I don't know what happened. Last time I thought I loaded that page, I was looking at two young developers one of which was Asian. I need to sort out my confusion. I am very perplexed as to what I accidentally loaded last time.

You loaded this -> http://moneta.cash/

A for-profit coin company, i dont care what they make, iwill never trust them. moreover RingCT will move Monero closer to Zcash

Agreed that is the opportunity to beat them by open sourcing their code. But you will also need my block chain technology to make the big win.


Sorry no. It is still not immune to meta-data and the theoretical combinatorial analysis. Not reliable. Not realistic.

We need to move forward. It is up to you, I know my thinking and priorities on this matter.

Would this metadata and combinatorial analysis hold even if mixin 10 was a default on all tx's?

Not if the block chain is decentralized, but see below...


The masterkey has to be produced in a way that no one knows it. The proposals had been to use a public ceremony and a computer examined by everyone attending, to be sure the masterkey is unknown to anyone.

Note if the masterkey is known, that person can create coins out-of-thin-air, but he can't unmask the anonymity. That is a crucial distinction.

This is why I proposed the idea of using Zerocash as a mixer that eventually times out, so that we can be sure the mixer hasn't created any new coins. Everyone going into the mixer takes the risk that they may not be able to come out of the mixer if the attacker has already created coins. Then we could have many of these mixers in a free market, and users would decide which mixers they trust. Again anonymity is never compromised and the run on the bank can only be a loss to participants, not to the entire ecosystem. I am pretty sure this solves the problem and this is why we can take their open source and beat them.

I am loaded with ideas and designs to solve real problems in crypto. Hopefully some smart devs are going to realize they are better off working with me.


RingCT has the same problem. I explained in I believe both the chess thread and my Zero Knowledge Transactions thread. This is another reason I abandoned it (in addition to the inability to get reliable anonymity since it doesn't hide meta-data the way Zerocash/Zcash does).


Sort of true, but zk-snarks have been out for some years already (which is what Zerocash is based on) and one flaw was found and fixed already.

These are very, very smart dudes. Wilcox created the very awesome Blake2 hash which I am using in my design (much superior for CPUs).

I don't think you should bet against them, because Zerocash has anonymity and nothing else does! The community will make sure it is peer reviewed. We must. You had better start figuring out how to transition and pronto.


All miners will have to register as money transmitters under FinCEN regulations, same as the issue for Dash masternodes. There has seriously bad implications in their investment strategy. But their code and developers are valuable. The investors can probably recover their money on the initial IPO. They should IPO the damn thing and do it legally and not mess with this "master of the universe" idea above.

I am contemplating contacting them, but I need to think through their economic options. It may be impossible to get them to do the right thing.

But they could definitely benefit from my endorsement in an IPO. A legal IPO! As well, they could benefit from my block chain tech.


Sorry I strongly disagree. Meta-data correlation is fundamental and smooth should remember how Dash and I lost on the point that Cryptonote one-time rings are End-to-End principled and off chain mixing (CoinJoin, CoinShuffle, etc) are not. This meta-data point is also fundamental and this time smooth is positioning himself on the wrong side of the truth. Hopefully he will realize this asap, although his vested interests may prevent him from being objective (hopefully not).


We may indeed find irresolvable weaknesses, such as DDoS resistance is the one I am expecting given the slow speed of verification. But don't fall into the trap of being blinded and trying to rationalize your bagholding. The devil is in the details, and I would be very worried if I were you, that you are going to be wrong.

No closed source. The key would be produced publicly at a ceremony.

---

The meta-data (e.g. IP address, browser cookie, timing analysis and location of connection, what you said in facebook or on the phone, etc) correlation problem isn't likely impacted no matter how many times or inputs you ring mix. It is very difficult for mere mortals to cover their tracks on all the possible meta-data correlations. It is unfathomably difficult. Don't fool yourself into thinking it isn't.

The combinatorial analysis flaw (which I introduced to smooth during the BCX incident and hence followed up in debate with Shen-noether) is very theoretical and may or may not be plausible. In my thinking, it comes more into play if combined with meta-data breakdown of the anonymity systemically. Mixing more may help somewhat, but it can also make it worse because it is the excessive overlapping in mixes that causes the combinatorial unmasking.

In short, it is a clusterfuck (not a clean, clear, provable solution) and that is why I abandoned it.

Yes this could very likely be the case with Dash, and a very valid point in that case; however it does not apply to coins such as Bitcoin or Monero where the miners can do as they please with the coinbase. When it comes to FinCEN and Dash one needs an army of lawyers on both sides to sort that out.

I am aware of that. However, for an stand-alone altcoin creating coins out-of-thin-air is just as detrimental as unmasking the anonymity, because both will likely result in the coin dying.


No it doesn't, because coinbase transactions are mixin = 0 in Monero and therefore you can check if the total supply hasn't been tampered with.


I don't say I do. eb3f stated on reddit the following: "Monero uses ring signatures, as you may know, which is battle-tested and well-understood in the cryptography world and in practice". Even with community review it will take a long time to get to this state. I also don't agree with bolded here, but I won't go on a back-and-forth discussion with you over that.

I'll let others which are more knowledgeable comment on the metadata.

Please dont feed the trolls guys.