Monero speculation bitcointalk

If you Monerotards want to make up your private terminology that is okay, but it is not my problem nor my error.Once the median block size has risen to accommodate the volume of transactions that includes the Sybil attack, then there is no penalty accessed for that volume of transactions because it is the new median.In other words, the probability of being deanonymized by overlapping mixes, increases the longer that a spend transaction has been on the blockchain.Even ignoring transaction fees (in the case of a single dominant miner).Of course, there is no proof that he is or has done this, but it is very reasonable to suspect he may or could.This is a problem because masternode owners with malicious intentions could try to deanonymise users.It is entirely useless to listen to his opinion about technology.

P.S. Did you see my reply on Monero Stackexchange about zero knowledge proofs.Best you ask about other coins on neutral forums, like bitcointalk. I am going to guess every other coin like Verge.However, the infographic on Bitcointalk gave some more clarity.The Sybil attack could already be 80% right now and you would have no way of knowing.

But such a distinction may not actually exist especially for businesses and high net worth individuals (i.e. the market that actually needs privacy), because private data as seen by nodes on the network often has a market value to various data mining markets (when aggregated for many users).Such metadata correlation enables a linkage between spend transaction in any case, and possibly even identifying the person signing them (if the metadata can be linked to a real identity).But make sure you do your own research before you invest in any coin, including Monero of course.

Bitcoin Forum - Index

And yet you somehow think I am the jackass by pointing out how inane it is to insist that I am not knowledgeable in this field.

The claim itself reveals some info for obvious reasons, but the proof does not.For example, Bitmain does not have to mine with all the ASICs it manufacturers in order to extract the majority of all the profit that is produced by mining with the said ASICs.

Yet when presented with new vulnerabilities that they had not modeled in their white papers, they resort to marketing spin and dismissiveness, instead of responding to the academic challenge with math.Afaics, mixing is only needed when you think the source of your coins has been compromised.The other potential attack vector is centralization of mining and I have another blog coming about that.Also none of them are aiming to scale to millions of transactions per second as I am for my Bitnet project.Make you also attack the credibility of person (not the facts) who wrote down the facts.This is not 2% of the payments, but only 2% of the block reward.I have a different economic onboarding and ecosystem monetization business model plan than Steem(it).Btw, I tentatively think (but want to think more) Mircea Popescu is incorrect in his misunderstanding of the economics of proof-of-work because PoW is incentives incompatible without an oligarchy on mining (thus his proposal is irrelevant and I solved the node economics problem in a different way which also deals with the incentives incompatibility issue).

monero-mining-hardware-comparison - Google Docs

A stronger attack would require bloating up the chain and operating costs even more (10x for a 90% attacker and 100x for a 99% attacker).Review the comment below my blog where I wrote that for your edification.And you might prefer something more reliably anonymous, such as for the moment perhaps gold or a future cryptocurrency such as the one I am working on.And as the blog explained and the link above further clarifies, this is quite economic.

And the user should never submit new transactions to the network from the IP address of his full node, nor communicate with the same IP address (or other correlated metadata) to his full node.I discussed that in more detail in the comments section of this blog.This asymmetry means that in order to maintain a blocksuize above the minimum effective median of 300000 bytes one has to pay the penalty and burn coins.Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that all of the cryptographers of Cryptonote and Monero are anonymous.I thought there is some technology they invented where we could run the setup with 1000s of participants.Ring signature transaction enable the payer to select which UTXO to mix into the anonymity set of his spend transaction (obviously in order to obscure which of the UTXO is the payee, the deanonymization of which is what we are discussing).So we really need the token people want to hold to also be the token they want to spend anonymously.The flaw is that the set of transactions mixed together that provides the anonymity set, is never all of the unspent transactions (UTXO) on the blockchain.

The can rapidly lead to blindness and is a very serious emergency.In that way, the actual signer of each transaction is obscured in a grouping, yet the double-spend prevention feature of blockchains is maintained.Or to otherwise make additional precautions against linkability that might be gained via traceability correlations.It is a complex interplay of factors, considering the use cases and everything holistically.