Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1429. (Read 4671575 times)

It is my belief that the question of funding will get solved not by a single solution but by a combination of several ones. This in turns means that 1) no option need to be very ambitious and 2) we can afford for some options to be discarded later on as they are deemed inappropriate.
To reiterate what smooth just wrote, the fact that it is happening while the coin is already known and people had time to judge the coin, the project and the team, should definitely help in making it more acceptable. Also, I'm not a big fan of "set in stone" here. My experience proves that, as long as people know that the rules can change later on, there are OK with it. When (possible) changes is part of the contract, this is fine - only unexpected changes should be avoided, changes announced well in advance are OK.

That being said, donations should be handled as they are now: dev decide what to do with the money. Not the competitors, not the donators, not the big investors. This is what we did until now, it allowed us to diligently make the most out of it and, if this doesn't suffice, MEW will act the exact same way.
If this is not enough, consider that governance would become much harder: all of a sudden, someone else than the devs could consider what is a priority without necessarily having all the information to make an informed decision. We would spend more time discussing than acting. Shills and trolls would invite themselves in the discussion to try to sabotage it all. We would have to keep two different accounts: one for money we can use as we see fit and one for money we must ask for usage.
Much ado bloat for nothing, in my opinion. Especially considering we already proved who we are and what we can do, contrary to a pre-launch IPO.

If someone is not comfortable with giving us a blank cheque, then one could use this money on one of the many crowdfunded projects that will pop up later on. Keeping in mind that some crowdfunded projets might never happen if the fundations are not paid...

Still, this is good to have some constructive proposals for ensuring Monero will thrive. Keep it on!

lol. I believe this is actually the cryptographer who the XMR devs had vet the whitepaper ... google is your friend.. I'm not.

geez why so many accounts anonnymint 

The notation in the whitepaper and what you've seen here is proper notation. I = x*H_p(P) means x times H_p(P) where H_p is a hash function, H_p(P) is the hash function evaluated at a point, and * denotes elliptic curve multiplication which is NOT normal multiplication. Just like matrix multiplication is not the same as usual multiplication, elliptic curve multiplication takes place in a different manner than what you learned in, say, elementary algebra class. This is an abstract multiplicative notion, it is quite usual and proper to see it used this way.

For further reading, I would not begin necessarily with fluffypony's wall of links, but with Daepp and Gorkin's "Reading, Writing, and Proving" to learn a little bit about formal mathematics, and then maybe move onto Trappe and Washington's "Introduction to Cryptography." In that order. Be sure to try all the exercises in both books before asking any more questions.

Edit: I a word.

I certainly think it is premature to make any kind of decision or even consider voting, etc., but the discussion is healthy and interesting. I 100% applaud the willingness to think big and break a few "rules" in crafting a proposal, whether or not it gets adopted. More of this please!

There are some things I really like about the idea. For example, compared to a premine or IPO, I very much like that it is happening after there has been some experience with the coin and team, rather than right at the start when it's all promises, no distribution or established market value, and no track record.

There are some things I think are quite strange and need further explanation and/or revision. I'm not even sure how much of this is sincere. Some of the biggest problems with the emission of the coin is the rewards going away too soon. Pulling from the tail end of the distribution makes that worse. Fund being 50/50 in BTC/XMR might be a bad idea to set in stone for all time, and would almost certainly be a bad idea to enforce quickly, because it would require dumping a ton of XMR (unless that were somehow built into the bidding). And CZ?!

I'm not a fan "everything must be set in stone because that is the social contract" model that comes out of Bitcoin's precedent. I think part of the whole idea of doing something that isn't Bitcoin is to try to improve on it, and especially not feel compelled to follow its precedent when it doesn't work for us (and arguably hasn't even worked for it). That is not just code, and especially not just anonymity, but also culture and process.

How about not quoting the whole thing (especially incorrectly) repeatedly though? It makes the thread very hard to read.

I think this is a false dilemma. There are other options that don't fiddle with the fundamentals of the coin that should be tried first.

I like the idea, but I'm sure there must be implications I can't encompass. Can't wait to see how the core-team react to it.

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 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)

So much math... need to dummy it down a bit and read a Wolverine comic

I explained it earlier. It is elliptic curve multiplication between x (an integer) and Hp which is a point.

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

I think
  a) hash(P) -> I know pseudo-identity (worst case, same as Bitcoin)
  b) x*hash(P) ->  I know identity + x (worst case, ZERO)
  c) hash(x) -> Nobody can verify transaction  and "math" does not work (I can double spend)
  d) P*hash(x) -> I can double spend (I can cheat with hash(x))
  e) I do not know -> we will see
  f) Monero to the Moon

:-)

lol cryptography, how does it work?

https://www.certicom.com/index.php/52-the-elliptic-curve-discrete-logarithm-problem

No.

Your statement lacks sound reasoning.

'You' is who? I believe that you mean it in the universal sense, but there is no way to determine the ratio of truthiness vs falseyness that all XMR and cryptocurrency market members ascertain in relation to said 'coin-killer posts.'

Furthermore, price is not necessarily proportional to the 'chance it is true.'

Simple answer. It is elliptic curve multiplication. The hash gives you a point. This isn't invertible, so no, you can't do I/H.