Post
Topic
Board Altcoin Discussion
Re: Zero Knowledge Transactions
by
TPTB_need_war
on 17/10/2015, 19:04:02 UTC

Please read the prior discussion about the above anonymity feature, including my recent peer review that identified/revealed the flaw in an attempt to create the same invention by someone who may be affiliated with Monero.


You are asking for more than 100K yet you have not responded to the cryptographer on reddit.

No I asked only for $20K (+ $1K to reimburse our donation to the author of CCT which is underlying tech that makes it more efficient than CT).

And I did respond, but I don't see a need for me to respond further at Reddit. I appreciate his reply, but my last statement there was maybe I should keep my mouth shut. Also the cryptographer did not address both of the flaws, so it just a continuation of more sloppy. He throws up a white paper that didn't even have all the required math in it, then he puts up version 2 and says version 3 is coming. Why do I need to respond to a moving target. He only addressed the duplicate spending issue and he did so by introducing some complex new probablistic signature algorithm he apparently invented which afaik has not been vetted. And even with all that complexity that can't be as easily trusted for a few years until it has been challenged/vetted, his afaics still can't merge balances without revealing values.

When I say I invented a solution, I didn't have to invent any new crypto primatives. I reused existing well vetted zero knowledge proofs, EdDSA, and Cryptonote. I didn't invent new unvetted primitives (and I also removed from CCT the former requirement for a large unvetted, inefficient 768-bit ECC curve).

If Shen explains more clearly his new signature crypto primitive, then I can better analyze his new unvetted crypto primitive the "Mokum-gane signature". He is clearly a math nerd (probably very expert) because communication and written elucidation is not his strong suit. I am primary a programmer and I aim for K.I.S.S. and clarity.

I wish him the best with his design, but the tying of each input to each set of outputs is a fundamental weakness that my design doesn't have. My design you have a ring for each input. The outputs are orthogonal to the proof each the ring. He has conflated the two and thus his solution will never be as general and robust as mine.

My white paper can be explained to novices. I could make a web page that would explain it to laymen who got As in their high school math courses.