Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1307. (Read 3314316 times)
You have to take into account the people who would rule on such issues have no idea how any of it works. If Monero had a fixed mix-in count, the prosecution would never be able to figure out what's going on behind the scenes and just think Monero and Zcash are both anonymous due to magic. If some average Joe can bring a screenshot to the stand of a mix-in slider, a non-computer literate person might equate that to laundering and not magic.
I was thinking earlier about the legal system vs crypto. Does anyone think user defined mixing will be a weakpoint of Monero in the legal department? As in, a fixed mixed count would have been preferable if attempting to design around the law when user defined is pretty similar to active mixing.
It seems kind of obvious that governments would be far more likely to consider active mixing as an act of laundering (darkcoin), while if anonymity is part of the protocol itself, it's just a shortcoming of government auditing. Both Monero and Zcash are safer legal-wise (than Darkcoin), although you would likely have to enforce a fixed mix count instead of variable if you really wanted to be safe in Monero.
I don't know the legal side of things, but in terms of the current protocol, the default fixed mixin count is the current implementation.
I.e., if you type
transfer [email protected] 500
it will send me 500 xmr with a mixin (or ring size) of 3.... and nowhere in the command is there a 3 specified.
Yea, but the fact that it can be user defined makes it kinda sorta fall in the same category as active mixing.
Perhaps. I dunno. "Kinda sorta" seems like a wonderful legal term
On the other hand, one-time stealth addressing isn't user defined. So how much user-definition connotates "active"? And soon confidential transactions will also be protocol-level....
I was thinking earlier about the legal system vs crypto. Does anyone think user defined mixing will be a weakpoint of Monero in the legal department? As in, a fixed mixed count would have been preferable if attempting to design around the law when user defined is pretty similar to active mixing.
It seems kind of obvious that governments would be far more likely to consider active mixing as an act of laundering (darkcoin), while if anonymity is part of the protocol itself, it's just a shortcoming of government auditing. Both Monero and Zcash are safer legal-wise (than Darkcoin), although you would likely have to enforce a fixed mix count instead of variable if you really wanted to be safe in Monero.
I don't know the legal side of things, but in terms of the current protocol, the default fixed mixin count is the current implementation.
I.e., if you type
transfer [email protected] 500
it will send me 500 xmr with a mixin (or ring size) of 3.... and nowhere in the command is there a 3 specified.
Yea, but the fact that it can be user defined makes it kinda sorta fall in the same category as active mixing. If/when crypto takes over the world, I'm sure there would be legal cases about BTC mixers and those laws would then be tested against the Monero implementation with a judge giving a subjective ruling on it. Although, even if you had a static mix-in variable, they might just attempt to rule the entire coin itself is just a mixer and try to ban it. I was trying to think of which anon system the legal system would come down least and most favorable to. It seemed like Darkcoin would come in last in the legal department, with Monero in the middle, and Zcash might do a little better legal-wise, but I'm not sure. Maybe they would all just be treated the same...
I was thinking earlier about the legal system vs crypto. Does anyone think user defined mixing will be a weakpoint of Monero in the legal department? As in, a fixed mixed count would have been preferable if attempting to design around the law when user defined is pretty similar to active mixing.
It seems kind of obvious that governments would be far more likely to consider active mixing as an act of laundering (darkcoin), while if anonymity is part of the protocol itself, it's just a shortcoming of government auditing. Both Monero and Zcash are safer legal-wise (than Darkcoin), although you would likely have to enforce a fixed mix count instead of variable if you really wanted to be safe in Monero.
I don't know the legal side of things, but in terms of the current protocol, the default fixed mixin count is the current implementation.
I.e., if you type
transfer [email protected] 500
it will send me 500 xmr with a mixin (or ring size) of 3.... and nowhere in the command is there a 3 specified.
I was thinking earlier about the legal system vs crypto. Does anyone think user defined mixing will be a weakpoint of Monero in the legal department? As in, a fixed mixed count would have been preferable if attempting to design around the law when user defined is pretty similar to active mixing.
It seems kind of obvious that governments would be far more likely to consider active mixing as an act of laundering (darkcoin), while if anonymity is part of the protocol itself, it's just a shortcoming of government auditing. Both Monero and Zcash are safer legal-wise (than Darkcoin), although you would likely have to enforce a fixed mix count instead of variable if you really wanted to be safe in Monero.
That is my fault for trying to do too many thoughts at the same time. I have my mind deep in other technology and tried to quickly (as in 3 minutes of thought only) come back to the anonymity issue because of some realization I had about how tainted Bitcoins are due to all the scams. And it caused me to have an idea about DE (which I will post on shortly), but I tried to extend it quickly to CoinJoin and I made an error about trust. In short, you can remove the simultaneity requirement if you allow short-term trust, and this might be a viable method for more efficient DE, but it is not viable for onion routing across a masternode network. So I deleted it. Apologies for the 60 seconds of false warning which was deleted until you decided to gloat and resurrect a false warning. That is what I get for rushing in such a thread of egotistical manaics.
ArticMine it is pitiful that you are a Copy-leftist, who believes in viral licenses and forcing free software. You Communist. As Eric Raymond says, "stop all the oppressive licenses and use permissive licences. You are scaring the fuck out of the corporate world, and not without their justified reason to be scared". I prefer the Unlicense. You kill open source with that Richard Stallman Communism, because then for-profits are scared to use open source.
well... honestly i dont even know why you delete the post, i thought your post was deleted by mod or something
nevermind i will delete my post.
Monero doesn't use any copyleft licenses and doesn't have any plans to so it is kind of off topic.
Okay I drop it. Someone else mentioned ArticMine and Richard Stallman upthread. So I just took the opportunity to return the favor for him wanting to laugh at me. Thanks ArticMine.
Monero doesn't use any copyleft licenses and doesn't have any plans to so it is kind of off topic.
FYI on potential competition to Monero:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/honestly-which-is-better-monero-or-dash-1290263
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/honestly-which-is-better-monero-or-dash-1290263
wow... this is new development
im preparing popcorn now... LOL
... and the post has now being removed. Frankly fixing Darksend could be worth a lot of money so no hard feelings towards TPTB_need_war for trying. If TPTB_need_war actually has a solution, I am sure the Dash community will pay him for it and it will be money well earned. Does the Monero community have to be concerned about all of this. I doubt it.
I had an error so I immediately deleted it. I wish you wouldn't quote what had already been deleted before you posted your reply. Why do you gloat about promulgating FUD against Monero! If I deleted it, it means don't promulgate it. It is your choice if you want to promulgate false information.
That is my fault for trying to do too many thoughts at the same time. I have my mind deep in other technology and tried to quickly (as in 3 minutes of thought only) come back to the anonymity issue because of some realization I had about how tainted Bitcoins are due to all the scams. And it caused me to have an idea about DE (which I will post on shortly), but I tried to extend it quickly to CoinJoin and I made an error about trust. In short, you can remove the simultaneity requirement if you allow short-term trust, and this might be a viable method for more efficient DE, but it is not viable for onion routing across a masternode network. So I deleted it. Apologies for the 60 seconds of false warning which was deleted until you decided to gloat and resurrect a false warning. That is what I get for rushing in such a thread of egotistical manaics.
ArticMine it is pitiful that you are a Copy-leftist, who believes in viral licenses and forcing free software. You Communist. As Eric Raymond says, "stop all the oppressive licenses and use permissive licences. You are scaring the fuck out of the corporate world, and not without their justified reason to be scared". I prefer the Unlicense. You kill open source with that Richard Stallman Communism, because then for-profits are scared to use open source.
[...]
Anonymity well I tried. It is rather impractical to try to hide from the NSA but let's see what Zcash and Monero end up with. Privacy is important, so that is what they are really vying for, not anonymous and not hiding from the global elite. The viewkey aspect is going to be crucial.
Anonymity well I tried. It is rather impractical to try to hide from the NSA but let's see what Zcash and Monero end up with. Privacy is important, so that is what they are really vying for, not anonymous and not hiding from the global elite. The viewkey aspect is going to be crucial.
"Anonymity well I tried"
Maybe anonmity is not that important for your average user. But, the ability to keep what is yours from being taken by thebanksters, TPTB, your local hacker, is an absolute. The unconditional control of any CC must remain with the individual.
Maybe anonmity is not that important for your average user. But, the ability to keep what is yours from being taken by thebanksters, TPTB, your local hacker, is an absolute. The unconditional control of any CC must remain with the individual.
Mass privacy is very important. That is why Monero and Zcash matter. We'll never have mass anonymity. Fuhgeddaboudit.
Privacy doesn't mean privacy from the authorities. Sorry. Politics and technology will never allow it. I tried to search for the absolute technology for anonymity and I can promise you it does not exist to be found. I promise you.
The control over an individual's CC will remain with the individual, but the control over the CC protocol will remain with the global elite. This will always be the case. Accept it. This is the reality of the world we exist in.
Guess bottomline is that one always have to be cautious.
Well not always. But when writing options - yes
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-to-lose-3-million-dollars-in-one-second/
About options trading and Black-Scholes.
About options trading and Black-Scholes.
He probably wrote the options, I have a hard time believing he would lose that much when merely buying options. Also, I feel like the author didn't really explain why stocks cannot "jump" when using Black-Scholes to price options.
The Black-Scholes model assumes that the price evolves according to a geometric Brownian motion. Thus, basically implying that (i) returns on the stock follow a log-normal and (ii) stock prices must evolve smoothly (they cannot jump). The log-normal assumption posits that the (natural) log of returns is normally distributed, i.e., if S0 denotes the current price, and St the price t years from the present you get the follow formula:
ln(St/S0) ~ N(μt, σ^2t)
However, distribution of stock returns tends to have (i) fat tails (leptokurtosis | extreme observations) and (ii) skewness which are not in line with aforementioned assumptions.
Guess bottomline is that one always has to be cautious.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/how-to-lose-3-million-dollars-in-one-second/
About options trading and Black-Scholes.
About options trading and Black-Scholes.
FYI on potential competition to Monero:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/honestly-which-is-better-monero-or-dash-1290263
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/honestly-which-is-better-monero-or-dash-1290263
wow... this is new development
im preparing popcorn now... LOL
... and the post has now being removed. Frankly fixing Darksend could be worth a lot of money so no hard feelings towards TPTB_need_war for trying. If TPTB_need_war actually has a solution, I am sure the Dash community will pay him for it and it will be money well earned. Does the Monero community have to be concerned about all of this. I doubt it.
All mixing that is active requires, obviously, activity. If you don't get activity up you won't ever significantly increase transaction speed of CoinJoin / DarkSend transactions. Fortunately, Monero mixes passively and therefore doesn't require activity of other participants on the network.
"Monero semi-weekly dev meeting note highlights - 2016-05-08"
https://hellomonero.com/article/monero-semi-weekly-dev-meeting-note-highlights-2016-05-08
Thanks to aerbax!
https://hellomonero.com/article/monero-semi-weekly-dev-meeting-note-highlights-2016-05-08
Thanks to aerbax!
Wow, those really are some highlights! Lots of (major apparently) performance improvements and:
- The RingCT code is probably ready for TestNet (!!)
- The ARM7 platform should get binaries in the next point release (desperately want my dust collecting raspbery PI 2b running as a node, fun summer holiday project)
"Monero semi-weekly dev meeting note highlights - 2016-05-08"
https://hellomonero.com/article/monero-semi-weekly-dev-meeting-note-highlights-2016-05-08
Thanks to aerbax!
https://hellomonero.com/article/monero-semi-weekly-dev-meeting-note-highlights-2016-05-08
Thanks to aerbax!
...
FREE SOFTWARE = FREEDOM
...
FREE SOFTWARE = FREEDOM
...
Not entirely true. Free Software is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for freedom. A good general counter example is Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html. For crypto currencies such as Monero an incredible amount of effort is needed to mitigate against, minimize and ideally eliminate any form of centralized control. This is required for freedom, in addition to Free Software.
Another GUI commit today.
I nibbled today.
I nibbled today.
...
FREE SOFTWARE = FREEDOM
...
FREE SOFTWARE = FREEDOM
...
Not entirely true. Free Software is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for freedom. A good general counter example is Tivoization https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html. For crypto currencies such as Monero an incredible amount of effort is needed to mitigate against, minimize and ideally eliminate any form of centralized control. This is required for freedom, in addition to Free Software.
Jump to: