Topic: Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history) - page 123. (Read 530609 times)

The fourth paragraph clearly states that the original Zerocoin approach has the flaw you thinking of. However in the last sentence it says that Anoncoin will use RSA_UFOs and generate them by using Sanders 1999.

Can you even read?

EDIT:
Of course you have to trust Gnosis that the coding is correct. But you need to trust any other developers as well when you use any program on this world. Like I said before, If you don't trust anybody you will live in a box.

EDIT2: Other people don't need that trust, they read the opensource code

If gnosis has his own rsa ufos - with factors - then he had 8 core years squirrelled away in his basement ? get real !!! You cannot fake the numbers nor the work needed to work them out.

No, you don't need to trust anyone. You can verify how the accumulator works before compiling your code if you like. (ignore back on.)

No offence, but nobody's explained it to your and your fellow trolls because you have all been so belligerent and insulting that nearly everybody has you on ignore; otherwise, you might have been directed to the answer to your main question by somebody in the know in a simple enough form that even you can wrap your tiny mind around ...

http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/12641/can-an-rsa-public-key-be-generated-without-ever-knowing-the-factors
( according to Michael Miers )

The crux of the rsa_ufo is just that; the prime factors are not needed once their product has been found. The products were found on all the contributing boxes over the past 2 months and were uploaded. Check the code for yourself here to find out what happened to the prime factors:

https://github.com/Anoncoin/ufo_client

Seems I should read up on the wiki as well. Thanks lunokhod

Yes, my bad. I shouldn't respond without having all the facts. I agreem and believe that Gnosis should clarify how the key that is used can be verified as the generated UFO, and provide some proof of destruction of the initial parameters to ensure that the setup is completely trustless.

rsa_ufo_attack:

I only saw your question because it was quoted in another post (you are on ignore).

1. The RSA UFOs were generated using the algorithm of Sanders. You can verify this in the code that Gnosis published on github. The fact that it was generated using Sanders algorithm proves that no one knows that factorization. Please read the wiki, inspect the code, and read the Sanders paper. If you don't do this, you will have to trust the developers.

2. Of course. You realize this is open source, right?

You're part of the dev team, and your words may cause more impact than others. IMO Gnosis should clarify this point asap.

The setup itself will be trustless once implemented. I do not have enough insight to contradict Gnosis's announcement, but I haven't heard of any way to provide good proof of destruction at this time. You should not weight my word heaver than his though as he might know how to do it. I'm just saying there is a chance that trusting the team for at least some part of the implementation might become necessary.

Isn't there a RSA_UFO folder in the Source for a reason? And hasn't been used "hashing" to generate the number for a reason?
The key lies in the source, but you won't acknowledge it, whatever I say. Imagine a connection between "the generators" "the RSA UFO client" and "ZC".
It is too easy for you to say "If Gnosis generates the key by himself"

Ah and RSA_UFO_Attack ... you insult the head developer of Anoncoin and expect answers to your questions?

This is quite different from what has been repeteadly announced by Gnosis. The "trustless" Zerocoin setup had never been questioned, until now. To come now and say that "maybe" the community will have to trust the dev team in order to make it right is definitely a change in the official position, and one that puts ANC at risk.

@rsa_ufo_attack
I do not tend to respond to trolling, however I do _not_ consider these questions to be trolling. Your requests for information might seem a bit hostile though and thrown onto the trolling pile. Like you pointed out these are completely legitimate questions that should be answered. However we do not have the answers to these questions at this time.
Preferably we will have a way to ensure that anyone can verify that the generated UFO's are in fact the ones that are deployed, and at the same time deliver proof of destruction of the initial parameters. Worst case scenario, the users might actually have to trust the dev team to do this right. If it comes down to trusting the team, it will probably hurt the price quite a bit, but the technology itself will in no way be impacted.

@everyone
Some additional information for those that haven't caught on yet. We are primarily in this project to push the boundaries of anonymity technology, not to amuse the investors that buy loads of the coin. To avoid zerocoin implementation using the UFO's (the best tech to date) because there is a slight chance it might be abused is not an option. It was said that it will be attacked and eventually cracked, this is a given. The important factor here is time.

To crack the UFO's will most likely require several decades even with a wast constant, or even increasing, amounts of computing power. With previous statements in the thread some people are indirectly implying that all development will halt when zc with ufo launches. This is certainly not the case. With zc and the UFO in place we will have _at least_ 5 years to come up with a better solution without ever being at risk of the UFO's being cracked.

If any of these risks are not acceptable to you, I suggest you drop your coin, and shift your interest towards another coin.

Haha.. No wonder why I'm always offline from here. Listening to those trolls trying to increase their e-penis and save the last of the fallen coins they sit on.. Maybe angry for us not letting them easily copy us... well well, I wouldn't care, either should you.

This was not a reply to the trolls. They are on /ignore.

/Back to work

Hello to all,

like already mentioned , responding to trolls we feed them.
History of few the same troll profiles you can check here. He have few more similar profiles I think.
And he is not stops reading our thread, this must mean we are threats to his coin, or he is not much normal..

I suggest to ignore him/them to October 15, or November 1  

 

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/no-ice-please-339471
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/alfredoruizsanchezvonzut-356665
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/luigipabloquarnavaca-358234
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/luigipabloquernevacaroli-358537

and he missing himself  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/official-anoncoin-chat-thread-including-history-227287

_____________________________________________________________________

NICE change, haven't seen until now    

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/official-anoncoin-chat-thread-including-history-227287

My God ! I meant your effort and not the coin !!!!!! LOL

Not planning on adding it. No ScamCoins Accepted(TM)   

STELLAR !!!!!!!

Thanks.....it kinda just happened, works quickest when typing out ideas, yet gets the idea across that the coins context has been altered.  Don't recall having ever come across its use in Cryptoland symbols, old coder in my feels natural referencing it that way though.  Then again, this is a very unique thing being done to Anoncoin's nature as a concurrency.   


Like it allot really, for a marketing position. perhaps something like Zero2Trust is a much better way to make reference to the underlining technology, I'm no expert on such things, nor intend any offense, if you happen to see me call it zANC, for short.

@entertheabyss - Always looking forward to movin on up, & into a better market environment.  Appreciate the work your doing and thanks for the chat log capture & quote, it was a good one....

lolz.

at least you've become entertaining again

Just matched another 99.97 ANC.

1592.60449412-99.97 = 1492.63449412 ANC left for me to donate