Can you ellaborate how you concluded the chance of factorization of a single UFO by an extremely powerful attacker is ~20%? To me a probability only makes sense if you take the variable time into account. How can a powerful attacker have a ~20% chance of factorization spending either 1 day or 1 year of computing power trying to factorize the number?
Okay, you're right. Pick any timespan you want, say, one year. A powerful attacker would be one that can find factors by ECM up to 768 bits and factor numbers up to 2048 bits by GNFS in one year. Such an attacker would then have a ~20% chance of factoring any one of those UFOs in that timespan. Assuming the capacity does not change, in 13 years, the attacker would have had a 1 in a billion chance of factoring all of them, because the attacker would have had enough time to be able to try all 13 in that time. Does that make sense?
Again, I should point out that this attacker would be far beyond what even the NSA is likely to be able to do for decades.
If in 10 years we are worried about someone breaking the all of the UFOs is it possible to upgrade the ZC implementation to use a new larger set of UFOs?
Yes, with a software upgrade (a hard fork). The new software would require that all newly minted zerocoins use the new UFO set. We give everyone, say, a one year deadline to mint all zerocoins in the old UFO set back into ANC (obviously it should be announced repeatedly, in as many places online as possible), and after that year, zerocoins can only be spent from the new UFO set.
Was going to stay out of this bickering but something is definitely rotten here.
A lot of anonymous coins are coming out.
Most of the newer ones are both 'trustless' and do not involve introducing new variables that could serve as back doors.
So many people here are trying to force others to trust Anoncoin and Zerocoin. I do not trust it. I do not trust the pushy people trying to confuse others with big words. It looks like a tag team wrestling show. A lot of fake arguments to sell tickets.
Some expert needs to look into this and find out what is going on. And by expert I don't mean the bs experts on this thread.
Welcome to the forum.... if you are genuinely interested and not like some others who are new here.
Actually the opposite is true. Shrill posters are attempting to force us to not trust in ANC/ZC in spite of the fact that they are not reading the readily available info, and in spite of contradicting themselves while searching for potential weak points to exploit in what seem to be childishly repetitive arguments.
Mostly we have let them harp on the points they have chosen, until the have enough rope to hang themselves, and then we show how they are wrong/misinformed/lying.
Most of us here who have been posting for a year or more have read what's out there... many have contributed in fact, as they are able.
The trolls therefore seem to be focused on the new arrivals and those with casual interest in ANC. First they argued against holding the posting of code until ZC is live on the main net; then they tried to harp on the missed deadlines; they have attacked devs directly; now they are trying to exploit a slightly complicated implementing of the method of blind encryption the devs have chosen to create the anonymous mixing of coins.
Stick around all who are interested. All will be made clear very soon, and then all the fakes and fakers will be forced to sit down and shut up. Personally, I'm looking forward to that.
