All that can be done already with multisig. And as with multisig the recipient is the one generating the receiving address. You can't force me to generate recursive covenants as receiving address any more than generating multisig with you as a recevng address. And the alternative without L1 development is that most people will use custody. Custody = we are back at KYCed permissiones banks.

All that can be done already with multisig. And as with multisig the recipient is the one generating the receiving address. You can't force me to generate recursive covenants as receiving address any more than generating multisig with you as a recevng address. And the alternative without L1 development is that most people will use custody. Custody = we are back at KYCed permissiones banks.

BITCOIN CONSENSUS IS NOT DICTATED BY TWITTER.

WILL NOT UPDATE ANY OF MY NODES TO SUPPORT OP_CAT.

WILL TREAT ANY ATTEMPT TO PUSH THROUGH ACTIVATION AS HOSTILE.

This is a good reply, finally, i've been asking around for days.

The main counter you have made here is something like: "Undermining Monero is possible, but would not achieve much, or would only do so for a short time before a solution would be deployed."

If it is possible and it does undermine Monero, then the goal (much) was achieved. We are talking about something they perceive to be, by the point they do this, an existential risk, perhaps on the level of a Hitler or Communist Russia. Think about that, and the war of attrition they would fight.

Knocking the price down 100$ in confidence in monetary terms would be the war equivalent of an air raid bombing on an enemies industrial sector.

Two huge assumptions are embedded in your scenario where we know an attack is taking place, that is, we have somehow confirmed that a state controls majority hash, and is fucking with tx's;

1. That a solution will and

1.2 can be implemented, and

2. that the price and project will recover.

The second strikes me as the "manifest destiny" level of confidence Bitcoin toxics have and the first is just as hopefull. While i agree that in general attacks can make a project stronger, this one anonymous hash providers, might not.

Advocating for or defending Monero at that point would be given no quarter or discussion. They would frame privacy coins as dangerous to a much higher level than even now.

Think of prohibition where they poisoned and allowed the sale of Alchohol, that in turn killed tons of people. There is no law so petty the state will not kill you over it. The state has and can do almost anything, credibility is established at the barrel end of a gun. No one would care if they run over your pet coin. They'll just say you are all drug dealers or something.

Another part of your repky relies on something others have said to me, a reliance on their past actions and behavior towards crypto. Seizing funds, legal games, regulations, ect. This still does not answer the question : How do we know hash is not captured/coordinated by the major pools right now ?

As far as attacks go, it's true, targeted censorship is not possible, but random censorship is. In addition to the other methods you mention, are all now tools they could use to undermine confidence in the network, if they did have hash dominance, and for cheap !

Not only that, this could be used in such a way and in a manner combined with an astroturf campaign to divert attention away from what is actually happening. For example, posting comments and starting rumors about it being a type of encryption or CT ring break or bug none of the devs can find, but it's actually just them controlling the hash the entire time.

As far as solutions, i like Nano's (xno) removal of fees and mining entirely and their special version of POS which is not a POS at all because nothing is staked, and is more akin to congressional voting, wherein how much weight a representative has is known to all and can be rebalanced if it gets too concentrated. But the reps, could still all be the same entity.

I need to study it more and of course it's core design is only pseudonymous like Bitcoi with no community ambition for privacy, which sucks but a fork of nano is working on Camo, a privacy tool like coinjoin.

Another is of course Worldcoin, with intrusive KYC and centralized development, so not really a solution.

Ultimately i don't think there is an obvious solution. What i'm describing is not a Sybil attack, i'm not saying they use bots or overwhelm the network with fake users.

There not being a readily obvious solution, does not remove the potential problem though.

POW or POS both just push the "Who watches the Watcher" problem up a level.

This is a good reply, finally, i've been asking around for days.

The main counter you have made here is something like: "Undermining Monero is possible, but would not achieve much, or would only do so for a short time before a solution would be deployed."

If it is possible and it does undermine Monero, then the goal (much) was achieved. We are talking about something they perceive to be, by the point they do this, an existential risk, perhaps on the level of a Hitler or Communist Russia. Think about that, and the war of attrition they would fight.

Knocking the price down 100$ in confidence in monetary terms would be the war equivalent of an air raid bombing on an enemies industrial sector.

Two huge assumptions are embedded in your scenario where we know an attack is taking place, that is, we have somehow confirmed that a state controls majority hash, and is fucking with tx's;

1. That a solution will and

1.2 can be implemented, and

2. that the price and project will recover.

The second strikes me as the "manifest destiny" level of confidence Bitcoin toxics have and the first is just as hopefull. While i agree that in general attacks can make a project stronger, this one anonymous hash providers, might not.

Advocating for or defending Monero at that point would be given no quarter or discussion. They would frame privacy coins as dangerous to a much higher level than even now.

Think of prohibition where they poisoned and allowed the sale of Alchohol, that in turn killed tons of people. There is no law so petty the state will not kill you over it. The state has and can do almost anything, credibility is established at the barrel end of a gun. No one would care if they run over your pet coin. They'll just say you are all drug dealers or something.

Another part of your repky relies on something others have said to me, a reliance on their past actions and behavior towards crypto. Seizing funds, legal games, regulations, ect. This still does not answer the question : How do we know hash is not captured/coordinated by the major pools right now ?

As far as attacks go, it's true, targeted censorship is not possible, but random censorship is. In addition to the other methods you mention, are all now tools they could use to undermine confidence in the network, if they did have hash dominance, and for cheap !

Not only that, this could be used in such a way and in a manner combined with an astroturf campaign to divert attention away from what is actually happening. For example, posting comments and starting rumors about it being a type of encryption or CT ring break or bug none of the devs can find, but it's actually just them controlling the hash the entire time.

As far as solutions, i like Nano's (xno) removal of fees and mining entirely and their special version of POS which is not a POS at all because nothing is staked, and is more akin to congressional voting, wherein how much weight a representative has is known to all and can be rebalanced if it gets too concentrated. But the reps, could still all be the same entity.

I need to study it more and of course it's core design is only pseudonymous like Bitcoi with no community ambition for privacy, which sucks but a fork of nano is working on Camo, a privacy tool like coinjoin.

Another is of course Worldcoin, with intrusive KYC and centralized development, so not really a solution.

Ultimately i don't think there is an obvious solution. What i'm describing is not a Sybil attack, i'm not saying they use bots or overwhelm the network with fake users.

There not being a readily obvious solution, does not remove the potential problem though.

POW or POS both just push the "Who watches the Watcher" problem up a level.

Oh. I'm not defending ASIC's as a more resilient structure, just that CPU's are not either.

Yes the community could respond, but you have once again ignored my question and other Monerans do this too. I'm not being mean here, just pointing out a common short circuit in logic:

How would you even know ?

For all we know the hash at this moment relies on several pools that appear to be decentralized, but are actually the same actor.

I want you to try this:

-Estimate how many Xmr users there are, -Double that to = x

-Now give each of them four cpu's, yhe cost of which is = y

-Make the cost of running 4 cpu's per year = z

- (x y z) = R

Now i want you to compare R with it's nearest comparable governmental agency or department or commitee. If it's too small for federal agencies, bring it to the state level.

- Let's = that to D.

When you have that i want you to read the following sentence outloud and tell me if you believe it, example:

The united states government is incapable of running a server farm with a cost of R which is comparable to the yearly budget of D, the Idaho potato Tourism department.

I’m not disputing this but the same goes for all PoW chains including #Bitcoin. What seems to be more important is the capacity for the network to respond to an attack. In this regards, I think the elasticity of the resources requires to counter an attack on the #Monero network is a plus.

I’m not disputing this but the same goes for all PoW chains including #Bitcoin. What seems to be more important is the capacity for the network to respond to an attack. In this regards, I think the elasticity of the resources requires to counter an attack on the #Monero network is a plus.

What stops the U.S government from having equal CPU hash power, right now?

How would you know they don't control 60% net, right now....

Monerans never answer these questions.

If Monero ever comes anywhere near Bitcoin's level of power and influence, you'll find out very quickly why Bitcoin's security model is anchored in energy rather than market decisions.

In regards to Monero, It's very cheap to buy CPU's that could appear to be different decentralized pools, but are actually co-operating. These colluding pools could each have only 10-20% hash each , but a combined +60%. While that has can't be used to censor, it can be used undermine the confidence in the network at a time when alternatives such as bitcoin are cut off. So far Monerans have intentionaly misunderstood the point i'm making or ignored and censored my comment.

Monero's security model is reliant on the community trusting the devs who rotate the hash algorithm and use checkpoints because it doesn't have the security budget to remain censorship resistant or immutable if it comes under attack. This is a non starter against a state actor and defeats the entire purpose of proof of work.

There are many ways Bitcoin is vulnerable, but it's the only attempt being made at separation of state and money.

Surviving means being able to provide censorship resistant immutable transactions. Without this, privacy is irrelevant.

Bitcoin has a chance of surviving a direct confrontation with a large state actor, Monero does not. The best chance you have is Bitcoin takes the brunt of the attack, and Monero adds unfuckable privacy for the edge cases when you need it.

Using the currency of your choice isn’t a sign of dependance.

Freedom to exercise personal privacy is very different from your freedom being dependent on privacy.

Gotcha, yes that’s a possible scenario although I really don’t know how it’s going to play out. But this validates my warning folks who think they won’t be unaffected by other people’s #bitcoin being KYCed while theirs won’t be.