Topic: Peter Todd calls dash "bad crypto." - page 2. (Read 2652 times)

The bullshit artists strikes again.  Most of the Monero committs are just comments, that's why he always just says "we have lots of commits!!!" - it's a bullshit operation.  You changed the one file he referenced but didn't change anything else.  Monero = Bytecoin in August 2014, shit and no GUI.

If i'm wrong, show me what other core changes did you do to Bytecoin code base?

** CHANGES ARE EXPERIMENTAL (FOR TESTING ONLY)
Bockchain:
1. Optim: Multi-thread long-hash computation when encountering groups of blocks.
2. Optim: Cache verified txs and return result from cache instead of re-checking whenever possible.
3. Optim: Preload output-keys when encoutering groups of blocks. Sort by amount and global-index before bulk querying database and multi-thread when possible.
4. Optim: Disable double spend check on block verification, double spend is already detected when trying to add blocks.
5. Optim: Multi-thread signature computation whenever possible.
6. Patch: Disable locking (recursive mutex) on called functions from check_tx_inputs which causes slowdowns (only seems to happen on ubuntu/VMs??? Reason: TBD)
7. Optim: Removed looped full-tx hash computation when retrieving transactions from pool ().
8. Optim: Cache difficulty/timestamps (735 blocks) for next-difficulty calculations so that only 2 db reads per new block is needed when a new block arrives (instead of 1470 reads).

Berkeley-DB:
1. Fix: 32-bit data errors causing wrong output global indices and failure to send blocks to peers (etc).
2. Fix: Unable to pop blocks on reorganize due to transaction errors.
3. Patch: Large number of transaction aborts when running multi-threaded bulk queries.
4. Patch: Insufficient locks error when running full sync.
5. Patch: Incorrect db stats when returning from an immediate exit from "pop block" operation.
6. Optim: Add bulk queries to get output global indices.
7. Optim: Modified output_keys table to store public_key+unlock_time+height for single transaction lookup (vs 3)
8. Optim: Used output_keys table retrieve public_keys instead of going through output_amounts->output_txs+output_indices->txs->output:public_key
9. Optim: Added thread-safe buffers used when multi-threading bulk queries.
10. Optim: Added support for nosync/write_nosync options for improved performance (*see --db-sync-mode option for details)
11. Mod: Added checkpoint thread and auto-remove-logs option.
12. *Now usable on 32-bit systems like RPI2.

LMDB:
1. Optim: Added custom comparison for 256-bit key tables (minor speed-up, TBD: get actual effect)
2. Optim: Modified output_keys table to store public_key+unlock_time+height for single transaction lookup (vs 3)
3. Optim: Used output_keys table retrieve public_keys instead of going through output_amounts->output_txs+output_indices->txs->output:public_key
4. Optim: Added support for sync/writemap options for improved performance (*see --db-sync-mode option for details)
5. Mod: Auto resize to +1GB instead of multiplier x1.5

ETC:
1. Minor optimizations for slow-hash for ARM (RPI2). Incomplete.
2. Fix: 32-bit saturation bug when computing next difficulty on large blocks.

[PENDING ISSUES]
1. Berkely db has a very slow "pop-block" operation. This is very noticeable on the RPI2 as it sometimes takes > 10 MINUTES to pop a block during reorganization.
   This does not happen very often however, most reorgs seem to take a few seconds but it possibly depends on the number of outputs present. TBD.
2. Berkeley db, possible bug "unable to allocate memory". TBD.

[NEW OPTIONS] (*Currently all enabled for testing purposes)
1. --fast-block-sync arg=[0:1] (default: 1)
   a. 0 = Compute long hash per block (may take a while depending on CPU)
   b. 1 = Skip long-hash and verify blocks based on embedded known good block hashes (faster, minimal CPU dependence)
2. --db-sync-mode arg=[[safe|fast|fastest]:[sync|async]:[nblocks_per_sync]] (default: fastest:async:1000)
   a. safe = fdatasync/fsync (or equivalent) per stored block. Very slow, but safest option to protect against power-out/crash conditions.
   b. fast/fastest = Enables asynchronous fdatasync/fsync (or equivalent). Useful for battery operated devices or STABLE systems with UPS and/or systems with battery backed write cache/solid state cache.
   Fast    - Write meta-data but defer data flush.
   Fastest - Defer meta-data and data flush.
   Sync    - Flush data after nblocks_per_sync and wait.
   Async   - Flush data after nblocks_per_sync but do not wait for the operation to finish.
3. --prep-blocks-threads arg=[n] (default: 4 or system max threads, whichever is lower)
        Max number of threads to use when computing long-hash in groups.
4. --show-time-stats arg=[0:1] (default: 1)
   Show benchmark related time stats.
5. --db-auto-remove-logs arg=[0:1] (default: 1)
   For berkeley-db only. Auto remove logs if enabled.

**Note: lmdb and berkeley-db have changes to the tables and are not compatible with official git head version.
   At the moment, you need a full resync to use this optimized version.

[PERFORMANCE COMPARISON]
**Some figures are approximations only.
Using a baseline machine of an i7-2600K+SSD+(with full pow computation):
1. The optimized lmdb/blockhain core can process blocks up to 585K for ~1.25 hours + download time, so it usually takes 2.5 hours to sync the full chain.
2. The current head with memory can process blocks up to 585K for ~4.2 hours + download time, so it usually takes 5.5 hours to sync the full chain.
3. The current head with lmdb can process blocks up to 585K for ~32 hours + download time and usually takes 36 hours to sync the full chain.

Averate procesing times (with full pow computation):
lmdb-optimized:
1. tx_ave = 2.5 ms / tx
2. block_ave = 5.87 ms / block
memory-official-repo:
1. tx_ave = 8.85 ms / tx
2. block_ave = 19.68 ms / block
lmdb-official-repo (0f4a036)
1. tx_ave = 47.8 ms / tx
2. block_ave = 64.2 ms / block

**Note: The following data denotes processing times only (does not include p2p download time)
lmdb-optimized processing times (with full pow computation):
1. Desktop,  Quad-core / 8-threads 2600k  (8Mb) - 1.25 hours processing time (--db-sync-mode=fastest:async:1000).
2. Laptop,   Dual-core / 4-threads U4200  (3Mb) - 4.90 hours processing time (--db-sync-mode=fastest:async:1000).
3. Embedded, Quad-core / 4-threads Z3735F (2x1Mb) - 12.0 hours processing time (--db-sync-mode=fastest:async:1000).

lmdb-optimized processing times (with per-block-checkpoint)
1. Desktop,  Quad-core / 8-threads 2600k  (8Mb) - 10 minutes processing time (--db-sync-mode=fastest:async:1000).

berkeley-db optimized processing times (with full pow computation)
1. Desktop, Quad-core / 8-threads 2600k  (8Mb) - 1.8 hours processing time (--db-sync-mode=fastest:async:1000).
2. RPI2. Improved from estimated 3 months() into 2.5 days (*Need 2AMP supply + Clock:1Ghz + [usb+ssd] to achieve this speed) (--db-sync-mode=fastest:async:1000).

berkeley-db optimized processing times (with per-block-checkpoint)
1. RPI2. 12-15 hours (*Need 2AMP supply + Clock:1Ghz + [usb+ssd] to achieve this speed) (--db-sync-mode=fastest:async:1000).

GTFO

1. Read his (almost year old) tweet. He referenced a specific file, which was rewritten (as cited above)

2. Sure, "nothing" except 1059 commits: http://pastebin.com/fSJM8m0v

3. Take it from the horse's mouth: "Yup! Rather have cleaned up bad code w/ good crypto over bad crypto..." link

He said the code base was atrociously bad.  Code-base.  That is one file from a later tweet.

What else did you change from reference Cryptonote / Bytecoin? Answer: nothing.....so you GTFO..

GTFO

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/2ef0aee81d20c002ed50d6dec4baceee1ac40b44

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622081863008436225

Don't believe anything this guy tells you unless you can see the evidence of what he says.  He is a total bullshit artist.  I bet 100BTC the code is still there, he thinks he can just keep spewing bullshit and most people stupid enough to fall for it without checking up on him.

The bad code he referenced was rewritten. The rest of the C code he criticized was audited and verified to come unmodified from a well-known crypto library.

He recently tweeted about the code having been cleaned up.

I'm getting a untrusted error when I visit minkiz.co.  Just got curious - figured you might wanna know.

Unfortunately a rapid descent into hyperbole is a characteristic tactical error made by people suddenly finding themselves out of their depth.

Actually in last September he said basically the same about the cryptonote codebase too: https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/507427225927708672.

What a vivid imagination you have.

Peter has made a patently indefensible statement in a tweet: “orders of magnitude worse”. I don't know what possessed him to display such immaturity but if he continues, it will be at the risk of his reputation as a mature commentator on technical matters of cryptography and cryptocurrency.

Cheers

Graham

If you think you are better than Peter Todd at telling good crypto from bad, your understanding of the issues is not adequate and you actually do need help in this matter.

Your wholehearted commitment apparently prevents you from even entertaining the notion that I already have an adequate understanding of the issues and that I don't actually need any help in this matter. But thanks for the thought anyway.

You should be grateful he's helping you learn to avoid Dash's snake oil, bad crypto, and bamboo runway.

“The Cryptonote/Bytecoin codebase #XMR is based on is atrociously bad, orders of magnitude worse than #Bitcoin. WTF: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/amjuarez/bytecoin/master/src/crypto/tree-hash.c”

Unfortunately a rapid descent into hyperbole is a characteristic tactical error made by people suddenly finding themselves out of their depth. The assessment of “orders of magnitude worse” is patently indefensible and testifies to the fact that Peter is now emitting random hysterical shrieks.

C'mon Peter, let's see your defence of your public pronouncement of “orders of magnitude worse”. How many orders of magnitude? And I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for your definition of “worse”.

Chapter and verse please, not just finger-waving at source code. If you've got something specific to say about coding style or substance then either spell it out or STFU.

No? Then perhaps you might more usefully apply your intellect to the task of developing a constructive and mature approach appropriate to your job title, then you might have a snowball's chance in Hell of ever being taken seriously again.