yes

cool i found one

please report through hackerone and make sure to read the Vulnerability Response Process

do they understand german ?

most likely not

Isthmus: did you have a chance to segregate the coinbase and non-coinbase spends for Bitcoin?

so send the report

DrHanner, if you can't translate to english, just use google translator or something

but yeah send the report :)

darn i so want to talk about it :P

Oh yeah, send a confidential text to one of the biggest info slurpers around. Can't miss.

lol i see your point

but it is easy fixable so that is a plus

else i am pretty impressed with monero

quite a solid algorithm

Please ping me when it's filed, so I can check. There'll be a release soon so it'd be nice if whatever you found can be fixed in that.

i send it like 40 minutes ago

Thanks.

DrHanner: I replied, not sure if you're getting notifications (I am not).

Hey atoc - sorry for the belated followup, was super swamped today. Insight started with professional training Fellowships for specialized tech fields, including my blockchain engineering program ( www.insightconsensus.com )

But now we bring our best researchers and developers in-house as “Residents” and I help connect them with exciting work in open-source ecosystems. Right now I’ve got teams working on Monero, Zcash, Polkadot, ICON, and have a half dozen more queued up. Ping me if you have any ideas :- )

Huh, snippet was unexpected

@sgp_ Turns out that finding the BTC coinbases is easy (SELECT <whatever> FROM `bigquery-public-data.crypto_bitcoin.transactions` WHERE is_coinbase IS TRUE) but identifying when they’re spent isn’t quite as trivial.

However, once the spend time feature is engineered, should be easy enough to generate a summary dataset by adding … COUNT(whatever) … GROUP_BY(spend_time)

i saw it and responded moneromoo

hard to explain to a non coder moneromoo

moneromooo is quite the coder

Replied.

i send a pseudo program

Thanks.

u are welcome

else impressive code

moneromooo ?

Yes ?

i googled to reverese black2 if you knew the key is trivial :P

It is best not to give hints of the claimed exploit on a public channel :P

Anyway, I'm off till tomorrow for now. I'll reply to any new message on H1 then. Good night.

nite

well well

anyone from the monero security team here or a monero developer ?

Since transaction volume was discussed elsewhere, here's a fun plot usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/ROjiFNaH/tx.png

"Clear" means transactions where amounts are in the clear

"Semi" means transactions where inputs are in the clear, but outputs are hidden via commitments (transitioning to the CT model)

"Opaque" means transactions where inputs and outputs are hidden via commitments (the CT model)

The same data, with each bar normalized usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/pklSPykY/scaled.png

neat graph; it's good to see tx volume at/above the level witnessed in the 2017/18 bubble

Yeah

super cool graph, thanks for sharing]

I'm adding on the more recent months

Good to see the vast majority of pre-RCT inputs migrated quickly

(this is up to block 2M, chosen for simplicity)

There are still a nonzero number of non-opaque transactions, due to transitioning old funds

but it's clear that these are edge cases

I'll post updated versions of these once my scripts finish their updates

I'm working them into an easy-to-use script that anyone can run incrementally to produce consistent data of this kind

I think having this data readily available is useful

the low volume of 'semi' transactions implies most outputs are spent temporally close to where they were created, which broadly aligns with assumptions about spend patterns

Yeah, even though we occasionally see apparent spikes that are clearly a mass transition of many old outputs

If anything, this is a good reminder of how useful protocol enforcement can be

The transition was extremely fast

I'm also running a similar plot, but showing only deducible transactions over time, classified by type

If anyone has better ideas for terms for these types, let me know; I just made these up for the purposes of this analysis

I don't like saying "pre-CT" and "post-CT" since that's not an accurate description

How about BC (before confidential) and AD (after denominations) ?

Or CE (confidential enabled) and BCE (before confidential enabled) if we want to go more modern.

:D

Of course, you can still have non-opaque txs after the CE cutoff...

I think it might be confusing to some people since the transition point didn't ban non-opaque transactions (or you couldn't spend old funds)

This tripped up the authors of that preprint, for example

Or: clear, transition, confidential?

lol moneromooo

"Or: clear, transition, confidential?" I like this, although "clear, CT-transition, and ringCT" might be better since we could in the future have "clear, CT-transition, ringCT, Arct-transition, Arcturus"

We can always update the names when that happens

Perhaps the biggest fault of RingCT is its uncool name

it was before we were cool sarang

How cool are we now?

way cool

FWIW my original internal name for Triptych was LRS-56 :(

LRS = linkable ring signature, 56 = issue 56 on research-lab repo

honestly triptych sounds like some disease you get from eating parasite infected pork or something

I'd say ringct is cooler

:(

lol sry

if we had to do it all over again we'd give it a cool name like Zetaorium

or Infrablaze

Arcturus is way cool

I'm using this: storygen.weebly.com/future-tech-name.html lol

ahahahha that's fantatic

If I knew this existed, so many preprints would have different titles...

arcturus does sound like a cool transformer or something

It's from a Simpsons episode

Oh, I thought it was from space objects :(

That's where the Simpsons got it!

we already have a draft from the auditors but the CCS proposal is not yet moved to funding required

fluffypony luigi1111 luigi1111w ^^^

so it's a space object in the Simpsons?

Heh, it was the name of a project in "You Only Move Twice"

niocbrrrrrr: the draft is only for the preprint review

the code review will come later in the month

No code changes are needed as a result of their preprint review

jwinterm: LRS-56 also sounds like a disease --> COVID-19

o_0

Glad I changed it...

I don't quite like "clear" since it's not the same as a transparent Bitcoin transaction, and the name may imply this

maybe "denominated"

even though the denominations weren't enforced

or "no-CT"

I'm open to changes

And I get why "clear" is non-optimal

At any rate, this is only relevant if/when making such plots and data more broadly available

"Amounts visible" -> "Transition" -> "Amounts hidden" ?

^ sgp_

"Amounts visible" might also lead to misunderstanding.

Why?

Output amounts were visible, not transfered amounts.

You mean w.r.t. addresses?

I'm not sure what you mean. I meant if Alice sends Bob 4.2 monero, you might see inpputs of 2 and 10, and outputs of (handwaving the fee) 0.2 0.8 4 8.

Right; I don't mean to imply that destination-amount mappings are known

Only that amounts represented in the transaction are known

I don't know a great set of terms that keeps this subtlety in mind :/

And again, only relevant if/when these terms are used more broadly outside of research/dev

type1, type2, type3 :p

Heh, that's how they're represented in the data set...

pre-RCT, mixed, RCT?

But those don't necessarily correspond with the protocol enforcement cutoffs

that's the part that appears to have confused people (even researchers)

Maybe this is overthinking things

I dunno

Maybe just footnote "all transactions benefit from one-time addressing and (depending on protocol version) sender ambiguity"

<cankerwort> "enumerated" "transition" "unenumerated"

?

What is "enumerated" intended to mean?

(the fact that I'm asking means I don't really like them!)

<cankerwort> I was trying to think of a single word that would convey "has a value number attached"

<cankerwort> that was the closest I could get

Maybe "denominated" is more clear?

Even if not fixed denominations

<cankerwort> Yes I like that better

denominated -> transition -> opaque (hidden?)

<cankerwort> +1

<cankerwort> Or, post-CT: +?

I don't think "post-CT" has any inherent meaning if you don't already get what "RingCT" means

and if you do, you probably don't need the explainer terms

and I don't like "post-CT" since I've seen the term used to imply "transactions where amounts are hidden" and "transactions appearing on chain after the CT protocol transition"... and these are not the same sets of transations

s/transations/transactions

good bot

I don't see them as protocol cutoffs as much as the "output types"

As do I, but I think there's confusion between those interpretations

and that leads to things like that preprint's conclusions

Fortunately this distinction is almost entirely irrelevant for anyone using Monero (except those transitioning old outputs)

maybe: plaintext [amounts] / transition/ encrypted ?

And then in future would be necessary to annotate encrypted further: RingCT, ... whatever

No way around that, really.

Updated transaction data: usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/xwfZxIAO/tx.png

And scaled: usercontent.irccloud-cdn.com/file/jfBVKF6L/scaled.png

Nice

What do y'all think about EIP1559?

Here's a casual and semi-philosophical article: medium.com/@TrustlessState/eip-1559…ereums-monetary-policy-58802ab28a27

And here's one that gets deep into its relation to transaction volume and dynamic block size: insights.deribit.com/market-research/analysis-of-eip-1559