polarized

7 ms·

1.
by polarized 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McIntyre_v._Ohio_Elections_Com...
2.
by polarized 9y ago
> fast random access memory That term is misleading and implies actual RAM-type memory is needed, which is untrue. Monero scales quite well using a database on SSD up to transaction rates far in excess of anything Bitcoin can or will rea
3.
by polarized 9y ago
80% for the first 4 years. 90% "eventually"
4.
by polarized 9y ago
The comment to which I replied (not by you) claimed that the anonymity set is all shielded transactions. It is, in the same sense that the first order anonymity set of Monero transactions is all outputs included in the ring signature which
5.
by polarized 9y ago
Yes you are likely correct that "most recent" being the "most likely" is not accurate. However, there is a distribution and it has a peak. It is certainly not flat, so it is incorrect to say that the entire set constitut
6.
by polarized 9y ago
Sorry my mistake. My comment was about Section 4, not Section 3. RingCT is immune to the methods in Section 3 as stated in the last paragraph of Section 3. Section 4 does not trace any transactions. It identifies a probability bias which ma
7.
by polarized 9y ago
> the first to unveil real problems with Monero It is not. The problems were previously identified and documented by Monero developers, and the paper acknowledges this. The paper attaches specific historical numbers to those problems, wh
8.
by polarized 9y ago
> The point they are trying to make is that the anonymity set between shielded addresses is that of all transactions in the anonymous set. This way of stating is somewhat questionable in light of the claims in the second half of the pape
9.
by polarized 9y ago
The technique in the second half of the paper is not able to trace any transactions at all, as I explained in more detail in another reply. It identifies a partial weakness in the ring signatures but it is not capable of breaking them.
10.
by polarized 9y ago
It was a deliberate design decision as the issue was mitigated in a different manner starting in early 2016 (and introducing that check wouldn't be very effective anyway for other reasons). The results of the mitigation are shown in th
11.
by polarized 9y ago
The section 3 vulnerability traces (aka "de-anonymizes") precisely no transactions at all. It indicates that the probabilities across potential outputs sources are biased, but does not offer any method at all to identify any actua
12.
by polarized 15y ago
Maybe but things like domain squatting and the inability to shut down domains pointing to illegal or controversial sites is likely to be quite controversial.
13.
by polarized 15y ago
Running the service does not use very much CPU time. Mining is separate, and you don't even need to do that just to keep the domain up.