Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1152. (Read 4670673 times)

So is there an estimates of how many nodes are out there on the network?  I assume a mining pool acts as a node. So if you are running simple wallet and daemon, does that act as a node, or do you have to have the daemon ports forwarded to be a true node.

So when running a node does it auto store the block chain every 12 hours?

Cross posting David's post:

Well, let's see who is speaking high of Monero or CryptoNote in general and has some reputation.

• Gregory Maxwell, Core Bitcoin developer
• Andrew Poelstra, respected cryptographer and prominent Bitcoin developer (most extensive example)
• Nicolas Courtois, academic cryptographer, 8 patents (most extensive example)
• Risto Pietila, Bitcoin millionaire (most extensive example)
• Theymos, Bitcointalk founder (most extensive example)
• apparently, a sizeable part of dark markets
• probably a lot I forgot

I've seen worse ignorance.

More information: Why Monero matters, The Three Pillars of Monero

Well, let's see who is speaking high of Monero or CryptoNote in general and has some reputation.

• At least one Core Bitcoin developer
• Andrew Poelstra, respected cryptographer and prominent Bitcoin developer (most extensive example)
• Nicolas Courtois, academic cryptographer, 8 patents (most extensive example)
• Risto Pietila, Bitcoin millionaire (most extensive example)
• Theymos, Bitcointalk founder (most extensive example)
• apparently, a sizeable part of dark markets
• probably a lot I forgot

I've seen worse ignorance.

More information: Why Monero matters, The Three Pillars of Monero

next wave of investments will be towards bitcoin blockchain tracking and analytics for sure...

Sophia is an embeddable, transactional key-value database.

It has unique architecture that was created as a result of research and reconsideration primary algorithmic constraints of Log-file based data structures, such as LSM-tree. (see architecture)

Sophia is designed for fast write (append-only) and read (range query-optimized, adaptive architecture) small to medium-sized key-values.
------

* Full ACID compliancy

* Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC) engine

* Pure Append-Only

* Multi-databases support (Single environment and WAL)

* Multi-Statement and Single-Statement Transactions (SERIALIZED view, multi-databases)

* Multi-threaded (Client access and Engine scalability)

* Consistent Cursors

* Point-in-Time Snapshots

* Asynchronous Online/Hot Backup

* Easy to use (Clean and functional API)

* Easy to integrate (Native support of using as storage engine)

* Easy to write bindings (FFI-friendly, API designed to be stable in future)

* Easy to built-in (Amalgamated, only two C files needed for work)

* Implemented as small C-written library with zero dependencies

* BSD Licensed

r/bitcoin, "But I really, really, really want Bitcoin to be anonymous. Did I mention really?"

next wave of investments will be towards bitcoin blockchain tracking and analytics for sure...

err.. this is getting a bit obvious now, to not say ridiculous: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2uin7s/former_nsa_intelligence_agent_raises_nearly_1/

I think we tend to see less completely blind bitcoiners "bitcoin is completely fungible and anonymous" as before. But more and more "if you take sufficient precautions, you can hide your traces". Basically they're saying "if *I* can't trace something, therefore *nobody else* can, now and forever". Which is surprisingly naive.

Btw, we must be careful, I fear soon enough we'll see some "if you don't do evil, bitcoin is sufficiently private", which is a dangerous line of thoughts.

I think we tend to see less completely blind bitcoiners "bitcoin is completely fungible and anonymous" as before. But more and more "if you take sufficient precautions, you can hide your traces". Basically they're saying "if *I* can't trace something, therefore *nobody else* can, now and forever". Which is surprisingly naive.

Btw, we must be careful, I fear soon enough we'll see some "if you don't do evil, bitcoin is sufficiently private", which is a dangerous line of thoughts.

How about a software upgrade where the software client replaces any user generated transaction's mixin parameter with 3, if the user does not enter a mixin or if mixin is less than 3

This will not require a hard fork.


I was looking at simplewallet.cpp but I'm not sure exactly where the code change would be https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/master/src/simplewallet/simplewallet.cpp

Calling BinaryFate

This sadly seems the consensus at r/bitcoin

"[–]dangero 29 points 7 hours ago
You can't track every single satoshi. Multiple inputs can be combined into a single output. At that point you cannot say which satoshi came from which input. Once they're mixed like that you can't separate them again and say which part came from where. It's like pouring multiple smaller cups of water into one larger cup. Once they are combined and mixed you can't provably separate them again. Even if you pour half out into another cup, who is to say where that half originally came from? Bitcoin is absolutely fungible."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2uew9j/bitcoin_is_a_finite_resource_like_land_if_you_own/

I know it's wrong, but I'm not sure I know how wrong it is.

First of all, typically you can assume it is the same entity that had control over all inputs, if they include them in the same transaction.

Anyway, what you describe is true, and is technically the way bitcoin works. It means you cannot trace back every single satoshis to a given initial block X, and know their full history until they've reached their current destination. It does make bitcoin a little bit fungible, since you can't have perfect knowledge at the level of the smallest atomic values. Agree with you up to this point.
Now I disagree with your conclusion: you explain rightfully that bitcoin is at least a little bit fungible and conclude that it is thus fungible. Sophist logic to me. Unlike my fate, you cannot think of fungibility as being only a binary attribute. If it were, and I would follow the same logic as you do, I could easily demonstrate that bitcoin is not perfectly fungible, and would conclude that therefore it is not fungible at all. (A simple example of a drug dealer sending you bitcoins from a wallet later seized by authorities would do it...).

Fungibility is a complex property in the case of digital currencies. I don't think it's even just a linear scale on which you could "place" them, let alone as I said just a binary answer "yes it is", "no it is not". What is sure is that there is a very common overestimation of how strong bitcoin's fungibility actually is.

Think of it practically: if bitcoin's fungibility is already so good it suits all our needs, why do we have to trust mixers/tumblers that cost us money? If bitcoin's fungibility is already so good it suits all our needs, why do we have A. Poelstra and G. Maxwell working on strong and fundamental improvements? (see http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2oh7vq/toward_unlinkable_bitcoin_transactions_andrew/)

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Idunno?


I'll be at casino for who knows how long so I will take awhile to pay as well. I'll be back sometime between tonight and Friday depending on how the Poker tables are treating me.