Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin? - page 5. (Read 95231 times)

---

One of the journey's towards being a man is learning to not be afraid.


Which similar reasons?

---

@sockpuppet1

If you happen to be TPTB_need_war please don't post out of the Meta section ASAP,
there is a forum rule concerning this!

I am speaking on behalf of TPTB_need_war aka AnonyMint, who is quoted in the OP, because he is currently banned for 9 more days due to calling theymos and gmaxwell out on their censorship of a potential technical back door in Bitcoin. There is a simpler explanation of Satoshi's obviously intentional technical error. It is obviously intentional because it was quite well known by 2009 that the HMAC formulation is more secure yet Satoshi used the more suspect double hashing everywhere in BitCON.

I will be editing this post and adding answers and rebuttals to the various incorrect posts that litter this thread. Please check back and read this post, because I will not be posting again in this thread, and instead I will edit this post to add new information as others continue to make posts that need to be refuted.

Please quote my post because the mods will probably delete it and ban me again.


Segregrated Witness is not the problem. The problem is that Blockstream is sneaking in a new soft fork versioning protocol at the same time. This new versioning protocol when combined with collusion with China's oligarchy control over mining, will insure together the elite can change the protocol of Bitcoin at-will any time. Why do you think Blockstream has received $70+ million in investor funding from the financial community. Blockstream has no viable way to make a profit. The company exists as a way to take control over Bitcoin. Note that Classic and XT didn't really solve the centralization problem either, but at least they didn't hand soft fork versioning control to the devil.

They will send their propaganda machine here to discredit me. They always do that. Then they ban me. They don't want you to know the truth. I don't care anymore. You fools are doomed. This is my last post on this matter. I have other programming work to do. It is up to you fools to get organized and stop being useless eaters and cattle for the elite. I can lead you to water, but I can't teach your dumb asses to drink. I tried to teach, but I get drowned out by the trolls and propaganda who are hired to keep the truth from you.


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Here is a link to the cryptocoinnews.com article and also an estimate follows in the linked thread. Realize that is just one former cattle farmer who currently mines 50 of the 1200 BTC per day and he plans to increase that to 200 BTC of the 600 mined per day after the halving. Just one cattle farmer will be mining 30% of Bitcoin.


With an oligarchy in control of the mining, they can choose to increase transaction fees to the maximum the market can bear, not the competitive rate for transaction fees. They could also work together with Blockstream to increase the 21 million coin limit, so they can earn more coins. None of this would hurt Bitcoin, because obviously none of you care. You will suck BitCon's cock because you think it is a "better gold" as Satoshi advertised it to you in the white paper.

Additionally these mega mining farms in China don't attain their loans and nearly free electricity without returning favors to the elite who are in charge. In effect, this means Bitcoin has become just another fiat system. They can KYC identification requirements on it the future and pretty much do what ever they want. And you will lick their balls because you have no other choice. Don't tell me you will switch coins, because no other coin will have the adoption and mining security.

I find it really hilarious how you think you are supporting something that will change the world in a better way, yet it is just more of the same oligarch controlled BS that we've always had.



A billion aren't mining, only a few very well connected few. An oligarchy is taking form. The coins are only going to a few oligarchs


They want to maximize their profit and be in control of their destiny.


It isn't just the pools that are the problem, but that the mining farms are large and concentrating the 51+% amongst a few oligarchs. This will only grow more centralized over time, because TPTB_need_war explained in his technical analysis, that profitable proof-of-work always accrues over time to maximum economies-of-scale. There are several reasons for that including propagation advantages of being the first to win more blocks, so don't waste hashrate mining on the wrong fork for a short period, which over time gradually depletes the other miners of relative profits. It is more complex than that. You need to read his entire analysis to understand.


That is an incorrect understanding. As I explained above, the mining hashrate economically accrues to those miners with the greatest economies-of-scale. No one can buy mining equipment to offset that, because the miners in China are ostensibly getting nearly free electricity and nearly 0% interest loans. It is a corruption charged to the collective. Don't you understand how Communism works? We have this system now in the West too. Capitalism is dead. Long live Marxism!



Exactly. You guys don't care whether Bitcoin ends up as a totalitarian digital hell. You only care about making a profit hell or highwater, come what may.


Why are you building a strawman argument to deflect the debate away from the important issue. Obviously it doesn't matter where the oligarchy on mining is located. The only thing that matters is that profitable proof-of-work will always end up entirely centralized. TPTB_need_war has explained why this is the case because he an expert on the economics and technology, despite what some trolls might want to mislead you to believe.


And that will only happen because of my work to fix the jamming problem that plagued all DE designs. The trolls want to ridicule me, and I don't yet get the recognition. But that is okay. I just want you to know the truth.


Finally someone with a brain stem! Congrats!

Yeah it is more of charging the expenses to the collective and keeping the profits for themselves. Same as the banksters did with the bailouts.

$1 million of your investor money every day going to those fat cats. And circulating back around as $70 million in grease money for Blockstream to rape you with.


Yeah why care if the banksters keep the profits and charge the bailouts to the people. Love that Communist/Fascism, don't you?


Yeah it was great when the banksters stole the bailouts from the government! Excellent logic. 

Good to see you want BitCON to be all about stealing. Nice world you want to promote.


You haven't studied the history of oligarchies. They can only act one way. Give it a little time. The collusion is taking form. By the time, you realize it, it will be too late to do anything about it or to change. Bitcoin will be too well established by that time, just like fiat is now. You will bend over and take in your ass, because you didn't think it was a problem when I told you and then when you realize you will have no more choice nor options to pursue.

FYI truce, I will cease & desist:

I asked you to not do what you just did above:

---

The point is that with a supercomputer together with a new cryptoanalysis break, the two together might be required to accomplish the attack. I want you to know that if China's pools see nearly all the mining shares, then they are viewing about 2⁶⁸ of SHA-256 hashing power per annum which may or may not be fulcrum. Don't presume you know all the theoretical attacks that are possible.


You've made at least two mathematically illiterate errors in that quoted text:

1. Testing that double-hashing fulfills some criteria you have prechosen, says nothing about security against cryptoanalysis which your criteria has not considered.
2. Securing a password by iterated hashing (because it requires the dictionary attacker to perform the iteration cost on each dictionary trial) says nothing about the increased vulnerability of collision cryptanalysis. You are conflating two separate issues of security. 

I am done speaking to these amateurs. Waste of my time.

I'll interpret your reply as an ostensibly intentional veiled admission that you could not answer the question. So I will proceed to explain the sort of theoretical analysis that I was interested in discussing in the thread that the "forum-Hitler" Gmaxwell nuked.

---

Tangentially note the disclaimer that I wrote in the OP of the thread which was nuked:


I had written in that nuked and vaporized thread a post (my last or nearly last post in that nuked thread) which explained that at the moment I wrote that quoted OP, I had been mislead by sloppy writing on the news sites (and also the linked sites of the protagonists) into thinking that the hash of the Sartre text was already confirmed. For example, I provided this quote:


Being at is was by that time late in the evening for my timezone and I had been awake roughly 18 hours already, and I was skimming in an attempt to make some quick feedback on this potentially important event, so I could return to my work asap. In the nuked thread, I quickly realized that the Sartre text hadn't been verified to match the hash, so I actually stopped posting in the nuked thread for a few hours. Then when I came back to thread, it didn't exist so I could no longer follow up or read what had been elucidated. Thus note my original focus was on how the hell could Craig have achieved that match, so he must have broken the hash. I had recalled that I had theoretically doubts about the double hashing which I had never bothered to discuss with anyone. It had been 2+ years since I did that research on cryptographic hash functions, so I had to decide if I was going to go dig back into that research or not. I figured I'd sleep on it and then be able to think with a clearer, rested mind about the implications of the revelation (to me) that the hash had not been verified to match the text because the portion of the text had not been sufficiently specified (again the "undisclosed" term didn't make sense to me in quick skimming because I had read on the blog that the Sartre text was referred to).

But instead of being able to sleep on it and then decide whether to let it go or dig back into my past research, my thread was nuked and I was under attack. Remember I don't back down from anyone when I think I am justified. When I think I am wrong, I mea culpa.

---

So now back to the subject matter of whether double hashing could theoretically lead to any weakening of the second preimage and/or collision security of the SHA-256 cryptographic hash function.

Afaik, there is no research on this question. If anyone is aware of any, please kindly inform me.

First I will note the Merkle–Damgård construction (which SHA-256 employs) is subject to numerous generic attacks and even though afaik none of these are currently known to be a practical threat against a single hash of SHA-256, we can perhaps look to those generic attacks for potential clues as to what a double-hashing might enable which a single-hash application perhaps might not.

Note in the pseudo-code for SHA-256 that what distinguishes a double-hashing from doubling rounds (i.e. "Compression function main loop:") or repeating the input text in double the block chunks (i.e. "Process the message in successive 512-bit chunks:"), is that the h0 - h8 compression function state which is normally orthogonal to the input block chunks instead gets transmitted as input to a block chunk in the second hash application (i.e. "Produce the final hash value (big-endian):") after being added to the output of the compression function (i.e. "Add the compressed chunk to the current hash value:"). And the h0 - h8 compression function state is reset to a constant (i.e. "Initialize hash values:").

The reason I think this might be theoretically significant is because we should note that the way cryptographic hash functions are typically broken is by applying differential cryptanalysis. Differential cryptanalysis is attempting to find some occurrence of (even higher order) differences between inputs that occurs with more frequent probability than a perfectly uniform distribution. In essence, differential cryptanalysis is leveraging some recurrent structure of the confusion and diffusion and avalanche effect of the algorithm.

Not only does the double-hashing introduce a constant  h0 - h8 midstream thus introducing a known recurrent structure into the middle of the unified algorithm of a double-hashing, but it shifts the normally orthogonal compression function state to the input that it is designed supposed to be orthogonal to. On top of that, the additions of the h0 - h8 state at the midpoint, can possibly mean the starting state of the midpoint is known to have a higher probability of zeros in the least significant bits (LSBs). This last sentence observation comes from some research I did when I created a much higher bandwidth design variant of Berstein's ChaCha by fully exploiting AVX2 SIMD, that was for a specific purpose of creating a faster memory hard proof-of-work function. In that research, I had noted the following quote of an excerpt in my unfinished, rough draft, unpublished white paper written in late 2013 or early 2014 (and kindly note that the following might have errors because it was not reviewed for publishing and was merely notes for myself on my research understanding at that time 2+ years ago):


So now put those aforementioned insights about potential recurrent structure at the midpoint of the double-hashing, together with the reality that a Boomerang attack is a differential cryptoanalysis that employs a midpoint in a cipher to form new attacks that weren't plausible on the full cipher. Bingo!

I'll refrain from providing my further insights on specifics beyond this initial sharing. Why? Because I've been treated like shit by Gmaxwell and you all here grant him too much Hitler-esque control over the Bitcoin Technical Discussion subforum where these sort of discussions are supposed to occur, so I will take my toys else where. Enjoy your echo chamber.

Do I have an attack against Bitcoin's double-hashing? I leave that for you to ponder.

Does anyone know what black hole Bitcoin core (Blockstream) developer Gmaxwell moved the quoted thread to?

I can't find it any more and I have no deleted messages from that thread in my PM box.

And the first to:

1. Explain to Gmaxwell (in his CoinJoin thread from 2013) that he couldn't use a blacklist to fix jamming of CoinJoin
2. Solve the jamming problem of decentralized exchange.
3. Design a technical solution to the inherent centralization in Satoshi's proof-of-work.
4. Which included being the first to explain technically why Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine Generals Problem.
5. The first to explain why Z.cash's Equihash is likely not ASIC resistant.
6. First to solve a  decades old unsolved fundamental problem of computer science programming language theory.

Get off my lawn you jealous troll. You are wasting my and the readers' time.

The utility of Rust's complex resource lifetimes compile-time checking, versus garbage collection:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-as-a-high-level-language/4644/73

Interesting...

AlexGR, remember upthread we were discussing why my use of 100+ tabs on the browser was causing memory exhaustion:

How to write low garbage real-time Javascript  <--- the horrid details



Note the article of that last quote has some misinformation as follows:


The fact is that automatic reference counting is slower (but less pauses):

Throw away everything you thought you knew about concurrency:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/rust-as-a-high-level-language/4644/72

Tradeoffs of the ternary operator and the optimum programming language design decision:

https://users.rust-lang.org/t/remove-braces-from-if-else-where-a-single-line-ternary-could-otherwise-be-employed/5685

That is intentional.

TPTB_need_war I find it quite hard to order/structure what you're planning to achieve.
It's so much content, so many interesting thoughts and ideas, but not a clear roadmap.
Can you make one? It would help a lot

Right about now, your latest generation Octacore ARM-based device has roughly ⅓ the CPU performance of the Intel i7 3770 with much lower power consumption and price. As ChromeOS and Android fulfill more of the apps that people want to do, with less tsuris for the n00b user, there is less reason to buy a computer with Windows or Mac OS X. High-end users increasingly opt for OS X because it is Unix-based. But the more salient point is that even OS X is being eaten from below by entirely open source options such as Android and ChromeOS which are popular amongst the masses. Even Intel is being eaten below by ARM and China.

But there is a problem which is a huge market opportunity which I am attempting to tackle. Users will increasingly want to have compatibility and seamless use of the same apps and/or data both on a small mobile screen (e.g. smartphone and tablets) and when plugging that device or a mini PC into a larger monitor with a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse. But Android apps don't work that well at such large screen sizes and with a mouse, installing Linux on an Android device breaks the security model of Android and/or is slow plus kludgy, and ChromeOS apps are not so numerous yet  as well being disunified with Android apps. There are others attempting to do a better ChromeOS, but not unifying mobile and desktop.

There are other problems I'd like to solve such as the tsuris of installing Android apps (installing shouldn't be necessary!), managing cloud backup differently for each app, etc..

Also no one has built a decentralize protocol for social networking interoption between these apps.

Btw, the hardware advance of ARM is impressive. For example, arguably the best high-end mini PC available is the Intel NUC which at $500 with 16GB RAM and 250GB SSD, it has roughly ⅓ the CPU performance of the Intel i7 3770.

But for < $100, an ARM Rockchip RK3368 has roughly ⅕ the CPU performance of the Intel i7 3770. And the RK3399 is coming Q2 2016 which will have roughly ⅓ the CPU performance of the Intel i7 3770. For $150, the Intel Atom with Windows 10 has roughly ⅙ the CPU performance of the Intel i7 3770. Even DIY kits with 8" screens are coming.

Apologies to bump my thread, but where else to put this and this has an important point that I don't wish to lose:


And the governments can clamp down on BTC at any time using capital controls on the exchanges, because if the most of the world doesn't accept BTC unless they can immediately convert it to fiat as has been explained upthread by smooth (e.g. Bitpay, etc), then BTC becomes an illiquid asset once the government issues capital controls. BTC is not immune to government action (especially G20 coordinated action) because BTC is not a widespread unit-of-account.

However, BTC has apparently become the unit-of-account of crypto-gambling, but it is not yet certain if the demand for that will remain if people no longer believe they can cash out to fiat unfettered when they want to, and the risk of CC failure due to centralization is a big factor that would cause speculators to be hesitant about thinking they could HODL/gamble in BTC long-term until capital controls cease.

This is my goal is to fix the centralization problem with my CC design and also I am going to make CC a very popular unit-of-account for social network payments. But first I am creating a new programming language, then I have to create the social network, and then finally the CC, so hell may freeze over before I am done. 

Note I also contributed the key technical insight[1] into how to make decentralized exchange work so it can't be jammed.

[1] Find my posts in this thread and note that TierNolan is one of the original inventors of the DE protocol, but it had a jamming flaw until I fixed it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/atomic-swaps-using-cut-and-choose-1364951