[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 878.

Wanderlust

full member

Activity: 225

Merit: 100

Quote from: Johnny Mnemonic on June 23, 2015, 02:34:53 PM

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 11:29:52 AM

[more off-topic discussion]

This thread is about Monero. Your discussion about BCN and its 80% hoard is not. You are now being disrespectful.

Things you can do about it:

0) Start talking about Monero and how great/ungreat it is.
1) Make your own thread about anything you want. Maybe people will join the discussion.
2) Take your discussion to a relevant thread. If nobody wants to engage you, that's not our problem.
3) Delete your current troll account and try again with another, because you aren't fooling anyone.
4) Get a real job.

Has XMR been discussed in the BCN thread? Yes
Am I evn a BCN community member? No

If u dish it out u should be able to take it. My exploration into this topic has caused some irritation (apologies) but is a piddling nothing compared to the crypto earthquakes that bore Monero screaming into life. I mean no disrespect and will wander off from your thread (pls dont make it harder by quoting me)

I'm not a f*cking troll! NO troll says shit like "with ALL CN coins we have to trust that large holders do not conspire to de-anon our tx's" or that "The only way to [100%] prevent gov(s)/attacker(s)/whoever(s) buying-in and/or mining in order to de-anon the CN system would be to premine a huge amount and vow to not sell it" (both statements i think r true). I asked decent questions and got good replies. thank you.

Having said all that I have pushed the envelope with this one. trying to turn an 80% premine/privatemine scenario into a defence-of-anon argument is a reach, thats for sure. I just wanted to see how close I'd get. One of my take-aways from this experience is that most people seem to think the devs behind CN and BCN are linked, yet those devs remain untrusted and unknown.

I shall take my leave. thanks.

p.s. what's a "job"? Tongue

bye

sdp

sr. member

Activity: 470

Merit: 281

Do we have a light weight SPV wallets for bitmonero so users can use 32-bit clients?

sdp

MoneroMooo

legendary

Activity: 1276

Merit: 1001

Quote from: luigi1111 on June 23, 2015, 04:41:48 PM

Given the transaction specific key, you also need the receiver's public view key to compute ECDH. It's not so much a "decrypt" as "trial 'encrypt' and compare", but it definitely allows linking to standard addresses given the right information.

Ah, I see the code does this now, indeed. Thanks.

luigi1111

legendary

Activity: 1105

Merit: 1000

Quote from: BoscoMurray on June 23, 2015, 04:18:25 PM

Will it be possible to produce view keys to reveal properties of just one particular transaction, or will view key's reveal all transactions relating to one Monero address?

I can envisage scenarios where there is a need to prove a payment took place, so maybe view keys for for single transactions would be useful.

Yes. It would vary depending on if you're the sender or receiver.

For the receiver, you could release the key derivation (ECDH); this would allow the "unmasking' of the stealth addresses given your (the reciever's) public spend key. It doesn't 'technically' confirm that the ECDH was derived from your viewkey, but in practice it's *unlikely* that you're revealing someone else's transaction that happens to be using the exact same spend keypair as you.

For the spender, you can sign a message (probably hash of the tx pub key) with the tx priv key. You can also provide the ECDH (and receiver's public spend key) if you need to prove where it went.
Edit2: in practice, I don't think the software stores r (tx private key), so you wouldn't be able to prove anything after the fact (unless you specifically kept r on hand) as the sender regarding where the funds went (beyond as your own change).

Edit:

Quote from: MoneroMooo on June 23, 2015, 04:32:56 PM

Quote from: BoscoMurray on June 23, 2015, 04:18:25 PM

Will it be possible to produce view keys to reveal properties of just one particular transaction, or will view key's reveal all transactions relating to one Monero address?

The view key that's part of the address reveals all payments to that address.
Every transaction sent uses a transaction specific key, however, and that key can theoretically be shared with a third party, who can then use it to decrypt the transaction.
I'm not sure whether that third party could know which outputs are change, though (and thus the exact amount). The addresses the outputs get sent to would be one time addresses, and thus not directly linkable to a standard address.

Given the transaction specific key, you also need the receiver's public view key to compute ECDH. It's not so much a "decrypt" as "trial 'encrypt' and compare", but it definitely allows linking to standard addresses given the right information.

MoneroMooo

legendary

Activity: 1276

Merit: 1001

Quote from: BoscoMurray on June 23, 2015, 04:18:25 PM

Will it be possible to produce view keys to reveal properties of just one particular transaction, or will view key's reveal all transactions relating to one Monero address?

The view key that's part of the address reveals all payments to that address.
Every transaction sent uses a transaction specific key, however, and that key can theoretically be shared with a third party, who can then use it to decrypt the transaction.
I'm not sure whether that third party could know which outputs are change, though (and thus the exact amount). The addresses the outputs get sent to would be one time addresses, and thus not directly linkable to a standard address.

BoscoMurray

sr. member

Activity: 450

Merit: 250

Will it be possible to produce view keys to reveal properties of just one particular transaction, or will view key's reveal all transactions relating to one Monero address?

I can envisage scenarios where there is a need to prove a payment took place, so maybe view keys for for single transactions would be useful.

dnaleor

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1000

Want privacy? Use Monero!

Quote from: shitaifan2013 on June 23, 2015, 01:36:31 PM

Quote from: dnaleor on June 23, 2015, 10:20:41 AM

dnaleor played some agar.io again today Tongue

I did so too yesterday Grin

european server, FFA in case anyone wants to play

My score was about double than yours Wink

The game is ON !!! Cheesy

edit: good job though Grin

dnaleor

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1000

Want privacy? Use Monero!

Quote from: Anon136 on June 23, 2015, 10:22:19 AM

Quote from: dnaleor on June 23, 2015, 10:20:41 AM

dnaleor played some agar.io again today Tongue

http://i.gyazo.com/77f072664463e84cb3ccda561e8b0589.png

I've gotten #2 before but never yet #1. Did you have allies or did you manage that solo?

I play solo. Allies is for newbs Tongue

Johnny Mnemonic

hero member

Activity: 795

Merit: 514

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 11:29:52 AM

[more off-topic discussion]

This thread is about Monero. Your discussion about BCN and its 80% hoard is not. You are now being disrespectful.

Things you can do about it:

0) Start talking about Monero and how great/ungreat it is.
1) Make your own thread about anything you want. Maybe people will join the discussion.
2) Take your discussion to a relevant thread. If nobody wants to engage you, that's not our problem.
3) Delete your current troll account and try again with another, because you aren't fooling anyone.
4) Get a real job.

superresistant

legendary

Activity: 2156

Merit: 1131

Quote from: dnaleor on June 23, 2015, 10:20:41 AM

dnaleor played some agar.io again today Tongue

http://i.gyazo.com/77f072664463e84cb3ccda561e8b0589.png

Good team play on Europe server too.
I "[XMR] Monero" teamed with "[XMR] Monejito" and "EA".
We ate all the damn Doge.

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 03:01:35 AM

I agree it a spurious theory but the only one i could come up with which gives BCN the benefit of the doubt.
I agree it a spurious theory but the only one i could come up with which gives BCN the benefit of the doubt.
I agree it a spurious theory but the only one i could come up with which gives BCN the benefit of the doubt.
I agree it a spurious theory but the only one i could come up with which gives BCN the benefit of the doubt.
I agree it a spurious theory but the only one i could come up with which gives BCN the benefit of the doubt.

In other more relevant news, I'm too old to benefit in any way from a doughnut.

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 11:29:52 AM

You're breaking the rules of the thought experiment. the IF they dont sell must be observed. if it is i believe the statement true. whilst one cannot be sure the devs are not de-anoning their own tech it is arguably better not to give a bad player a chance at doing so.

No it's not, you're breaking the rules of logic here. It's not because you have zero knowledge of whether the "devs" are a bad player, or vulnerable to collusion with a bad player.

shitaifan2013

legendary

Activity: 874

Merit: 1000

monero

Quote from: dnaleor on June 23, 2015, 10:20:41 AM

dnaleor played some agar.io again today Tongue

I did so too yesterday Grin

european server, FFA in case anyone wants to play

edit: sry for the giant picture, going to upload a smaller one.

cAPSLOCK

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 5146

Note the unconventional cAPITALIZATION!

Quote from: GingerAle on June 23, 2015, 01:06:08 PM

i want that doughnut.

You should never have too much!!! Here have this slightly smaller one:

GingerAle

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

i want that doughnut.

luigi1111

legendary

Activity: 1105

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 11:29:52 AM

You're breaking the rules of the thought experiment. the IF they dont sell must be observed. if it is i believe the statement true. whilst one cannot be sure the devs are not de-anoning their own tech it is arguably better not to give a bad player a chance at doing so.

"So you can choose your poison. Either certain traceability by the original fraudulent developers, or easier traceability by a subsequent attacker"

assuming the devs dont work for 3-letter orgs it's a close call. they have less motive to de-anonymize than most. the latter provides no greater reassurances than the former.

No. No. No. A thousand times no.

Your "thought experiment" is meaningless.

Particularly this bit:

Quote

...it's a close call

No, it's not a close call. Smooth already demolished it:

Quote

Furthermore I'd add that it won't work, because given such a premine and intelligent users (or wallet developers) they will simply avoid mixing with the premine outputs. This in turn makes the task of an attacker easier, because now that attacker need only control a large portion of the remaining outputs, a far smaller number.

This has nothing to do with "breaking the rules" and nothing to do with the devs keeping their word and not selling. The idea that they could keep 80% of the outputs to "prevent" someone else from doing so makes it *easier* for the malicious entity.

Quote

Clearly CN coins have a prob. On the BTC network there is no diff between users save the amounts in their addys. On CN coin networks there is no diff except for the balances AND the ability of large stakeholders to have a chance at de-anoning tx's.

Either way with ALL CN coins we have to trust that large holders do not conspire to de-anon our tx's Sad

You're not getting it. A CN coin where a majority of outputs are controlled by a single entity or group is STILL much more anonymous than BTC.
CN > degraded CN > BTC

Quote

it follows the CN/BCN devs might take the only theoretical measure to prevent bad actors (or bad actors other than themselves) from doing just that.

No. It doesn't follow at all. You can reach all kinds of "reasonable" conclusions from the (limited) data we have available on the situations. The above is not one of them.

Good luck in your hunt for knowledge.

g4q34g4qg47ww

sr. member

Activity: 478

Merit: 250

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 11:29:52 AM

Clearly CN coins have a prob.

...

Either way with ALL CN coins we have to trust that large holders do not conspire to de-anon our tx's Sad

No. But if a CN coin had a ridiculously out of proportion ownership (as BCN does, and as it has been explained to XMR does not) then it would be a problem. Do you mind stepping out of the spotlight for a bit? Not really interested in watching the gears of your brain spin and smoke.

Wanderlust

full member

Activity: 225

Merit: 100

Quote from: smooth on June 23, 2015, 10:14:51 AM

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 10:09:21 AM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on June 23, 2015, 09:52:24 AM

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 08:47:04 AM

The only way to prevent gov(s)/attacker(s)/whoever(s) buying-in and/or mining in order to de-anon the CN system would be to premine a huge amount and vow to not sell it.

That is a central bank.

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 08:47:04 AM

(LOL. I know that sounds like trolling but the logic is sound, yes? In this scenario the creators, aware of the fatal flaw, take the only measure possible to securie its anonymity forever*, assuming they keep their vow to never sell)

FWIW I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt as we get to know you.

You just added enough to the "doubt" pile that I am second guessing that benefit.

preposterous as it sounds the statement it seems to me is true. bytecoin scam or no bytecoin scam. as I say Ill now look to see the last 12 months+ trading history to see if it has already been disproved by large% sales.

why stop giving me the benefit of the doubt after my most curious insight thus far that arguably a CN coin's anon cannot be safeguarded unless a large % is never sold on exchanges or mined by bad actors or both, and (very tentatively, perhaps regrettably) provides BCN with a justification for a premine.

understand this is purely a thought-experment. i am not vouching for anything here.

Since you are repeating this nonsense, you obviously missed the correct answer I already gave earlier.

Quote from: smooth

No, because such a vow could never be verified or enforced, and furthermore you don't need to sell it, just share information about it. There is certainly no possibility of confidence as long as someone is in a position to do that in an invisible and undetectable manner.

Furthermore I'd add that it won't work, because given such a premine and intelligent users (or wallet developers) they will simply avoid mixing with the premine outputs. This in turn makes the task of an attacker easier, because now that attacker need only control a large portion of the remaining outputs, a far smaller number.

So you can choose your poison. Either certain traceability by the original fraudulent developers, or easier traceability by a subsequent attacker.

Or you can just leave the scammers to the dustbin of history and use a true open source coin with a open, community-driven development process and a fair ongoing distribution process that makes it extraordinarily unlikely for anyone to control anywhere near 80%, particularly if the coin actually sees widespread use.

Isn't life a bit too short to be wasting your mental effort trying to come up with increasingly contrived excuses for Bytecoin's fraud and greed?

You're breaking the rules of the thought experiment. the IF they dont sell must be observed. if it is i believe the statement true. whilst one cannot be sure the devs are not de-anoning their own tech it is arguably better not to give a bad player a chance at doing so.

"So you can choose your poison. Either certain traceability by the original fraudulent developers, or easier traceability by a subsequent attacker"

assuming the devs dont work for 3-letter orgs it's a close call. they have less motive to de-anonymize than most. the latter provides no greater reassurances than the former.

Clearly CN coins have a prob. On the BTC network there is no diff between users save the amounts in their addys. On CN coin networks there is no diff except for the balances AND the ability of large stakeholders to have a chance at de-anoning tx's. it follows the CN/BCN devs might take the only theoretical measure to prevent bad actors (or bad actors other than themselves) from doing just that.

Either way with ALL CN coins we have to trust that large holders do not conspire to de-anon our tx's Sad

cAPSLOCK

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 5146

Note the unconventional cAPITALIZATION!

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 23, 2015, 10:09:21 AM

why stop giving me the benefit of the doubt after my most curious insight thus far that arguably a CN coin's anon cannot be safeguarded unless a large % is never sold on exchanges or mined by bad actors or both, and (very tentatively, perhaps regrettably) provides BCN with a justification for a premine.

Because you are acting as a BCN apologist. You are trying to stretch reason to the point of snapping to defend an 80% premine.

Why would you be doing this? I can only think of a couple reasons. The one you are portraying is that of "honest curiosity".

You will not often see me accuse a poster of attempting to pump a coin... I am getting close though.

numismatist

legendary

Activity: 1245

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Wanderlust on June 22, 2015, 08:58:29 AM

my problem is motive.

1) GREED

2) To DE-ANON

3) To prevent a DE-ANON

consider investigating a possibility number 4

4) A setup game of good cop vs. bad cop.
One group, both sides same party, staging the villains part and the heroics.
Prerequisites: would have to be cops.

Test environment: place a donut into this thread and take a look at who bites into it, or quotes it. Pretty simple and not boring at all.

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 878. (Read 4671953 times)