Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 883. (Read 4670673 times)

The substance of his concerns is legitimate and it has been passed on to the mathematicians of MRL who are analyzing it. My intuition is that the probability of the saturation traceability occurring in practice is extremely low and it therefore doesn't matter, but that isn't a reason to dismiss the issue outright, it still needs to be analyzed and if necessary addressed.

Hi,

On monero.crypto-pool.fr we just implemented the mixing in an original but effective way.

He wants to launch his own coin from scratch, that should tell you.

I'm grateful for this new variety: The Inquisitive Troll^(TM)

X-post TPTB_need_war thought this was being ignored, though I don't think Fluffy had a chance to read it and it got buried in the thread.

The following should have been implied, but let me make it more explicit, which may also resolve the issue with exchanges and getting this fix into Monero asap (although I have not studied that issue, only heard about it second hand).

The only sane way my above suggestion can be implemented is that outputs eligible for fixed size mixins must be marked as such by the transaction that created them, otherwise if the fixed size (and outputs) mixins were global then there is no way to merge the leftover change from several transactions into one transaction. I believe BoolBerry had a conceptually similar mechanism to mark outputs with some specific attribute for mixing. So the marked outputs must be mixed with and only with the "next N outputs of same denomination on the block chain" when they are spent.

Thus when you want to mix your outputs with assurance against unmasking due to Combinatorial Cascade and Temporal Association, then you mark the output for fixed size mixing.

In my opinion, this is an emergency fix because afaics the anonymity is broken as it is now, but I can't say that I've done any deep analysis on how likely the unmasking is on existing patterns in the Monero block chain.

Hope this helps, displays my gratitude to those who rewarded me for my effort during the BCX incident, and most importantly hope Monero can implement it asap because I would like to make my best attempt to create a use case gift to XMR HODLers soon and this fix may be required. Perhaps someone else had already suggested this idea, I don't know.

The pruning comes from the fact that if the mixes are fixed size then after N transactions of the same ring have been seen, those outputs (that are inputs to those N rings) can be pruned from the UXTO.

If (and that's a big IF) different mining groups have mined BCN from the beginning and IF over 100+ individuals hold large amounts of BCN (and not <10) then maybe the origin story doesnt matter.

It is poetic that the anon nature of this beast prevents us from verifying this one way or the other.

Ahhhh.... the Troll evolution.

...that's not a sig, it's an asterisk.

Therefor the likely 3 groups named above. btw some russian hacker is mentioned in "opening the lid of BCN". Noted his name's initials also spell NSA*

OK, lets see some proof of this sig.

...
thx for the replies smooth, much obliged.


*Andrey N. Sabelnikov

....

I'm just peeling the onion (trying to).  ...

I'm grateful for this new variety: The Inquisitive Troll^(TM)

Creating a new account for the sole purpose of portraying interest and curiosity, gracefully wording each question such that it introduces the very subtle possibility that: contrary to what all the quacking might have us think, it is not a duck. Seriously, well done. At least it is a step up from The Concerned Troll^(TM), that one has gotten boring... 
Carry on.

PS: It is a duck alright.

My agenda isn't hidden. I just want to learn more about the history here. I had been vaguely aware of the controversy regrading BCN's beginnings but didnt take an interest until recently when I saw their new wallets and roadmap. tbh my initial reaction on seeing this was "WTF?!, wasnt this supposed to be… dead?". Apparently not. So Im looking into it.

IF (and that's a big IF) all this posting about BCN had not a (not-so-well) hidden agenda...

Sabelnikov is not a pseudonym. http://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2012/01/23/microsoft-names-new-defendant-in-kelihos-case/

Sure


Smart people do dumb things all the time. Here's a nice list for a start: http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/10-smart-people-dumb-things.htm


If the "just kidding" defense worked, it would be a get-out-of-jail-free card for every fraudster in history. There was no "for fun" involved there. It was part of a list of credential-heavy bios (the others likely embellished or completely made up as well) obviously intended to boost the reputation of the team and the coin. Unfortunately it did the opposite.

what is your point? Just go use Bytecoin then and be part of their community, I'm sure they will welcome you with open arms.

BCN

Mu understanding is that CN is a cryptographic tour de force which likely required some brilliant minds to create. Do you agree?

If so how could such great minds be such lousy scammers? They would have forged the whitepapers dates correctly (assuming they were deliberately forged to deceive)

All the Princeton stuff might have been "for fun", teasing the crypto-community yet more (obv that was never gonna hold water). It's all very odd.