Topic: Zero Knowledge Transactions - page 14. (Read 18678 times)

First of all you revealed no flaw, as the linkability has been addressed in v0.3 in the so called WORK IN PROGRESS. As noted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/cw27qla

Second of all; this stuff has been discussed by gmaxwell, andytoshi and shen + others in june/july on #bitcoin-wizards and other channels and there are logs of it all over the place; so much for your "invention".



Only in your head bro, DGA just commented the cryptostuff later, NoodleDoodle did the optimizations in the daemon.

This is also the case for Cryptonote. No one but the payer knows which of the public addresses in the ring challenge was the signer of the transaction.

In theory one can add the feature that the payer can optionally feed his address through the non-interactive Diffie-Hellman exchange of private data in the unlinkability step of Cryptonote:

https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf#page=6

Afaics, the only requirement is to be able to refer to UXTO for the inputs to the rings, so a balances only design wouldn't work.

A huge advantage over Cryptonote rings, is you don't have to use equal denominations, thus you radically simplify wallets and reduce block chain bloat significantly. So this makes it much easier to integrate than Cryptonote because you don't have that complex simultaneity requirement on powers-of-ten UXTO.

I haven't studied Dash/DRK, but I assume it has a UXTO (unspent transactions outputs).

It might not even need to be a hard fork, depending on the block chain format's flexibility, but unlikely.

Hey if Dash wants to pay me more, then I will go to the highest bidder. That is the nature of a free market. I haven't earned an income for many years. I really need it. Even my 2003 model year SUV is starting to fall apart.

---

Edit: I am giving up one of my jewels because I am really in a bad financial situation. Not only health, but I have negative networth right now. I am living off cash my angel investors gave me. I want to create some buffer of savings if possible.

For once I agree with you, if most transactions take place off chain/ledger/whatever then the majority of transactions are "anonymous" as they are not publicly recorded.

Its kind of a catch-22 though I feel, as high anon + scaling to high load is very difficult and I don't think concealing the value of a transaction is going to play nice with scalability.  

I'm betting on decoupling the sender from the receiver being the best workable solution to achieving high anon + high scalability, where the sender is unable to discover where exactly the payment ended up in the ledger nor discover any information about the receivers account (balance, historic transactions).

TPTB no disrespect to the work you are doing, its important nonetheless, just my thoughts.  Its good to see at least something tangible coming out from your end finally

I have a query though, in your abstract "...and the payer isn’t revealed to the payee"  Shouldn't the payee know who the payer is?  What if someone sends me a payment without me expecting it, how do I know who its from?  I don't see any real purpose for not revealing the payer to the payee :|

That wasn't my intention at all.

I'm quite certain you are sick, and moreover, I think I know what's wrong with you. That was kinda my point. If you've definitely ruled out Lyme disease and haven't taken any cholesterol lowering medication within the past three years, then I think I can help.

In so far as the whitepaper is concerned, yeah, it has the intrigue of Tarantino's glowing suitcase, naturally. I'd concur that I'd do a trade for that. Of the oft times I've been ill over the past 38 years there have been many occasions I would glady sell my soul for the cure. So that was my perspective.

But I don't really see what difference it makes what I do with the whitepaper once traded. Whether I give it away on street corners, or keep it to myself.... who cares?

But like I said, I genuinely am more intrigued about the variables of your illness. I only have a marginal interest in the paper.

To be honest: If it was down to me I would simply join forces with smooth and adapt your technology for use with Aeon. Given current low prices you could get significant returns from your tech without giving away development control. To me that's a sensible solution which I think you'd be happy with.

Fuck it, if you did that I'd help you with your illness for free.

Well the first mode of action I think would be to ask me if he and I could determine the value of what he can offer on my health. I do plan to give him a link to my recent findings. Most certainly I am willing to transfer resources from myself for a cure to my health. It is possible I may have found the vital information, but you know I've said that before, so I am being cautious about opinion of my recent discovery.

Okay I am sorry if you didn't see any potential gimmick and hadn't said yet that I was suspecting one. It could potentially just be a misunderstanding and his quick and not so careful way of phrasing his offer.

I've talked to Smooth a lot about anonymity telling him it's not useful unless you can fix scaling first.  If you only have enough TPS for a clearing mechanism between banks, on-chain anonymity doesn't do anything when most transactions will be done off-chain anyway.  Since you seem to have the exact same viewpoint, how exactly would this design even help Monero?  Does it at least reduce overhead to Bitcoin level?

My opinion is that collateral bid systems using PoS where the top 100/500/1000 wallet addresses that choose to lock stake and act as deterministic nodes is the easiest way to solve scalability at the moment.  Larimer thinks you can have anonymity in such a system already:


Without achieving the scaling part first, won't this purchase be kind of useless when it will inevitably be overun by some kind of second tier anonymity system latched on top of a deterministic PoS network?

Are there any specific requirements for a coin's protocol / blockchain etc in order for the feature to be feasibly implemented? Does it need to be a Cryptonote coin, or could it be implemented on DASH (former Darkcoin) for example?

I have no idea what's a gimmick. Maybe you are right. I'm certainly making no attack.

From what I see, someone has something he thinks you might want, and you seem to have something he might want. So there is the potential for a trade.

I fail to see how that wouldn't be more efficient, assuming there is room for a trade there, than a complicated and potentially expensive ordeal involving Kickstarter (who almost certainly takes fees, right?), escrows, etc.

But if it was indeed a gimmick then please disregard.

It is not a free market to use political gimicks to try to make someone look like they are not sincere about wanting to cure their illness as a way to cut off the market function that the sincere person is trying to propose. It was basically saying to me "accept communism or show everyone you aren't really sick".

And you are also playing politics I think. Sad.

I am just trying to get something fair done here. Why is it always like pulling teeth to get anything done in crypto without underhanded attacks?

Your use of the term "release" make this seem more unbelievable as that term is synonymous with public release in every normal use of English I have seen in this context. But okay thanks for the "clarification".

That's not really what I was advocating. I was talking about a private deal. Your health, in return for the whitepaper.

If you two agree, that's a free market. If one of you does not, then the deal doesn't happen (still a free market). There was nothing wrong with him offering it.

First of all, it isn't fungible so it doesn't as an example of market-based compensation to incentivize other developers who are not ill. Kickstarter has a large economy-of-scale, because it is fungible (for both donators and creators). Remember one of your greatest arguments for the benefit of Monero's anonymity has been fungibility (against blacklisting, whitelisting, redlisting, etc) is a requirement for money.

Secondly, he could rather assign the value of his donation and we could agree on the value and I could continue to receive donations from others since not only did state I had numerous goals not just funding the potential diagnosis of my illness but also there is no non-Communist reason to limit the market expression of fair value. In short, he attempted to monopolize the market function and apply Communism. He tried to determine that everyone else should get it for free and unable to donate. His proposal bound everyone else, not just himself and myself.

I am for free markets. How about your smooth? You for Communism or free markets?


Thank you. I will have a post about new insight into my illness later. I'll probably link to it from here and/or the Ion project thread.

---

Edit: I had always felt donations was sort of Communistic, but at least only those who had a vested interested would donate, so I am not surprised that the votes are reflecting a private advantage for Monero to implement it first. I always felt "first mover" advantage is the only way to really extract the true value from the work in crypto.

I haven't voted yet.

I have a marginal interest in the whitepaper, but to tell the truth I'm kinda more fascinated by your illness.

Who is to say that "fair value" isn't a trade of a cure for a whitepaper?

Nothing wrong with that if both parties are happy with the deal.

Comrade, may I ask why you propose for me to not receive donations and thus not pay you for helping to cure me?

Do you think it helps incentivize crypto development if the crypto market is unable to pay for fair value?

What about if I cured your illness? Would you be willing to release your whitepaper for free?

Here is an excerpt from my fully completed white paper for my revolutionary anonymity invention.

I am proposing to release this white paper either publicly or for exclusive implementation in Monero or other coin, which ever the community prefers; and forsake my former plans to implement it first in my Ion project. The benefit is to get this anonymity breakthrough implemented sooner for those of us in the community who desire such a feature.

Other potential benefits include enabling me to demonstrate an example of my technical capabilities, demonstrate that I am for sharing/open source, and to rebuild to my entirely depleted savings so I could for example seek proper health care for my strange autoimmune-like chronic illness which includes relapsing chronic fatigue syndrome, peripheral neuropathy, gut pain, and strange head pain/sensations which potentially implicate Multiple Sclerosis (3+ years suffering). Also it would enable me to refund my Ion project angel investors, in case due to my health I am unable to complete Ion. Note I can still code features because I am not ill every moment, but the concern is whether I have enough good hours to complete and manage an entire crypto project. I may have found a breakthrough on my health to be explained soon, but I am hedging my opportunities just in case.

Forsaking the "first mover" advantage of implementing it first in Ion, I lose the strategy by which I intended to capture compensation for the following work I already completed. Thus I need to compensated via some other means, and a donation model has been suggested to me. I am interested to test a "Kickstarter" style funding threshold which is discussed below.


But there is no way I would set a crowdfunded donations threshold that high, because I doubt it could be reached (because it isn't a comparative equity offering) and even though it might be my opportunity cost from 2001 when I was at the top of my career, it isn't my recent opportunity cost. I am in strange situation because on the one hand if I finish a project like Ion, I could potentially earn more per hour (inflation-adjusted) than I did in 2001 but the risk of not completing such a project or the project not being successful for what ever reason is significant (how many altcoins have succeed versus how many have died even if considering what talent I bring to bear).


Above I am referring to the work I already did, not any additional work to implement the anonymity design in a coin.

I am not against being paid to help implement this anonymity design, but I think it should be a separate funding because for one reason we don't know yet which coin wants to implement this anonymity design. As I said I will let the community decide if the crowdfunded donations will be for releasing the above design publicly or privately to one coin (such as Monero) for them to get a jumpstart on implementation before they announce and release publicly. I believe the best for the community is have the white paper released publicly so not only can it be peer reviewed by any one (not just a chosen few) and so that coins can compete to implement it first so we get this feature implemented asap. If there is another coin that wants to try to raise donations and have this design be exclusively for this coin, then make a serious post in this thread how you plan to achieve that.

So I propose to set a  minimum crowdfunding, donation threshold of $21,000 to release my white paper publicly. The terms I propose is that if the threshold is not reached (and I don't opt to accept the lower threshold reached) or if the white paper is broken such that it can't do what is claimed in the above excerpted Abstract and I can't fix it, then the donations are returned.

I'd really like to receive about $75,000 total for the work already done plus assisting on implementation. If I am not mistaken, the guy who was selected to optimize Monero's mining algorithm pocketed an alleged $150,000 worth of coins before releasing the optimization generally. I would be quite pleased (and motivated to work in crypto on the donations funding model) if the total donations for the work already done would exceed the threshold and reach roughly $35,000. Yet I propose to set the minimum threshold to $21,000 and we can see if donations exceed it. I am not even sure if we can reach the $21,000 level for this work I did?

Note the extra $1000 over $20,000 is to cover the 4 BTC we donated to Denis Lukianov after I completed my invention.

There appear to be different ways to collect the donations for a crowdfunded campaign. Kickstarter takes only fiat and about 8% fees total, but you get exposure to a wider audience of donators. Monero has some methodology for funding improvements but the entire process isn't described in full detail and do we want to make this exclusively for Monero? I didn't find any good crypto crowdfunding platforms. Mike Hearn's Lighthouse has some severe restrictions such as only 684 donators max and the exact donation amount has to be reached (can't be lower or higher). And Swarm seems to be socialist.

Thus the alternative to Kickstarter appears to be having all donations go to a Bitcoin address controlled by a trusted escrow person (or persons with multi-sig). The escrow would enforce the terms I have proposed. I would nominate smooth but I have not checked with him if he is willing to do this. I would propose to offer him 1% fee for his time and effort, unless he decides to implement this in Aeon in which case he should donate his fee to the implementer or to Denis Lukianov the author of the CCT white paper from which I gained much inspiration (and some discussion) to make this invention (but the invention came only from me). He could counter-propose if he is interested and thinks my proposed terms are not suitable. I would also like to hear from the community who they would nominate to do the escrow, and your general thoughts on how best to proceed.

I also hope that any coin that successfully implements this new anonymity invention, also makes some token donation to Denis Lukianov. My angel investors already donated 4 BTC to him thus far. We would probably donate more to him if ever Ion was successfully launched with this anonymity feature.

We could perhaps have both Kickstarter and Bitcoin escrow and sum the two to reach the threshold, but I don't know how we can integrate that with Kickstarter's policies so probably this is not possible.

We could perhaps have two donation addresses, one for those who want public release and another for those who want private release to Monero's chosen few reviewers. You could donate even to both and receive a refund for the losing option.

Note I also invented an improvement to the CCT algorithm (CCT is an alternative to Blockstream's CT) as noted in the excerpted quote from the white paper, but in the unlikely event this improvement is incorrect, my anonymity invention can still be used with the original CCT algorithm, so it would still satisfy the claims of the Abstract. It appears that my anonymity invention can also be alternatively integrated with Blockstream's CT instead of CCT, but that is not required to meet the claims of the Abstract.