Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 124. (Read 387493 times)

I hope you realize that a pool with 50% of the hashrate, could discard hash solutions 50% (25% of all hashes generated in system) of the time (to favor some nonrandom bits in the data) and still win 37.5% of the block rewards. If this attack enabled them to speedup the calculation of the PoW by 100% only, they would have 67% hashrate, thus winning 50.25% of the block rewards.

This is an example of analysis that needs to be done within the scope of cryptanalysis and game theory.

Altcoins by non-cryptographers are dangerous, analogous to ignorant children playing with fire.

Edit: for novices (and those facetious whose goal is to obfuscate, not procreate), the above isn't limited to those with 50% of the hashrate.

"I hope you realize that a pool with X% of the hashrate, could discard hash solutions 50% ((X/2)% of all hashes generated in system) of the time (to favor some nonrandom bits in the data) and still win (X * 0.75)% of the block rewards. If this attack enabled them to speedup the calculation of the PoW by 100% only, they would have (2 * X / (1 + X/100))% hashrate, thus winning ((2 * X / (1 + X/100)) * 0.75)% of the block rewards."

Nor is it limited to 100% speedup vulnerabilities.

"I hope you realize that a pool with X% of the hashrate, could discard hash solutions 50% ((X/2)% of all hashes generated in system) of the time (to favor some nonrandom bits in the data) and still win (X * 0.75)% of the block rewards. If this attack enabled them to speedup the calculation of the PoW by A%, they would have ((X + A/100 * X) / (1 + (A * X)/10000))% hashrate, thus winning (((X + A/100 * X) / (1 + (A * X)/10000)) * 0.75)% of the block rewards."

For example, lets set X = 33%, A = 10x speedup, and discarding 67% of hash solutions. The adversary gets 37% of the block rewards.

This field of analysis is game theory.

Zoidberg, this is an example of an opportunity that you may have failed to grab in the past. At the moment, if you could do some analysis of the issue I raised and come back with some concrete explanation or improvement made to your PoW, it would show that unlike Monero crapholes, you are open source to valid feedback and do try to stay focused on improvements and not political manipulation.

Grabbing such opportunities is the way you win the community.

And nevermind drawingthesun trying to keep you in second place. There is no reason you have to stay in second place, if you can demonstrate better leadership than Monero has. Monero has to cater to the "least common denominator" (e.g. dga), because they are a political paradigm (open source). They don't have any Benevolent Dictator (e.g. Linus Torvalds) to reign in political distraction and keep everything focused on innovation and substance.

It is really sad that most humans are too inept to discern substance.

They are ripe for manipulation.

Armstrong said it best about humans, "if one person  is staring at the sky in a public place, people will ignore thinking the person might be crazy. If 5 people are staring at the sky, a crowd will gather and everyone will look into the sky".

"if one zebra takes off sprinting, the other zebras will copy without even knowing the reason".

Humans have not evolved.

Cripes are you a female? Can we all hold hands, say a prayer, and the technology will magically get done correctly. That is the way females and emasculated western males think.

What you don't understand is that many people did not like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Linus Torvalds, etc.. BECAUSE THEY DEMANDED HIGH STANDARDS. Yet you use their creations every day.

There are always these political jealousy hissy fits from losers.

BS walks. Technology and real work talks.

And for damn sure I know how to be polite, lovable, caring, etc.. and I also know how to cast away loser arseholes who are playing asinine political games.

I was thinking the same thing and then I read the recent posts.  It got me thinking of a wonderful book I read a very long time ago, "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten".

I just found a short video based on the book and although it obviously can't do justice to the book it ain't bad .  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgvAGOGGuaQ

All Scrypt-like memory hard functions have essentially some variant of the same fundamental algorithm (ignoring the initialization of the memory scratchpad):


Note some variants write the output of the hash back into the scratchpad, which is important for diminishing the threat of "lookup gap" strategies for trading computation for memory space.

My assumption (based on your description) is that Boolberry's PoW hash is faster because you replace 'hash' with some faster operation that modulates 'memory[ i ]' by data from the block chain, e.g. perhaps an xor operation. That modulation may not be cyptographically secure because that blockchain data may be subject to cryptanalysis and game theory.

Cryptonote's PoW employes AES round in the 'hash' which may not be cyptographically secure.

Would you like to be more concrete ?

Ah what network effects. You guys don't have a freakin' clue. Sigh.

You are just lucky that Zoidberg seems to be lacking in the communication area, or that he misses certain organizational opportunities. You won't be so lucky with me.

smooth your political postering isn't going to help you. I am here to get real work done. Your underhanded psyops are revealing a conniving side of you that I would not want you in my group. Learn to be upstanding, so you can be with the winning group, or stay with the manipulative losers. I'm pretty sure I have no authority over your choice. (arsehole)

You know damn well he is Dunning-Kruger wasting my time. You are too smart not to realize that.

 

---

Seriously you have a $6 million marketcap and you all brag about the donation model of funding, so why can't you spend $5000 to get the damn cryptanalysis done going on 3 months after release.

Instead you play manipulative political games. Appearances are that you can't get real work done, and you only have BS politics to fall back on.  

You can't even build anonymity into mining.  



When will you graduate kindergarten?


Either your mind is extremely unperceptive and depraved, or you are just being facetious.

You know damn well that I understand the overview of the algorithm employed to make a hash function memory hard, because I told you that I implemented L3crypt. And it is quite clear from my writings that I am highly knowledgeable in this area.

I didn't study exactly how he is twiddling each bit to utilize the block hash data to provide the randomization of the lookups in the scratchpad, but I do know he says he eliminated the computation of a hash that would normally take that role. Thus I don't need to look at the source code, to make the statements I have made.

Idiots like you are wasting valuable time on political grandstanding. If you had any idea of what I am capable of, you might feel guilty for the disservice you are doing to the community by delaying my work by causing me to have to come here and defend my person against your nonsense.


Just continue to believe that I am not capable. That is perfect. I am going to enjoy immensely putting you in your rightful place.

Any more of this nonsense? Come on don't get shy now. Continue your senseless BS please.

Network effects are extremely large and critical for privacy technologies.

Take even zerocash as an extreme, which theoretically leaks no information about who is holding coins or spending coins. If you are the only one using it (ignoring that one person using a coin is impossible), you have zero privacy. Every transaction is obviously yours. There are more realistic examples though. If it can be determined through external sources that you are the only one transacting with some counterparty using zerocash (for example you are the only one to whom he sent his address), then the fact that he received zerocash proves that you sent it.

Regardless of the details of technology you still need a haystack to hide the needle, and the larger the better.

I think the only area where this is true is privacy factors.  Other distinctions rooted in technology may be important for usability factors, but these are essentially linear terms.  Privacy is extremely non-linear; in the extreme case, it is nearly a kronecker delta.  Network effects follow power laws, so they generally dominate over usability factors, but are in turn, ceteris paribus, dominated by the privacy factor.

I'm looking at the XMR and BBR charts.  It's pretty obvious that the market is reacting in radically different ways to the two coins.  Essentially, for the past month, BBR is only sold, not bought.  I have behaved this way myself, yet I do not know exactly why it is so.  Perhaps it is the cbuchner miner which destroyed BBR.

this bbr xmr discussion is so needless and I see no reason why it is important - I own both in a 1/3 bbr/xmr ratio and yes bbr is massively undervalued BUT xmr has one thing and probably the only really important - the market until now has decided that xmr is the one that shows some serious network effects - I would estimate that at xmr has at least 10 times more "investors/speculators" and what counts much more, it has convinced some serious people to say this will be the privacy counterparty to bitcoins transparent ledger.

compared to all the other stuff out there the market for some reason does not value bbr properly - but to try to compare bbr to monero will seriously end up badly for bbr.

one thing which is probably interesting is the comparison of network effects between drk and xmr - I thought about that for quite a while and we all know examples when the inferior technology surpassed for some reasons the superior technology. it is quite easy to illustrate in game theoretic form why the inferior technology surpasses the superior one - well basically it is network effects which gives the one on the superior technology a higher utility when he uses the inferior technology, in the case that all others use them as well. even if drk has more users/investors/speculators at this moment of time the inferior technology will in this case not win against the superior, for the reason that the the elasticity between somewhat half-baked private and full private regarding utility is very high. this is not watching a movie on a vhs which is inferior to betamax, but offers almost the same utility - this is a very sensitive issue: the differences in utility between the better and the worse will be massive.

Last time I checked, the only thing I could purchase with XMR was the integrity of individuals on boards, forums and exchange trollboxes. Unless you are also counting extracting bitcoins from castle-eyed brainwashed daydreamers as liquidity too.

Yes it currently has "liquidity" advantages over BBR.

Actually, it brings the one and only thing that currency is for:  Liquidity.

New thread for discussing and/or arranging large off-exchange trades: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/monero-xmr-large-trade-otc-716331

I'm pretty sure he has no actual authority over how you allocate your time.

Nothing will prevent someone from running a node over i2p and mining on it if they choose to. They may have increased latancy (more orphans) and some bandwidth issues (longer initial download time, although downloading from a Torrent as is done with Bitcoin would be another option), but that is a tradeoff they will make for increased privacy.

Looks like a double spender's paradise.

Zoidberg replied to you, telling you that it only used the less predictable parts of blocks for the scratchpad. You're still going on about how it may be predictable... so tell us why.

Can anybody have a look at this and shed some light. Looks like a quick buck making coin

https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5nop0ev0jn16t6/whitepaper.pdf