http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uh6erfE9HYE
Matthew Green's half hour presentation at Real World Crypto 2014
Topic: NXT :: descendant of Bitcoin - Updated Information - page 1261. (Read 2761629 times)
busy professors don't usually respond to emails from people they don't know
they have published integration instructions
it is open source
LACK of action is not an action opposing, it is just a lack of action.
they have published integration instructions
it is open source
LACK of action is not an action opposing, it is just a lack of action.
sounds reasonable. Maybe this is the right path then; and possibly, if we get started on it FIRST, and show the profs that we are serious, that they may even be willing to help then.
Why not zerocoin? Any unproven tech will need to be reviewed by cryptographic authority and we know that is not so easy.
I'll read Zerocoin whitepaper tomorrow and will think. Today is too late, time to drink milk and go to bed soon.
Their solution is ugly. It uses accumulators, requires large data amounts and has all sorts of restrictions.
If we could take the core idea and find a way to implement it in a simpler way, that would be fantastic...
I will also read and think more tomorrow.
Something like 98% reduction. I will search for the details on RWC 2014
Not a theft, they want us to port, they describe exactly how to do it.
They wanted bitcoin to adopt their libzerocoin
They wanted altcoins to adopt their solution
Nobody did, so they were forced to start developing their own coin
They are professors, not really into making new coins
...
They wanted bitcoin to adopt their libzerocoin
They wanted altcoins to adopt their solution
Nobody did, so they were forced to start developing their own coin
They are professors, not really into making new coins
...
they why did they REPEATEDLY ignore all of Klee's requests for information on implementing it in NXT?
they have published integration instructions
it is open source
LACK of action is not an action opposing, it is just a lack of action.
Why not zerocoin? Any unproven tech will need to be reviewed by cryptographic authority and we know that is not so easy.
I'll read Zerocoin whitepaper tomorrow and will think. Today is too late, time to drink milk and go to bed soon.
Their solution is ugly. It uses accumulators, requires large data amounts and has all sorts of restrictions.
If we could take the core idea and find a way to implement it in a simpler way, that would be fantastic...
I will also read and think more tomorrow.
Why not zerocoin? Any unproven tech will need to be reviewed by cryptographic authority and we know that is not so easy.
I'll read Zerocoin whitepaper tomorrow and will think. Today is too late, time to drink milk and go to bed soon.
zerocoin on top of NXT will be so fantastic I cannot express it.
Not a theft, they want us to port, they describe exactly how to do it.
They wanted bitcoin to adopt their libzerocoin
They wanted altcoins to adopt their solution
Nobody did, so they were forced to start developing their own coin
They are professors, not really into making new coins
...
They wanted bitcoin to adopt their libzerocoin
They wanted altcoins to adopt their solution
Nobody did, so they were forced to start developing their own coin
They are professors, not really into making new coins
...
they why did they REPEATEDLY ignore all of Klee's requests for information on implementing it in NXT?
@CfB: what is the plan for opening accounts for forging in clients? API call in API v2?
I could do it if u guys cooperate and give me something like a specification for API v2. Brainstorming is over as I see.
If you're doing API 2, it would be a perfect opportunity to switch to the new address format!
Old API will continue working with old account IDs and new will return new addresses.
Regarding mixer,
Does is have to be Input --> {1 minute} --> Output.
Or, some Nxts can wait in the mixer longer than others?
Does is have to be Input --> {1 minute} --> Output.
Or, some Nxts can wait in the mixer longer than others?
It's up to a user I think. I could wait ~24 hours if I were selling slaves or drugs.
Why not zerocoin? Any unproven tech will need to be reviewed by cryptographic authority and we know that is not so easy.
I'll read Zerocoin whitepaper tomorrow and will think. Today is too late, time to drink milk and go to bed soon.
I am no programmer, but i have a proposal to solve the mixing problem.
How about a pooled approach that is not traceable?
We have at specific times per day (or maybe once a day if traffic is low) a mixing event where everyone can send their coins to an automated mixing address that collects all coins. Once the specific time comes, the logic of the address creates packs of 10000 NXTs and sends them to specific addresses. For example, if you send 100.000 NXT to that address, your coins will be split into 10k pieces on 10 addresses. Those addresses are generated by the mixing algo and the private code is sent to original sender via encrypted address that is only readable if the private key of the original address is known.
Rules:
You can send whatever amount between 1000 and higher
The splitting follows those rules, Balance/10000 --> remainder/1000 --> remainder /100 --> rest is donation(? or maybe remainder/10?)
E.g. If you send 17.200 then you get 1 10k, 7 1k and 2 100 outputs.
The interval of the mixing is depending on the traffic. Only if enough people participate, the mixing will be anonymous.
The passwords are send per AM and are encrypted per the private key of the original account. (i guess that is possible)
What do you think?
How about a pooled approach that is not traceable?
We have at specific times per day (or maybe once a day if traffic is low) a mixing event where everyone can send their coins to an automated mixing address that collects all coins. Once the specific time comes, the logic of the address creates packs of 10000 NXTs and sends them to specific addresses. For example, if you send 100.000 NXT to that address, your coins will be split into 10k pieces on 10 addresses. Those addresses are generated by the mixing algo and the private code is sent to original sender via encrypted address that is only readable if the private key of the original address is known.
Rules:
You can send whatever amount between 1000 and higher
The splitting follows those rules, Balance/10000 --> remainder/1000 --> remainder /100 --> rest is donation(? or maybe remainder/10?)
E.g. If you send 17.200 then you get 1 10k, 7 1k and 2 100 outputs.
The interval of the mixing is depending on the traffic. Only if enough people participate, the mixing will be anonymous.
The passwords are send per AM and are encrypted per the private key of the original account. (i guess that is possible)
What do you think?
Everyone must use it or it's vulnerable to a Knapsack problem solver again. I'm thinking of accepting that 1M offer coz it looks like the guy is on a right way.
I just designed and 3d-printed a NXT-keychain 
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/899322nxtkeychain.png
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/899322nxtkeychain.png
Nice!
If the STL file is small enough, would you be willing to put the STL on the blockchain as a AM payload? You know, for history's sake.
Yes, of course I'm willing to do that. The STL is around 250KB, is that small enough? I also could do some design modifications if you have some suggestions. And how would I put that STL on the blockchain?
The STL is too large by far unfortunately. Have you ever used OpenSCAD? Perhaps the keychain could be procedurally modeled and thus fit in under 1000 characters?
Yes, I'm familiar with OpenSCAD (great tool, btw), but doing the design with FreeCAD was much easier and faster
With a divide and conquer approach, we might be able to get zerocoin functionality for NXT before zerocoin!
I'm not sure it's not a theft...
its definitely not theft. the idea of theft requires that someone else be deprived of property. copying code doesn't deprive the other person of his copy. i mean maybe its immoral but if so than not because its theft, it would have to be some new moral construct that doesnt have a name yet. something meaning "immoral copying". i vote that we call it flibber.
Or we could just ask them... or ask their permission...
+1
i mean why not be polite about it. no sense in flibbering all over someone elses work unnecessarily.
James
P.S. They are encouraging people to port. From their website:
***
libzerocoin is only a library. To use Zerocoin in practice it must be integrated with a client. See our Integrating with Bitcoin clients page for more on this. We’re looking for example client integrations and of course would be willing to provide pointers. Send us an email and we’ll link it.
***
I am no programmer, but i have a proposal to solve the mixing problem.
How about a pooled approach that is not traceable?
We have at specific times per day (or maybe once a day if traffic is low) a mixing event where everyone can send their coins to an automated mixing address that collects all coins. Once the specific time comes, the logic of the address creates packs of 10000 NXTs and sends them to specific addresses. For example, if you send 100.000 NXT to that address, your coins will be split into 10k pieces on 10 addresses. Those addresses are generated by the mixing algo and the private code is sent to original sender via encrypted address that is only readable if the private key of the original address is known.
Rules:
You can send whatever amount between 1000 and higher
The splitting follows those rules, Balance/10000 --> remainder/1000 --> remainder /100 --> rest is donation(? or maybe remainder/10?)
E.g. If you send 17.200 then you get 1 10k, 7 1k and 2 100 outputs.
The interval of the mixing is depending on the traffic. Only if enough people participate, the mixing will be anonymous.
The passwords are send per AM and are encrypted per the private key of the original account. (i guess that is possible)
What do you think?
How about a pooled approach that is not traceable?
We have at specific times per day (or maybe once a day if traffic is low) a mixing event where everyone can send their coins to an automated mixing address that collects all coins. Once the specific time comes, the logic of the address creates packs of 10000 NXTs and sends them to specific addresses. For example, if you send 100.000 NXT to that address, your coins will be split into 10k pieces on 10 addresses. Those addresses are generated by the mixing algo and the private code is sent to original sender via encrypted address that is only readable if the private key of the original address is known.
Rules:
You can send whatever amount between 1000 and higher
The splitting follows those rules, Balance/10000 --> remainder/1000 --> remainder /100 --> rest is donation(? or maybe remainder/10?)
E.g. If you send 17.200 then you get 1 10k, 7 1k and 2 100 outputs.
The interval of the mixing is depending on the traffic. Only if enough people participate, the mixing will be anonymous.
The passwords are send per AM and are encrypted per the private key of the original account. (i guess that is possible)
What do you think?
Everyone must use it or it's vulnerable to a Knapsack problem solver again. I'm thinking of accepting that 1M offer coz it looks like the guy is on a right way.
I am no programmer, but i have a proposal to solve the mixing problem.
How about a pooled approach that is not traceable?
We have at specific times per day (or maybe once a day if traffic is low) a mixing event where everyone can send their coins to an automated mixing address that collects all coins. Once the specific time comes, the logic of the address creates packs of 10000 NXTs and sends them to specific addresses. For example, if you send 100.000 NXT to that address, your coins will be split into 10k pieces on 10 addresses. Those addresses are generated by the mixing algo and the private code is sent to original sender via encrypted address that is only readable if the private key of the original address is known.
Rules:
You can send whatever amount between 1000 and higher
The splitting follows those rules, Balance/10000 --> remainder/1000 --> remainder /100 --> rest is donation(? or maybe remainder/10?)
E.g. If you send 17.200 then you get 1 10k, 7 1k and 2 100 outputs.
The interval of the mixing is depending on the traffic. Only if enough people participate, the mixing will be anonymous.
The passwords are send per AM and are encrypted per the private key of the original account. (i guess that is possible)
What do you think?
Need mathematical proof, peer reviewed, etc.How about a pooled approach that is not traceable?
We have at specific times per day (or maybe once a day if traffic is low) a mixing event where everyone can send their coins to an automated mixing address that collects all coins. Once the specific time comes, the logic of the address creates packs of 10000 NXTs and sends them to specific addresses. For example, if you send 100.000 NXT to that address, your coins will be split into 10k pieces on 10 addresses. Those addresses are generated by the mixing algo and the private code is sent to original sender via encrypted address that is only readable if the private key of the original address is known.
Rules:
You can send whatever amount between 1000 and higher
The splitting follows those rules, Balance/10000 --> remainder/1000 --> remainder /100 --> rest is donation(? or maybe remainder/10?)
E.g. If you send 17.200 then you get 1 10k, 7 1k and 2 100 outputs.
The interval of the mixing is depending on the traffic. Only if enough people participate, the mixing will be anonymous.
The passwords are send per AM and are encrypted per the private key of the original account. (i guess that is possible)
What do you think?
Common sense stuff unfortunately will almost always have holes. Even if we did something like this, we would need to document it and then pay some cryptographer to review it.
Why not just implement what is already there?
James
@CfB: what is the plan for opening accounts for forging in clients? API call in API v2?
I could do it if u guys cooperate and give me something like a specification for API v2. Brainstorming is over as I see.
I am no programmer, but i have a proposal to solve the mixing problem.
How about a pooled approach that is not traceable?
We have at specific times per day (or maybe once a day if traffic is low) a mixing event where everyone can send their coins to an automated mixing address that collects all coins. Once the specific time comes, the logic of the address creates packs of 10000 NXTs and sends them to specific addresses. For example, if you send 100.000 NXT to that address, your coins will be split into 10k pieces on 10 addresses. Those addresses are generated by the mixing algo and the private code is sent to original sender via encrypted address that is only readable if the private key of the original address is known.
Rules:
You can send whatever amount between 1000 and higher
The splitting follows those rules, Balance/10000 --> remainder/1000 --> remainder /100 --> rest is donation(? or maybe remainder/10?)
E.g. If you send 17.200 then you get 1 10k, 7 1k and 2 100 outputs.
The interval of the mixing is depending on the traffic. Only if enough people participate, the mixing will be anonymous.
The passwords are send per AM and are encrypted per the private key of the original account. (i guess that is possible)
What do you think?
How about a pooled approach that is not traceable?
We have at specific times per day (or maybe once a day if traffic is low) a mixing event where everyone can send their coins to an automated mixing address that collects all coins. Once the specific time comes, the logic of the address creates packs of 10000 NXTs and sends them to specific addresses. For example, if you send 100.000 NXT to that address, your coins will be split into 10k pieces on 10 addresses. Those addresses are generated by the mixing algo and the private code is sent to original sender via encrypted address that is only readable if the private key of the original address is known.
Rules:
You can send whatever amount between 1000 and higher
The splitting follows those rules, Balance/10000 --> remainder/1000 --> remainder /100 --> rest is donation(? or maybe remainder/10?)
E.g. If you send 17.200 then you get 1 10k, 7 1k and 2 100 outputs.
The interval of the mixing is depending on the traffic. Only if enough people participate, the mixing will be anonymous.
The passwords are send per AM and are encrypted per the private key of the original account. (i guess that is possible)
What do you think?
I just designed and 3d-printed a NXT-keychain
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/899322nxtkeychain.png
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/899322nxtkeychain.png
Nice!
If the STL file is small enough, would you be willing to put the STL on the blockchain as a AM payload? You know, for history's sake.
Yes, of course I'm willing to do that. The STL is around 250KB, is that small enough? I also could do some design modifications if you have some suggestions. And how would I put that STL on the blockchain?
The STL is too large by far unfortunately. Have you ever used OpenSCAD? Perhaps the keychain could be procedurally modeled and thus fit in under 1000 characters?
@CfB: what is the plan for opening accounts for forging in clients? API call in API v2?
Regarding privacy, maybe this could help:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinjoin-bitcoin-privacy-for-the-real-world-279249
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinjoin-bitcoin-privacy-for-the-real-world-279249
Unfortunatelly, this doesn't help.
Jump to: