SURAE NOETHER is a pseudonymn and after the whole van Saberhagen debate I'd have thought the author of a Monero review would be a known entity. Is he?
Shadow sailing smooth. Disappointed with delay of peer review altho new HD wallets incoming. Nevertheless I decided to stretch my legs on land for a couple weeks.
p.s. XMR > MR.X (have fun)
Shadow sailing smooth. Disappointed with delay of peer review altho new HD wallets incoming. Nevertheless I decided to stretch my legs on land for a couple weeks.
p.s. XMR > MR.X (have fun)
What Saberhagen debate? Nobody has ever taken umbrage with Saberhagen being a pseudonym, as his paper was really quite good and quite a unique application of group signatures (among other things). He is more than welcome to remain as pseudonymous as Satoshi Nakamoto.
The issues that have been raised as respects "known entities" have been raised around Bytecoin's alleged release many years ago, which is demonstrably untrue. Because this has been corroborated by the Cryptonote "people", and there is the PDF signing issue, we can only conclude that they are in on the scam. Trying to find "known entities", that were aware of Bytecoin many years ago, would largely be a non-issue if the some of the Cryptonote "people" were known, or if Saberhagen was known, or if the Bytecoin developers were known. That way there would be some implicit trust because of their previous work.
It's also important to understand that being "known" has nothing to do with your real world identity, what is written on your passport. It has everything to do with your interactions with people, and work that you have made public, over a long period of time.
To answer your question, the identities of the MRL participants are elaborated on here: https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people
Firstly thanks for the reply.
1) Highlighted RED: I take umbrage with: really quite good (only quite?), many years (3), demonstrably untrue (Im not convinced).
- you state the CryptoNote Team is "in on the scam". Noted, no pun intended (again unconvinced). Moving along…
2) Highlighted BLUE: (I also take umbrage with) You place the BCN guys in a bind, a Catch 22. Those who wish to remain anonymous will hardly reveal their identities and anybody who comes along with a pseudonym saying they were there in 2012/13 will certainly be dismissed out-of-hand. archive.org cant help given the origins. I am struggling to imagine what might convince you BCN was started in 2012 but am finding it hard to think of what.
3) Highlighted GREEN: the answer. cheers. so SURAE NOETHER is indeed an anonymous entity with credentials (we are lead to believe) who works for Monero Research Labs. OK. Whilst his paper is probably sound since he is a pseudonym it is necessary for a known entity to (at some point) validate the paper, no? One of the points of the Zeuner Review (SDC) is that Zeuner IS a known entity and respected etc etc Getting one anon guy to review another is pretty meta. Point taken about reputations - this helps to a degree altho Surae has no rep like Satoshi and if Satoshi re-appeared magically he'd also be dismissed as prob being a phoney.
It is all very well for anon geniuses to come along and write papers so long as known entities validate the work. Without wishing to cast aspersions on Surae has this happened? thanks
