Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1429. (Read 4671947 times)

I LOVE this idea.  And it does NOT change the social contract - it helps ensure it actually gets delivered by not allowing the coin to die.

I would spend Moneros voting pro this idea.  Rptellia, smooth, fluffypony, tacotime?  Somebody with clout please ...  

1 - everyone pays the price (more supply - early inflation = everyone pays the price)

BBR has a 1% dev tax, and I still consider it free as in FOSS.  VIA had a completely fair, transparent, and very successful presale of Block 1's 10% of total coins.

We should emulate both of these approaches, and combine them to make Monero a staggeringly well funded project with concomitant high resiliency/survivability characteristics...

I'm a Monero investor who has been hloding tight since it was at parity with Primecoin, and only traded on cryptonoteexchange.

Which is more unfair to me?
A) risking the near certainty of devs running out of enthusiasm/money for completion of our very ambitions goals (thus XMR being unable to grow and respond to emergencies), or,
B) changing the emission 'social contract' condition by a slight degree

I think the former is far more unfair, because it puts my entire investment at risk in entirely predictable and probably preventable ways, IE liquidity crises and stagnation.

The emission 'social contract' is not set in stone, EG the final emission rate is still undecided.

As in investor, I don't feel comfortable being a free rider by expecting the devs to work for free/cheap, or jointly subsidizing others' free rides by making piddly one time donations.

Yes, the devteam has proven themselves worth of a pre-mine which never happened.  Here is how to create it:

As in investor, I don't feel comfortable being a free rider by expecting the devs to work for free/cheap, or jointly subsidizing others' free rides by making piddly one time donations.

This sounds pretty fair to me, but then again i'm not all that savvy on premines or how it may or may not affect current prices etc.

Sounds like the general consensus is that either way, something must be done, these guys can't work for free, or this whole project will just never happen... something has to give, somewhere....


I feel the same way here, thanks for posting your idea, even if it gets shot down by devs or whatever...        

BBR has a 1% dev tax, and I still consider it free as in FOSS.  VIA had a completely fair, transparent, and very successful presale of Block 1's 10% of total coins.

We should emulate both of these approaches, and combine them to make Monero a staggeringly well funded project with concomitant high resiliency/survivability characteristics...

I'm a Monero investor who has been hloding tight since it was at parity with Primecoin, and only traded on cryptonoteexchange.

Which is more unfair to me?
A) risking the near certainty of devs running out of enthusiasm/money for completion of our very ambitions goals (thus XMR being unable to grow and respond to emergencies), or,
B) changing the emission 'social contract' condition by a slight degree

I think the former is far more unfair, because it puts my entire investment at risk in entirely predictable and probably preventable ways, IE liquidity crises and stagnation.

The emission 'social contract' is not set in stone, EG the final emission rate is still undecided.

As in investor, I don't feel comfortable being a free rider by expecting the devs to work for free/cheap, or jointly subsidizing others' free rides by making piddly one time donations.

Yes, the devteam has proven themselves worth of a pre-mine which never happened.  Here is how to create it:

Thank you for posting. Seems you understand it well. Please use proper notation and tell me  what  "I = xHp(P)" means

https://www.certicom.com/index.php/52-the-elliptic-curve-discrete-logarithm-problem (and https://www.certicom.com/index.php/the-basics-of-ecc)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve_point_multiplication

http://homepages.warwick.ac.uk/~masiao/maths/lecturenotes/ellipticnotes.pdf

http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6090

http://people.irisa.fr/Arnaud.Tisserand/docs/slides-semcairn09-ecc-4p.pdf

http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/653/basic-explanation-of-elliptic-curve-cryptography

http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/10/a-relatively-easy-to-understand-primer-on-elliptic-curve-cryptography/

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/riccardo/courses/cs6750-fa09/talks/Ellis-elliptic-curve-crypto.pdf

http://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/3907/how-does-one-calculate-the-scalar-multiplication-on-elliptic-curves

Please go read up, and then if there are specific questions once you have come to a proper understanding of the notation used when expressing elliptic curve multiplication then feel free to ask.

so what exact "I = x * Hp(P)" means ?

I'll just quote from someone who knows way more math than I do -


sarang: The operation is actually repeated elliptic addition... and that addition is really a curve intersection and some other complicated shit
sarang: Multiplying an integer by an elliptic curve point is well-defined
sarang: the x*H(p) is not another hash
sarang: You convert the hash output H(p) to an elliptic point
sarang: and then do the integer-elliptic multiplication
sarang: so it's super important to identify what is an integer and what is an elliptic curve point
sarang: The notation is identical, as it would be in formal mathematics
sarang: They usually use lowercase for integers and uppercase for points
sarang: and always use the multiplication order integer*point
sarang: just as a matter of convention, that is
sarang: so anyone saying you can divide a point by an integer is wrong
sarang: elliptic curve crypto would be broken wide open if that were the case
sarang: Oh, and G is NOT a hash function. It's the elliptic base point
sarang: so A is also an elliptic point

Someone needs to check the source code too but I believe the whitepaper's notation is screwed up.

The paper defines private key a and public Key A through the transformation A = a*G, where G is the Hash function.
So in this case, the multiplication step is to denote the hash mapping.

In the paper, it also defined the key image as I = x * Hp(P)

Now this seems like it is the multiplication of private key x with the hash to the public key P.

But I think this is actually I = x * Hp(P) = x*G2, where G2 like above is another hash function so this is just a hash of private key x using some deterministic hash function that is dependent on public key P (Hp(P)).

Someone needs to check the source code too but I believe the whitepaper's notation is screwed up.

The paper defines private key a and public Key A through the transformation A = a*G, where G is the Hash function.
So in this case, the multiplication step is to denote the hash mapping.

In the paper, it also defined the key image as I = x * Hp(P)

Now this seems like it is the multiplication of private key x with the hash to the public key P.

But I think this is actually I = x * Hp(P) = x*G2, where G2 like above is another hash function so this is just a hash of private key x using some deterministic hash function that is dependent on public key P (Hp(P)).

I'll apply H_p on all public keys (P is public key) in signature.
I know I, P, H_p(P) seems I can compute x

x = I / Hp(P)
 

Edit:
P is one of 6 public keys ... I'll try all

You don't have to fully believe either option, if you think there's 10% chance it is true, the price should take 10% cut, right?

https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf

lol, but everybody can compute "key image" from public key and then identify the signer


Edit
if this mean I = x * Hp(P) then I can compute even x

x = I / Hp(P)
I is known  and I can compute all Hp(Px)

You don't have to fully believe either option, if you think there's 10% chance it is true, the price should take 10% cut, right?

I have been thinking on the coin-killer posts and the more I read it the more I smell BS, there is nothing proving it is more than FUD, if people are dumping because of this they will be sorry soon.

H_p is a deterministic hash function. You only know I, x is secret. P is computed using x. Explain again how you're going to reverse the hash function?

H_p is a deterministic hash function. You only know I, x is secret. P is computed using x. Explain again how you're going to reverse the hash function?