> which is completely true. But I'm really having a problem coming up with an attack where that information is useful in any way. ...its not useful in large scale surveillance. and it's barely useful in specific targeted surveillance scenarios.
It's how the guy traced in this chainalysis video was caught and arrested:
https://v.nostr.build/D4Nzp22vRF35IRnz.mp4
If he had used LN instead, the feds could not have told Chainalysis what addresses to watch, and Chainalysis could not have traced the outputs through multiple transactions to find out where they went.
> anyone who can find the cmdline can set up a monero node on old hardware or VPS in an hour copypasta-ing from a guide
Same with lightning. Really, give electrum a try.
you mean where he says "conveniently our tool has ruled out all the decoys. convenient but often not the case" ??
at about 30:15
yeah I always wondered how they did that.
it's not an honest argument to suggest they did it simply by Morphtoken giving them the stealth addresses.
and I do intend to try setting up a LN node on a VPS when I have the time.
It reminds me of how one could figure out how your coins went into silk road before it was captured. Oldies but goldies.
Team Problem: A Mystery
A certain cabal within the 6.042 course staff is plotting to make the final exam ridiculously
hard. (“Problem 1. Prove that the axioms of mathematics are complete and consistent.
Express your answer in Mayan hieroglyphics.”) The only way to stop their evil plan is to
determine exactly who is in the cabal. The course staff consists of nine people:
{Oscar, Stav, Darren, Patrice, David, Nick, Martyna, Marten, Tom}
The cabal is a subset of these nine. A membership roster has been found and appears below,
but it is deviously encrypted in logic notation. The predicate incabal indicates who is in the
cabal; that is, incabal(x) is true if and only if x is a member. Translate each statement below
into English and deduce who is in the cabal.
incabal means in group
∃ Exists
!= Not Equal
∧ And
∨ Or
→ implies, if ..., then ..., IMPLIES
∀ for all
¬ Not
(i) ∃x ∃y ∃z (x != y ∧ x != z ∧ y != z ∧ incabal(x) ∧ incabal(y) ∧ incabal(z))
- 3 unique members exist (x, y, and z)
(ii) ¬ (incabal(Stav) ∧ incabal(David))
- Not Stav and David are in the group
- An equal meaning to this is either Stav OR David are in the group
(iii) (incabal(Martyna) ∨ incabal(Patrice)) → ∀x incabal(x)
- if Martyna OR Patrice are in the group then for all x are in the group.
- This is a lie because only 3 people can be in the group and for all x implies all 9
(iv) incabal(Stav) → incabal(David)
- if Stav is in, then David is in
- It just said above they both can't be in the group so Stav can't be in group
(v) incabal(Darren) → incabal(Martyna)
- if Darren is in then Martyna is in
- this leads to a dead end because of (iii)
(vi) (incabal(Oscar) ∨ incabal(Nick)) → ¬incabal(Tom)
- if Oscar or Nick then Tom is not in.
- So it could be Oscar and/or Nick
(vii) (incabal(Oscar) ∨ incabal(David)) → ¬incabal(Marten)
- if Oscar or David then not Marten
Therefore:
The only remaining people that could be in the group is:
Oscar, David, Nick
