Now ask your self, as an objective observer, what conclusion would you derive from these circumstances?
If you asked me I would come to conclusion that people are not aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery phenomenon.
Topic: Zero Knowledge Transactions - page 12. (Read 18664 times)
If you asked me I would come to conclusion that people are not aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery phenomenon.
I also wanted to add that if you have in fact improved on Shens theory or solved problems which he didn't see as you stated on Reddit and helped implement it in Monero you might be surprised by how much the community would be willing to help you, financially or otherwise.
I sincerely hope you have found a solution to your health problems and will be able to contribute to the community in a meaningful way.
I sincerely hope you have found a solution to your health problems and will be able to contribute to the community in a meaningful way.
I am definitely ready to contribute and dig myself out of a very big hole.
I can't yet be sure if the info I found is a cure for my health issue. I will go write up my new found insight as soon as I complete answering any posts here.
Thank you. Sorry if I am just screaming, but I am just so sick of bickering. I feel sometimes I want to pull my hair out when it starts again. I understand I may have contributed to it with some of my posts in the past, but you know even smooth who is very respected and deserving of respect has also had his moments of going on and on ad nauseum.
We are just human beings. I wasn't satisfied with where Bitcoin was in 2013 technically. I never expected Gmaxwell to go invent really cool anonymity. I was totally against his CoinJoin because I was the first person to point out that you can't blacklist the one caught jamming it, because the point is you are making UXTO anonymous via mixing (unless you have have all CoinJoin mixes talk to a master blacklist, but that is dangerous for other reasons). So yeah I was critical of some things before and especially because I thought Gmaxwell wasn't sincere about anonymity and scalability. But then I see what he is doing with Blockstream and I am commending him. Even messaging him in private to commend him. Once he realizes I am AnonyMint the guy who criticized his CoinJoin, then he stops replying and the only nods I get from him are condescending shit behind my back and then this leap of foolishness in my thread.
Originally I was critical or dubious w.r.t. to rings but over many months of discussion in the forums with smooth, I came to the realization that on chain rings were the best. But remember I am the one who pointed out the combinatorial unmasking flaw first (to smooth). And I am the one who pointed out how to defeat that flaw by controlling who mixes with whom (which also makes the rings prunable reducing block chain bloat). I do believe Monero got those ideas from me. So it has been a two-way street. I was promoting anonymity back in mid-2013 before others were. It wasn't until Mike Hearn's redlisting proposal that everyone suddenly got more serious about anonymity for the fungibility reason.
All of us need to have cooler heads. If gmaxwell can back away from the ledge of contempt, I also want to. I don't like the animosity. To the extent I created it by trying to analyze tech, sometimes making mistakes, and being demanding of what I wanted for crypto, I plead guilty.
Tl;; dr is I am just human. Learning over time how to fit into this. What my role should be. What my core values for this market are. Etc.
Since Shen isnt't here it would be great if you responded to his last post on Reddit. Many of us would like to know if the flaws you wrote about are in fact present in his work. There was a civil conversation going on there, people were upvoting some of your posts when your attitude changed and Im sure they will continue to do so. By not responding it gives the impression that in fact your "accusation" was unfounded.
Regards.
Regards.
He didn't answer the point I made about not being able to combine balances because he associates each input (C_in) to a set of outputs (Cj_out). This afaics, he can't have more than one input feed to a set of outputs, thus balances can't be combined. Since he did not reply to that point I already made, then his reply is insufficient for me to reply to him.
From what it read I believe he thinks he addressed your point. The prudent course of action would be to quickly point out that he has not.
Since Shen isnt't here it would be great if you responded to his last post on Reddit. Many of us would like to know if the flaws you wrote about are in fact present in his work. There was a civil conversation going on there, people were upvoting some of your posts when your attitude changed and Im sure they will continue to do so. By not responding it gives the impression that in fact your "accusation" was unfounded.
Regards.
Regards.
He didn't answer the point I made about not being able to combine balances because he associates each input (C_in) to a set of outputs (Cj_out). This afaics, he can't have more than one input feed to a set of outputs, thus balances can't be combined. Since he did not reply to that point I already made, then his reply is insufficient for me to reply to him.
Why should I have to repeat what I already said which he didn't respond to. He is a very bright guy, I am sure he can read carefully.
As for his "Mokum-gane signature" maybe that does prevent the duplicate spending that I alleged which is a separate issue to the one above. But afaik that is not a standard signature that has been already vetted and vetted in this context where I don't know yet how any external correlations might work against what appears to me more complex probabilistic assumptions. The zero knowledge proof in Cryptonote appears to be less complex and more straightforward, yet if that was just released for the first time today, we'd all need a year or two to trust it while it is vetted.
So I avoided using any new complex crypto primitives in my design. Maybe once he gets his white paper well written and more near to publish quality, then that would be the time to go into that when I can better grasp his explanation of that new signature and also be sure it isn't a moving target still changing with more edits and hidden maths that suddenly appear in version N+1 of his paper.
So what I am saying is, he hasn't yet replied. I'll give him some time to refine his paper and answer the other concern. In the meantime, no one is paying me to do peer review and I have to balance a lot of priorities on my side.
And I am pretty much turned off about talking to any of those in that snobbish community who interact with Gmaxwell et al. Because it is always been a ticket to ill feelings. I don't need that in my life.
I also wanted to add that if you have in fact improved on Shens theory or solved problems which he didn't see as you stated on Reddit and helped implement it in Monero you might be surprised by how much the community would be willing to help you, financially or otherwise.
I sincerely hope you have found a solution to your health problems and will be able to contribute to the community in a meaningful way.
I sincerely hope you have found a solution to your health problems and will be able to contribute to the community in a meaningful way.
If you are true to your word, then STOP LYING.
I am simply amazed that Gregory Maxwell would set himself up to be made a fool because I never even knew of Shen's work when I produced mine, so it is nothing at all similar which will be clear to all when the paper is published.
It blows my mind how fucked crypto is with people like him at the helm. I must have really hit a nerve for him to lose it like that. He assumes everything and all his assumption (which became accusations) are all wrong.
If I was a rational developer looking from the outside, I would run as far away from crypto as I can. These people are insane.
You have to take a step back and look at your history. For a very long time you have criticized other peoples work and bragged how wonderful your concept is without actually providing and proof or evidence. Now you release "your" idea coincidentally right after Shen releases his white paper and coincidentally your work is very close to or almost identical to cryptographic concepts discussed publicly by others for many months.
Now ask your self, as an objective observer, what conclusion would you derive from these circumstances?
I have mentioned this anonymity white paper publicly in these forums months ago. Just because you aren't aware of it, doesn't give you the right to make ASS-U-MPTIONs unless you enjoy making a fool of yourself.
The scientific method is to first gather the evidence before you shoot from the hip.
I also know for a fact that certain people don't like me. So all the more motivation for me to prove them wrong.
I have not criticized every work. I have commended a lot of works. You cherry pick my posts to form a bias that suits the view you want to have towards me.
I write what I think. I don't bullshit people. I make mistakes and I also make achievements. This is the life of a human being.
It is clear that I came forward now with my white paper other than just mentioning it before, because Shen came forward with his, thus the race to market implementation was necessarily accelerated. And also because I had been in a whirlwind of ill health spiral since I tried water only fasting for 10 days in August (the thought for a need for which was likely brought on by the ill health spiral likely caused by overeating omega B meats given that my health issue seems to be as I learned just recently an inflammatory cascade caused by insufficient glutathione). And I just managed to get myself stabilized a few days ago, and starting communicating in Bitmessage again with my angel investors after disappearing for 1.5 months. I went from 73 kilos to 55 kilos and not back up to 70 kilos. I have been going to a literal hell. And so my mind was so discombobulated and I was trying to get myself back on track.
Immediately I realized I needed to do something with my work. I couldn't just leave it there waiting longer.
But at the same time, over these past few days I also had a major insight on my chronic health issue. And this is also changing my thinking (even today my thinking changed a bit) more towards I can work, because for the past 3 days I have hadn't had much indication of illness. But I am also not yet sure about this, so I continue to gather feedback here and try to make the best decision for myself, my angel investors, and the community on balance.
Just because you have a suspicion, you should put yourself in the other person's shoes and try to gather some information and ask a few questions before leaping. All you had to do is ask me in this thread some questions and I would clearly explain to you that if my white paper is not entirely different than Shen's method, then I will not be allowed by the escrow agent to receive the $21k.
You would then have received the assurances you need to know that your assumptions were incorrect.
If you are true to your word, then STOP LYING.
I am simply amazed that Gregory Maxwell would set himself up to be made a fool because I never even knew of Shen's work when I produced mine, so it is nothing at all similar which will be clear to all when the paper is published.
It blows my mind how fucked crypto is with people like him at the helm. I must have really hit a nerve for him to lose it like that. He assumes everything and all his assumption (which became accusations) are all wrong.
If I was a rational developer looking from the outside, I would run as far away from crypto as I can. These people are insane.
You have to take a step back and look at your history. For a very long time you have criticized other peoples work and bragged how wonderful your concept is without actually providing and proof or evidence. Now you release "your" idea coincidentally right after Shen releases his white paper and coincidentally your work is very close to or almost identical to cryptographic concepts discussed publicly by others for many months.
Now ask your self, as an objective observer, what conclusion would you derive from these circumstances?
...Good point!
Just to be clear...I'm not looking at point scoring. I congratulate the Blockstream investors for investing in Bitcoin and the Blockstream founders for being confident enough to seek funding to ensure their project has every chance of being successful.
I was just pointing out that the logic of blanket attacking everyone else for peddling vaporware.
I have nothing against Blockstream. I was even commending some of the principles of side-chains.
My problem is with the attitude of at least two of their key players towards me. The way they talk about me derisively behind my back I also know about.
This invention was personal effort of mine to teach them a lesson about mutual respect. I was very determined.
Here is an excerpt from my fully completed white paper for my revolutionary anonymity invention.
It's not quantum-resistant, is it?
Well some quantum resistance seems to come from using wider ECC curves because practical quantum computers will likely be limited in qubits for a while if they ever (or already are secretly) a reality.
But I also think it will be possible to add some quantum resistance by adapting the recent advances with super-singular isogenies. But that is far out of my expertise and so we would defer that to the super math nerds. We in cypto land need to grow our markets and so we can superfund such.
My predominate talent is combining marketing and programming (along with my cleverness) and I find ways to grow markets, as I did in 2001 when CoolPage in only 2 years from initial release had risen to 335,000 published websites as reported by Altavista. This was when the internet was 1/10 of its current population.
In doing this anonymity invention, I was really stretching beyond my core expertise, but I was very, very determined to solve it. And I did (unless I have an error) independently! Any one who accuses me of plagiarism is going to be shown to be a fool.
...Good point!
Just to be clear...I'm not looking at point scoring. I congratulate the Blockstream investors for investing in Bitcoin and the Blockstream founders for being confident enough to seek funding to ensure their project has every chance of being successful.
I was just pointing out the logic of blanket attacking everyone else for peddling vaporware.
edit typo
If you are true to your word, then STOP LYING.
I am simply amazed that Gregory Maxwell would set himself up to be made a fool because I never even knew of Shen's work when I produced mine, so it is nothing at all similar which will be clear to all when the paper is published.
It blows my mind how fucked crypto is with people like him at the helm. I must have really hit a nerve for him to lose it like that. He assumes everything and all his assumption (which became accusations) are all wrong.
If I was a rational developer looking from the outside, I would run as far away from crypto as I can. These people are insane.
Here is an excerpt from my fully completed white paper for my revolutionary anonymity invention.
It's not quantum-resistant, is it?
'Great. We'll start writing the first white paper. Any chance we can get the funds next week?'.
My white paper is done. Give me $21K now, and I will publish it now. In 2 seconds. Where is the $21K?
Why all the FUD?
Are some people offended by a free market?
Actually, I was referring to Blockstream having raised funding around this time last year when I suspect the project was mostly vaporware. As a private investment transaction, only a closed group of people will know all the details, so I just filled in some gaps. For all I know, they may have had a working version of sidechains and CT.
Apologies I was so livid that I didn't pay attention to the "m". Hmmm my request for $21k versus Blockstream's $21m. Do they have 1000 times more features and developers? Good point!
Should the poll be edited to say fund gmaxwell, Denis Lukianov and Shen Noether instead of TPTB_need_war?
Sure I'll see if I can edit the poll to accommodate without erasing the prior votes.
That is if you don't want my white paper then you can go with Gmaxwell's and Shen's inferior broken solution for integrating Cryptonote with CT. Denis's CCT is not viable without my improvement to it.
I guess you didn't realize that I wrote 3 times already that Denis's CCT requires a 768-bit ECC which is impractical. I removed that requirement.
'Great. We'll start writing the first white paper. Any chance we can get the funds next week?'.
My white paper is done. Give me $21K now, and I will publish it now. In 2 seconds. Where is the $21K?
Why all the FUD?
Are some people offended by a free market?
Actually, I was referring to Blockstream having raised funding around this time last year when I suspect the project was mostly vaporware. As a private investment transaction, only a closed group of people will know all the details, so I just filled in some gaps. For all I know, they may have had a working version of sidechains and CT.
'Great. We'll start writing the first white paper. Any chance we can get the funds next week?'.
My white paper is done. Give me $21K now, and I will publish it now. In 2 seconds. Where is the $21K?
Why all the FUD?
Are some people offended by a free market?
You fools might just destroy crypto if you continue FUDing me. I am legit and you demonstrate that you are going to roast a sincere developer, then maybe others will begin to see crypto land as totally corrupt and unethical from the very top including Gregory Maxwell's despicable post, wherein he accuses me of things he has no evidence whatsoever of and in fact I can prove those statements are lies.
....Here's.......
Thanks!
...... I'm also very supportive of people being paid for their work, but they need to actually do work, not just sell snakeoil to others. This community often does a much better job at funding scams than people who reliably contribute.
Well there is the chicken and egg problem with this one. It's a widespread issue that most projects encounter:
'Hi, we're looking for some investment.....'
'Sure. How much are you looking to raise?'
'Hmm. About $21m'.
'Sure. We can do that.'
'Great. We'll start writing the first white paper. Any chance we can get the funds next week?'.
'Sure. Looking forward to reading the white paper. When do you think the software will be ready?'
'We should be good to go in a year or two.'
1. Plagiarize the work, shared freely, of Adam Back, Shen, Denis, myself, and others (and in my case even implemented in a high performance implementation).
Nonsense. I was talking to Denis (author of CCT) back when he first posted his white paper to forum which was just after you announced CT.
We were brain storming ways to combine ring and hiding values, back in either May or June (I forgot when he announced). He gave up. He was exasperated because I kept coming up with ideas that he would break. And he didn't think any advance was likely. I continued to work on it and eventually I had an epiphany. I never even knew anything about your attempts to do the same, until just a couple of days ago when one of my angel investors sent me a link to the Reddit thread that Shen created.
We even paid 4 BTC to Denis once we were sure we had a unique and correct invention. Afaik, you guys didn't give him any thing for his efforts, even you have $millions in funding.
Gregory, please do not lie. You have absolutely no proof that I plagiarized your work. And in fact, you will see I solved a problem you could not solve! Damn it. I am so tired of your condescending attitude. Why can't you learn to respect others?
2. Ask for twenty grand in donations.
3. Profit.
3. Profit.
Are you advocating that working on crypto should not pay an appropriate income? Do you work for free? How much money did you raise for Blockstream? How many mining rigs have you accepted as donations? Etc..
Here's a hint to someone who might think of funding this stuff, "just in case": Non-contributiors being paid for what is primarily your work is incredibly demoralizing-- doubly so when they don't even add anything to it (not even a good implementation); if you want to kill science and engineering in this space go ahead and fund more vaporware scams.
You haven't even seen my math and details yet, and you claim two lies:
1. You as a liar claim that my invention primary takes from the work of others, when in fact I have entirely new formulations. I am clever that way.
2. You as a liar claim that my implementation is not good, when in fact I think it is far superior to what you created.
Science needs to happen in the open. I'm also very supportive of people being paid for their work, but they need to actually do work, not just sell snakeoil to others. This community often does a much better job at funding scams than people who reliably contribute.
If you are true to your word, then STOP LYING.
I expect your full apology. This is a disgrace. I am livid. You are destroying crypto with your attitude. You are a control freak. I improved upon the concept of homomorphic sum. My result looks nothing like Shen's work. My paper doesn't even use your CT algorithm. You are entirely full of shit.
Two non-cryptographers (Denis and myself) just kicked the ass of all the cryptographers in terms of producing the most efficient design. Fathom that.
Please read the prior discussion about the above anonymity feature, including my recent peer review that identified/revealed the flaw in an attempt to create the same invention by someone who may be affiliated with Monero.
You are asking for more than 100K yet you have not responded to the cryptographer on reddit.
No I asked only for $20K (+ $1K to reimburse our donation to the author of CCT which is underlying tech that makes it more efficient than CT).
And I did respond, but I don't see a need for me to respond further at Reddit. I appreciate his reply, but my last statement there was maybe I should keep my mouth shut. Also the cryptographer did not address both of the flaws, so it just a continuation of more sloppy. He throws up a white paper that didn't even have all the required math in it, then he puts up version 2 and says version 3 is coming. Why do I need to respond to a moving target. He only addressed the duplicate spending issue and he did so by introducing some complex new probablistic signature algorithm he apparently invented which afaik has not been vetted. And even with all that complexity that can't be as easily trusted for a few years until it has been challenged/vetted, his afaics still can't merge balances without revealing values.
When I say I invented a solution, I didn't have to invent any new crypto primatives. I reused existing well vetted zero knowledge proofs, EdDSA, and Cryptonote. I didn't invent new unvetted primitives (and I also removed from CCT the former requirement for a large unvetted, inefficient 768-bit ECC curve).
If Shen explains more clearly his new signature crypto primitive, then I can better analyze his new unvetted crypto primitive the "Mokum-gane signature". He is clearly a math nerd (probably very expert) because communication and written elucidation is not his strong suit. I am primary a programmer and I aim for K.I.S.S. and clarity.
I wish him the best with his design, but the tying of each input to each set of outputs is a fundamental weakness that my design doesn't have. My design you have a ring for each input. The outputs are orthogonal to the proof each the ring. He has conflated the two and thus his solution will never be as general and robust as mine.
My white paper can be explained to novices. I could make a web page that would explain it to laymen who got As in their high school math courses.
Jump to: