And Ill have to bump this too…
This was unexpected, I cant wait.
Topic: [SDC] ShadowCash | Welcome to the UMBRA - page 368. (Read 1289636 times)
And Ill have to bump this too…
This was unexpected, I cant wait.
good to hear....i wonder...
And Ill have to bump this too…
Very nice !
Good things will happen very soon I'm pretty sure now, I'm ready for the ride
And Ill have to bump this too…
Technical Question - Ring Sizes
The Shadow wallet has a "Suggest Ring Size" button I usually hit before sending SDT>SDT or SDT>SDC
The default number before clicking the button is 16 rings. After clicking the button the number can go up to 60 rings in my experience, altho 24 is more common. Values less than 16 can sometimes be "suggested" although ive never sent with anything under 12. TX fees remain low at around 0.005 to 0.01.
In Monero they typically use a MIXIN of 3 which is the equivalent to only 3 rings!
Whilst I feel proud we have so many more rings I wonder if there is a law of diminishing returns regarding ringsize/potential bloat. The comment from the person I dialogued with came through as:
He then pointed me to our own WP:
Since the above numbers are pretty meaningless to me maybe a dev can clarify the following:
1) Do we risk bloating up the blockchain using high ringsize values?
2) Is there a diminishing return for ringsizes? (in terms of anonymity/bloat ratio)
3) How does "Suggest Ring Size" choose?
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
EDIT:
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty?
thanks
The Shadow wallet has a "Suggest Ring Size" button I usually hit before sending SDT>SDT or SDT>SDC
The default number before clicking the button is 16 rings. After clicking the button the number can go up to 60 rings in my experience, altho 24 is more common. Values less than 16 can sometimes be "suggested" although ive never sent with anything under 12. TX fees remain low at around 0.005 to 0.01.
In Monero they typically use a MIXIN of 3 which is the equivalent to only 3 rings!
Whilst I feel proud we have so many more rings I wonder if there is a law of diminishing returns regarding ringsize/potential bloat. The comment from the person I dialogued with came through as:
Quote
SDC developers seem more inclined to bloat up their blockchain by defaulting to massive (imo unnecessarily so) ring signatures.
He then pointed me to our own WP:
Since the above numbers are pretty meaningless to me maybe a dev can clarify the following:
1) Do we risk bloating up the blockchain using high ringsize values?
2) Is there a diminishing return for ringsizes? (in terms of anonymity/bloat ratio)
3) How does "Suggest Ring Size" choose?
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
EDIT:
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty?
thanks
bump since answers/discussion for 4+5 (thx smooth) moved the thread pretty quick. Below is the fillet:
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
This one I can answer for you. The ring size applies to the input of a tranasction. Since the input here is SDC and that has regular (Bitcoin-style) sigs and not ring sigs it doesn't have a ring size.On the topic of actual size, 16 isn't all that terrible. In the earlier conversation you mentioned 60, which just seems very high to use routinely.
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty (assuming cracking is even the word here)?
Obviously ambiguity of 16 is "better" than ambiguity of 3, but is it "better" enough to justify for the larger use of blockchain space? Very hard to say. It seems the huge gains come from going from 0 (not untraceable at all) or 1 (quite problematic) to 2 (minimum acceptable), 3 (getting better), etc. Beyond that the gains are smaller while space used continues to increase.
If 3 = getting better, why not crank it up to 4, 5 or 6?
And then why not 7, 8 or 9? 10? 11? See how that works?
Obviously the tradeoff is transaction size (and also processing time). I can't say which is "best" objectively.
Quote
the mymonero wallet mix limit is 3 iirc)
I thought it offered 3,4, or 5 but I could be wrong. Anyway all of this stuff will likely change over time, nothing is set in stone.
I cant say as I've noticed any diffs in "processing time" when selecting higher ring values (and only slightly higher tx fees). At least from the users point of view there is not perceptible difference. I'm not sure what's happening "under the hood". Im sure a dev will fill us in at some point.
3 rings (getting better) just seemed a low cap. At some point you can draw a line about max ring sizes if you so choose, point taken. Just felt 3 was slightly "stingy" (for want of a better word).
thx again smooth (i should prob tip you for yourr helpful answers)
Processing time refers to nodes handling large numbers of transactions on a busy network. Either way its going to be measured in milliseconds for an individual transaction, not something you would notice.
sweet
If 3 = getting better, why not crank it up to 4, 5 or 6?
And then why not 7, 8 or 9? 10? 11? See how that works?
Obviously the tradeoff is transaction size (and also processing time). I can't say which is "best" objectively.
Quote
the mymonero wallet mix limit is 3 iirc)
I thought it offered 3,4, or 5 but I could be wrong. Anyway all of this stuff will likely change over time, nothing is set in stone.
I cant say as I've noticed any diffs in "processing time" when selecting higher ring values (and only slightly higher tx fees). At least from the users point of view there is not perceptible difference. I'm not sure what's happening "under the hood". Im sure a dev will fill us in at some point.
3 rings (getting better) just seemed a low cap. At some point you can draw a line about max ring sizes if you so choose, point taken. Just felt 3 was slightly "stingy" (for want of a better word).
thx again smooth (i should prob tip you for yourr helpful answers)
Processing time refers to nodes handling large numbers of transactions on a busy network. Either way its going to be measured in milliseconds for an individual transaction, not something you would notice.
If 3 = getting better, why not crank it up to 4, 5 or 6?
And then why not 7, 8 or 9? 10? 11? See how that works?
Obviously the tradeoff is transaction size (and also processing time). I can't say which is "best" objectively.
Quote
the mymonero wallet mix limit is 3 iirc)
I thought it offered 3,4, or 5 but I could be wrong. Anyway all of this stuff will likely change over time, nothing is set in stone.
I cant say as I've noticed any diffs in "processing time" when selecting higher ring values (and only slightly higher tx fees). At least from the user's point of view there is no perceptible difference. I'm not sure what's happening "under the hood". Im sure a dev will fill us in at some point.
3 rings (getting better) just seemed a low cap. At some point you can draw a line about max ring sizes if you so choose, point taken. Just felt 3 was slightly "stingy" (for want of a better word).
thx again smooth (i should prob tip you for your helpful answers)
If 3 = getting better, why not crank it up to 4, 5 or 6?
And then why not 7, 8 or 9? 10? 11? See how that works?
Obviously the tradeoff is transaction size (and also processing time). I can't say which is "best" objectively.
Quote
the mymonero wallet mix limit is 3 iirc)
I thought it offered 3,4, or 5 but I could be wrong. Anyway all of this stuff will likely change over time, nothing is set in stone.
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
This one I can answer for you. The ring size applies to the input of a tranasction. Since the input here is SDC and that has regular (Bitcoin-style) sigs and not ring sigs it doesn't have a ring size.
On the topic of actual size, 16 isn't all that terrible. In the earlier conversation you mentioned 60, which just seems very high to use routinely.
Updated my post above with an additional q if u wanna have a stab at it:
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty (assuming cracking is even the word here)?
Its very hard to quantify that in a purely objective way. 16 means there are 16 possible senders for the transaction and cryptographically it is impossible to tell them apart. 3 means there are 3 possible senders, again impossible tell which is the real one. But bear in mind these are not senders as in "people" they are "senders" in terms of stealth addresses on the blockchain. You can't in general link any of those to an actual person or address, even if you have transacted with the same person in the past (or do so in the future). So being ambiguous between 3 different unsinkable addresses on a generally opaque blockchain is already quite good.
Obviously ambiguity of 16 is "better" than ambiguity of 3, but is it "better" enough to justify for the larger use of blockchain space? Very hard to say. It seems the huge gains come from going from 0 (not untraceable at all) or 1 (quite problematic) to 2 (minimum acceptable), 3 (getting better), etc. Beyond that the gains are smaller while space used continues to increase.
Thanks for this reply. I hope it sparks a little debate regarding this fascinating topic.
cheers smooth
If 3 = getting better, why not crank it up to 4, 5 or 6?
(the mymonero wallet mix limit is 3 iirc)
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
This one I can answer for you. The ring size applies to the input of a tranasction. Since the input here is SDC and that has regular (Bitcoin-style) sigs and not ring sigs it doesn't have a ring size.
On the topic of actual size, 16 isn't all that terrible. In the earlier conversation you mentioned 60, which just seems very high to use routinely.
Updated my post above with an additional q if u wanna have a stab at it:
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty (assuming cracking is even the word here)?
Its very hard to quantify that in a purely objective way. 16 means there are 16 possible senders for the transaction and cryptographically it is impossible to tell them apart. 3 means there are 3 possible senders, again impossible tell which is the real one. But bear in mind these are not senders as in "people" they are "senders" in terms of stealth addresses on the blockchain. You can't in general link any of those to an actual person or address, even if you have transacted with the same person in the past (or do so in the future). So being ambiguous between 3 different unlinkable addresses on a generally opaque blockchain is already quite good.
Obviously ambiguity of 16 is "better" than ambiguity of 3, but is it "better" enough to justify for the larger use of blockchain space? Very hard to say. It seems the huge gains come from going from 0 (not untraceable at all) or 1 (quite problematic) to 2 (minimum acceptable), 3 (getting better), etc. Beyond that the gains are smaller while space used continues to increase.
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
This one I can answer for you. The ring size applies to the input of a tranasction. Since the input here is SDC and that has regular (Bitcoin-style) sigs and not ring sigs it doesn't have a ring size.
On the topic of actual size, 16 isn't all that terrible. In the earlier conversation you mentioned 60, which just seems very high to use routinely.
Updated my post above with an additional q if u wanna have a stab at it:
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty (assuming cracking is even the word here)?
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
This one I can answer for you. The ring size applies to the input of a tranasction. Since the input here is SDC and that has regular (Bitcoin-style) sigs and not ring sigs it doesn't have a ring size.
On the topic of actual size, 16 isn't all that terrible. In the earlier conversation you mentioned 60, which just seems very high to use routinely.
lulz. yes it was smooth i was dialoguing with (very peacefully I might add)
I thought them interesting tech q's so I thought id bring them in here and for Shadow Team reaction/comment.
hi smooth - man u found my post fast…
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
This one I can answer for you. The ring size applies to the input of a tranasction. Since the input here is SDC and that has regular (Bitcoin-style) sigs and not ring sigs it doesn't have a ring size.
On the topic of actual size, 16 isn't all that terrible. In the earlier conversation you mentioned 60, which just seems very high to use routinely.
Technical Question - Ring Sizes
The Shadow wallet has a "Suggest Ring Size" button I usually hit before sending SDT>SDT or SDT>SDC
The default number before clicking the button is 16 rings. After clicking the button the number can go up to 60 rings in my experience, altho 24 is more common. Values less than 16 can sometimes be "suggested" although ive never sent with anything under 12. TX fees remain low at around 0.005 to 0.01.
In Monero they typically use a MIXIN of 3 which is the equivalent to only 3 rings!
Whilst I feel proud we have so many more rings I wonder if there is a law of diminishing returns regarding ringsize/potential bloat. The comment from the person I dialogued with came through as:
He then pointed me to our own WP:
Since the above numbers are pretty meaningless to me maybe a dev can clarify the following:
1) Do we risk bloating up the blockchain using high ringsize values?
2) Is there a diminishing return for ringsizes? (in terms of anonymity/bloat ratio)
3) How does "Suggest Ring Size" choose?
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
EDIT:
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty?
thanks
The Shadow wallet has a "Suggest Ring Size" button I usually hit before sending SDT>SDT or SDT>SDC
The default number before clicking the button is 16 rings. After clicking the button the number can go up to 60 rings in my experience, altho 24 is more common. Values less than 16 can sometimes be "suggested" although ive never sent with anything under 12. TX fees remain low at around 0.005 to 0.01.
In Monero they typically use a MIXIN of 3 which is the equivalent to only 3 rings!
Whilst I feel proud we have so many more rings I wonder if there is a law of diminishing returns regarding ringsize/potential bloat. The comment from the person I dialogued with came through as:
Quote
SDC developers seem more inclined to bloat up their blockchain by defaulting to massive (imo unnecessarily so) ring signatures.
He then pointed me to our own WP:
Since the above numbers are pretty meaningless to me maybe a dev can clarify the following:
1) Do we risk bloating up the blockchain using high ringsize values?
2) Is there a diminishing return for ringsizes? (in terms of anonymity/bloat ratio)
3) How does "Suggest Ring Size" choose?
4) Why is there no ring-size picker when sending SDC to SDT?
EDIT:
5) How much "stronger" is 16 rings compared to 3 in terms of anonymity? Or cracking difficulty?
thanks
i2psnark is an anonymous seeding function. In just a few clicks you can be rocking anon torrents.
like (torrented) music to my ears these words are. I don't suppose you could help make it happen?
btw: just noticed you updated your signature (i think). nice.
I've been rocking this one for awhile. I plan to update mine when you guys find and refine one you really like.
BTW the Shadow team are looking into and are interested in using the i2p network and its tools. I'm sure Ryno and co would love to make their own variant if it ever becomes viable.
could/would you help if asked? Ryno has spoken highly of your coding abilities and the Shadow Team is on the lookout for more devs. Or perhaps ur in the team already?
n.b. to make it clear to anybody reading I myself am not in the team.
i2psnark is an anonymous seeding function. In just a few clicks you can be rocking anon torrents.
like (torrented) music to my ears these words are. I don't suppose you could help make it happen?
btw: just noticed you updated your signature (i think). nice.
I've been rocking this one for awhile. I plan to update mine when you guys find and refine one you really like.
BTW the Shadow team are looking into and are interested in using the i2p network and its tools. I'm sure Ryno and co would love to make their own variant if it ever becomes viable.
i2psnark is an anonymous seeding function. In just a few clicks you can be rocking anon torrents.
like (torrented) music to my ears these words are. I don't suppose you could help make it happen?
btw: just noticed you updated your signature (i think). nice.
ShadowNET decentralized TOR like internet browser in wallet....?
no mention of TOR pls. it is not sound.
Not sure if you all have heard of XAI but this dude is doing some brilliant stuff that could help us achieve these goals..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5PNWf1Kg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5PNWf1Kg
sry - not my cup of tea
Jump to: