Quote from: TraderTimm on September 10, 2016, 05:52:36 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on September 02, 2016, 03:07:29 PM

What do they gain from such an attack against Monero?
They do not learn anything about the transactions from mining, and how to determine what transactions to attack? The most they could do would be to mine empty blocks and delay transactions by two minutes or so.
This sort of attack is not effective verses block-chains where the transactions are private, not public.

In fact they could already be doing this, no one would know, because it wouldn't matter.

And comparing the hash rate of a CPU mined chain to an ASIC mined chain is a false comparison. You should know better, sir. FUD rejected.

If the majority of bitcoin wallets implemented ring-signatures and required the use of BIP47 addresses (aka stealth), then Bitcoin could stop worrying about this sort of thing also, but too many do not care about their privacy until after it is violated, (and they find out).

You must've skipped over the entire post, which considering your history of posting slap-dash pseudobabble, isn't surprising.

It was a theoretical attack vector based on the farcical fabrications of an e-journalist that Monero is replacing Bitcoin somehow with darknet/black market transactions.

Now follow very closely here, because I know attention to detail isn't your forte, but the amount of computing power (regardless of algorithm, my dear chum-filled chum) is TRIVIAL compared to what is needed for Bitcoin to execute an attack. That was the point. I know you're working it through your goldbergian-meatworks-of-a-frontal-lobe right now trying to make it twist to your reality, but that is the unvarnished truth of it.

Go back to writing about your Bitcoin "religion", its more suited to your obfuscated and gordian-knot-like thinking skills.

I don't think your point was missed. Everyone is aware that the hashing power and subsequently the cost of attacking the chain is much cheaper. It would just behoove to compare apples to apples.

First of all it's not about the hashing power, it's about the cost of the hashing power, and thus the cost of the attack.

Second of all, you could compare the price of the coin and attack to bitcoin when bitcoin had the same price or hashrate. (And btw. note that most of the DNM stuff is still denominated predominantly in btc)

Thirdly, it was mentioned that the attack vector - though acknowledged as a genuine attack vector - would be moot in the application you're describing (snooping, transaction withholding etc.).

Fourthly, it's doubtful an agency is going to blow a budget of now millions of $USD with the aim of maybe stopping some crimes they could solve better in other ways. Gaining more power? Perhaps, yes. But stopping/catching bad guys? Very doubtful. Very very doubtful. What kind of manager would approve a budget on now more than $100m (I haven't done any calcs, I just assume it's up there..) to do what exactly? I realise that there's golden toilets and nefarious dealings, sure, but how much normal detective work (which is FAR MORE effective) could you deploy for the same budget?

Fifthly, as we have seen, as the currency grows, so does the hashrate. In late 2010 the hashrate is comparable to monero's today. Look how fast the bitcoin hashrate grew from there on.

There are many other attack vectors and reasons for them, and a large number of reasons why the whole project could fail. The reasons for this attack vector just seems implausible. Then again, more implausible things have happened.