2 blocks in a minute. Thus the probability is as follows.
p = (14 / 4!e1)2 × (12 / 2!e1)2 ≈ 0.000795%, i.e. an occurrence expected roughly every 125,794 minutes which is every 87 days!
If my correction is correct, we do have evidence of something rarely occurring.
Man I'm tired of your fucking antics. Do you understand probabilities? Do you understand why your assumptions of independence go out the door? Do you understand that the absolute probability of a complex event is meaningless?
You start from the wrong place, do the wrong thing with that and arrive at a result that is in itself meaningless.
What you're doing is either intentional FUD, delusion or skipping on meds. I had an enormous respect for you when you had the AM handle. Ever since the BCX saga began you've been (publicly) nothing but a reckless agitator, shouting EUREKA for every bullshit possible omen.
I have gap distributions and how these distributions change in time, I have autoregressors trained on the historical blockchain data, I watch 40 notes geographically around the planet and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG.
Now data or GTFO.
EDIT: Let me rephrase what you propose:
I have a fair coin and BCX asserted he can control the outcome of independent throws. So, I throw the coin 10 times and get 0001011010. Since the throws are independent, that should happen only once in 1024 throws. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WRONG.
Of course that exact sequence likely never happened again, and that proves nothing.
EDIT 2: Before you set your hair on fire and run like a headless chicken again, note that (1) this is only my opinion (2) I am not affiliated with the core team and (3) I am talking my books.
...
At some point I am sure the XMR team will realize they do indeed need my help and we may work something out.
But anyway the image below posted by nutildah is interesting. Check the blocks just prior to the circle.
Later guys.
~BCX~
At some point I am sure the XMR team will realize they do indeed need my help and we may work something out.
But anyway the image below posted by nutildah is interesting. Check the blocks just prior to the circle.
Later guys.
~BCX~
another 4 blocks in the last minute.
By my math, with 1 block per minute mean rate, one should see 4 blocks in the same minute about once every hour or so. Is this correct?
I see 12 blocks in 4 minutes.
We apply the Poisson distribution.
The probability that we will get 4 blocks in 4 minutes when the expected rate is 1 block per minute (4 blocks per 4 minutes) is:
p = 44 / 4!e4 ≈ 19.5%, i.e. an occurrence expected roughly every 5 minutes.
The probability that we will get 12 blocks in 4 minutes when the expected rate is 1 block per minute (4 blocks per 4 minutes) is:
p = 412 / 12!e4 ≈ 0.064%, i.e. an occurrence expected roughly every 1559 minutes which is every 26 hours.
And note that the probably we get 10 - 14 blocks in 4 minutes is going to several times higher because we sum the probabilities for each of 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, thus an occurrence expected several times per day.
I believe the math above is incorrect, because each 1 minute trial is independent (which is one of the requirements for a Poisson distribution). Thus we have four consecutive events, two are 4 blocks in a minute and two are 2 blocks in a minute. Thus the probability is as follows.
p = (14 / 4!e1)2 × (12 / 2!e1)2 ≈ 0.000795%, i.e. an occurrence expected roughly every 125,794 minutes which is every 87 days!
If my correction is correct, we do have evidence of something rarely occurring.
Have the developers been able to account for the increased hashrate to be sure the increase isn't controlled by BCX?
If there were a way to do this, it would be a proof that the privacy of XMR were brokenAfaics conceptually, the decentralized checkpoints would not prevent BCX from stealing wallets if he had an attack on the private keys of the genre I was exploring upthread. If he can take over the chain from a checkpoint forward, the he can see transactions before they are added to the chain, thus if the private key could be cracked, he could double spend the transaction, discarding the original transaction and putting one on the block which pays to himself.
True, checkpoints do nothing against a raw anonymity exploit.Also true that if private keys could be cracked, transactions could conceivable be crafted in an alternative chain to spend those, ...however the novel distributed checkpoint system could prevent the double spend on the alternative chain, since the miners would not honor that chain, because checkpoint.
Upthread we never showed a way to crack the private keys. All I showed was an idea of how to potentially identify which public key in the ring is the sender in some cases. And from that, I noted it makes some more simultaneous equations available for the private key. Whether those simultaneous equations can be solved faster than factoring a public key is not known to me. If someone knows, afaics they haven't told us in this thread.
Also very trueIf it is difficult to speculate about BCX's motivations. It seems he is either bluffing to save his reputation, or perhaps he is attempting to instill some humility in the altcoin space. I dunno.
Perhaps he is waiting for someone to make an insight into the sort of attack that might be possible and fix it, so he would then say his attack was thwarted.
P.S. If I don't reply, it doesn't mean I am ignoring. I may have not come back to read yet.
Perhaps he is waiting for someone to make an insight into the sort of attack that might be possible and fix it, so he would then say his attack was thwarted.
P.S. If I don't reply, it doesn't mean I am ignoring. I may have not come back to read yet.
Also agree with most of your apt distinction between crypto and fiat. The law enforcers may have their own opinions but likely will do nothing unless someone really pushes them to do something AND they see some asset seizure potentials.
This all leaves us about where we started. As yet, we have no evidence of a credible threat.
We do have the beginnings of a theoretical threat, but no complete theory, nor a tested theory and certainly no credible evidence. It is like calling in a bomb threat, but not being able to describe what kind of a bomb it is, or where it might be hidden. There's just not much to be done other than the constant vigilance of standard operating procedure until the theories can be worked through.
If BCX has done that, then we should look forward to BCXcoin in the not too distant future as eager miners/buyers. That would be a win too, just an unexpected one
So much repressed homoeroticism.
Risto could not have accepted the bet because a 500 BTC bounty for an attack is likely sufficient to bring down Bitcoin too (at least temporarily).
TFM insists that there is an attack path that BCX could take to gain financially from:
A1. Use TFM's or some other amplification attack to deanonymize a public key somehow
A2. Make use of the simultaneous equation to solve the EC problem and expose the private key for that public key
A3. Be a significant part of the hashpool and sufficiently connected to intercept transactions on the fly and double spend them (or feasibly perform the attack many times).
Other attack path:
B1. Time warp and/or somehow isolate the exchanges; DDoS as necessary
B2. Double spend the exchanges.
State of the matter:
TFM was paid to work on A1 and smooth (IIRC) confirmed the dev team gained from their collaboration.
A2 is a very thorny problem and I'm willing to bet that the community at large considers the burden of proof on TFM's shoulders -- we have no reason to believe the extra question helps in any way, but it might. There is nothing in the literature, as far as I can tell, one way or the other. Such an attack would be much larger in scope than just Monero and would create waves in the security community.
Looking at the blockchain and network statistics, there is no reason to believe either that (1) a significant part of the hash rate is controlled by BCX or that (2) he is sufficiently well connected to attack transactions on the fly reliably. Of course, as many others have said, BCX is a rich and resourceful narcissist so A3 is not necessarily out of his reach. All I can say is that we have no reason to believe this was the case in the last day/week/month.
BCX allegedly already DDoS'ed Poloniex as a test/warning. We have no reason to believe a classical time warp attack is happening. There are other possible attacks that are silent until they hit.
Bullshit factor:
BCX's communication so far was repeatedly confused, self-contradictory, called out on this and ignored. So we can assume nothing and merely speculate. We have no reason to believe his actions are rational or in his best interest.
Thus, at this point, there really is nothing to do but wait until either (a) BCX succeeds (b) BCX confirms no/failed attack (c) everybody gets bored of the drama. Since BCX claimed Cryptsy was not considering Monero due to security concerns and they added it yesterday for voting, and now is on third place with no direct BTC votes... well really make of that what you believe. There is another Danish (?) exchange that suggested they might add USD/EUR markets soon so... again, caveat emptor and past performance does not guarantee future performance.
In any case the bullshit levels are clearly over 9000 here. The only reason anyone is really taking BCX seriously is because it's common knowledge that he's rich and brain damaged, so he needs to be treated with gloves.
Obviously, this is only my opinion and I'm talking my books.
Risto could not have accepted the bet because a 500 BTC bounty for an attack is likely sufficient to bring down Bitcoin too (at least temporarily).
TFM insists that there is an attack path that BCX could take to gain financially from:
A1. Use TFM's or some other amplification attack to deanonymize a public key somehow
A2. Make use of the simultaneous equation to solve the EC problem and expose the private key for that public key
A3. Be a significant part of the hashpool and sufficiently connected to intercept transactions on the fly and double spend them (or feasibly perform the attack many times).
Other attack path:
B1. Time warp and/or somehow isolate the exchanges; DDoS as necessary
B2. Double spend the exchanges.
State of the matter:
TFM was paid to work on A1 and smooth (IIRC) confirmed the dev team gained from their collaboration.
A2 is a very thorny problem and I'm willing to bet that the community at large considers the burden of proof on TFM's shoulders -- we have no reason to believe the extra question helps in any way, but it might. There is nothing in the literature, as far as I can tell, one way or the other. Such an attack would be much larger in scope than just Monero and would create waves in the security community.
Looking at the blockchain and network statistics, there is no reason to believe either that (1) a significant part of the hash rate is controlled by BCX or that (2) he is sufficiently well connected to attack transactions on the fly reliably. Of course, as many others have said, BCX is a rich and resourceful narcissist so A3 is not necessarily out of his reach. All I can say is that we have no reason to believe this was the case in the last day/week/month.
BCX allegedly already DDoS'ed Poloniex as a test/warning. We have no reason to believe a classical time warp attack is happening. There are other possible attacks that are silent until they hit.
Bullshit factor:
BCX's communication so far was repeatedly confused, self-contradictory, called out on this and ignored. So we can assume nothing and merely speculate. We have no reason to believe his actions are rational or in his best interest.
Thus, at this point, there really is nothing to do but wait until either (a) BCX succeeds (b) BCX confirms no/failed attack (c) everybody gets bored of the drama. Since BCX claimed Cryptsy was not considering Monero due to security concerns and they added it yesterday for voting, and now is on third place with no direct BTC votes... well really make of that what you believe. There is another Danish (?) exchange that suggested they might add USD/EUR markets soon so... again, caveat emptor and past performance does not guarantee future performance.
In any case the bullshit levels are clearly over 9000 here. The only reason anyone is really taking BCX seriously is because it's common knowledge that he's rich and brain damaged, so he needs to be treated with gloves.
Obviously, this is only my opinion and I'm talking my books.
Can't you just FEEL the sexual tension in the air between Smoothie, TFM & BCX? 
Whoa Whoa Whoa, Smoothie is mines bro
jk lol
Whos to say that BCX would have even bet, the guy is full of shit and could have easily backed out. He has no credibility and integrity to maintain. He took a chance that Risto wouldn't bet in order to give credibility to the FUD. BCX you little fudster you.... lol
You are somewhat missing the point. If Risto's interests are in the security and stability of XMR (aside from personal wealth, his reputation is on the line), there is negative benefit from taking the bet and creating an external incentive for attacking.
And... which of us make 500BTC wagers on a hunch and a hope and no analysis against someone who has surprised us with that opportunity and presumably has had the opportunity for their own analysis?
So... BCX certainly couldn't have expected it to be accepted under the conditions offered, but making it served to add gravity and bravado to the threat.
Therefore, you ought ignore the offer of the bet in your analysis, it is immaterial.
thats the idea of a bet..one wins the other one looses..if he would have lost the bet he would be down 800BTC (using your 300BTC funding for the attack)
Risto's 500BTC would only finance the atack if BCX would win so using your theory Risto knew BCX could/would win?
Risto's 500BTC would only finance the atack if BCX would win
so using your theory Risto knew BCX could/would win?You are somewhat missing the point. If Risto's interests are in the security and stability of XMR (aside from personal wealth, his reputation is on the line), there is negative benefit from taking the bet and creating an external incentive for attacking.
And... which of us make 500BTC wagers on a hunch and a hope and no analysis against someone who has surprised us with that opportunity and presumably has had the opportunity for their own analysis?
So... BCX certainly couldn't have expected it to be accepted under the conditions offered, but making it served to add gravity and bravado to the threat.
Therefore, you ought ignore the offer of the bet in your analysis, it is immaterial.
Can't you just FEEL the sexual tension in the air between Smoothie, TFM & BCX?
Lets see it. Quit talking an move on it. Otherwise its FUD.
The winner takes all, 500 BTC and each other's account.
So if you decline consider yourself PWND by BCX, STFU and anything you say from this point is pretty much invalid.
You talk the talk, can you walk the walk?
~BCX~
So if you decline consider yourself PWND by BCX, STFU and anything you say from this point is pretty much invalid.
You talk the talk, can you walk the walk?
~BCX~
Oh snap smoothie,
Oh really? Please read my response above...it appears nothing was served but hot air and unfounded claims.
Yes really. Oh lawd it's on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_qShAZg2Zw
All I see is someone who would rather remain anonymous than to actually remove the veil he hides behind.
The winner takes all, 500 BTC and each other's account.
So if you decline consider yourself PWND by BCX, STFU and anything you say from this point is pretty much invalid.
You talk the talk, can you walk the walk?
~BCX~
So if you decline consider yourself PWND by BCX, STFU and anything you say from this point is pretty much invalid.
You talk the talk, can you walk the walk?
~BCX~
Oh snap smoothie,
Oh really? Please read my response above...it appears nothing was served but hot air and unfounded claims.
Yes really. Oh lawd it's on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_qShAZg2Zw
Really don't understand people coming up with 10 days, 11 days etc. It was to start 3 days after the 20th which means it would have started on the 23rd. We're now on day 8, not 10 or 11. Jeez.
Day 11 since his supposed claim that we had 3 days...
So whether or not BCX is claiming 22 days from his 3 day warning or not is unclear. But all in all we can say we are not "dead" as he claimed anyone holding XMR would be after his 72 hour warning.
You are smart, thats why he is mad
He hopped for totally crash few days after his severe warning of steal wallet was public,
close to the deadline = nothing worse for a coin
If someone take the bet will be spend at least 200 BTC to buy the hash and do 50% over attack and win the bet, any coin can die like this
sorry english.
Afaics conceptually, the decentralized checkpoints would not prevent BCX from stealing wallets if he had an attack on the private keys of the genre I was exploring upthread. If he can take over the chain from a checkpoint forward, the he can see transactions before they are added to the chain, thus if the private key could be cracked, he could double spend the transaction, discarding the original transaction and putting one on the block which pays to himself.
Upthread we never showed a way to crack the private keys. All I showed was an idea of how to potentially identify which public key in the ring is the sender in some cases. And from that, I noted it makes some more simultaneous equations available for the private key. Whether those simultaneous equations can be solved faster than factoring a public key is not known to me. If someone knows, afaics they haven't told us in this thread.
It was my understanding that checkpoints were in response to the second threat of a TW and had nothing to do with the first threat which was an attack on private keys to steal my wallet.
signed (((<<<~~~The Drooling Masses®~~~>>>)))
please note: signature not directed at you. It is however something I have affectionately called myself on bct.
Jump to: