Quote from: Gnosis- on November 04, 2014, 06:04:06 PM

Quote from: robinson5 on November 03, 2014, 05:30:20 PM

Quote from: sorrros on November 03, 2014, 03:36:57 PM

How about some level of moderation for this thread?

Are you not concerned about these things?

1. K1773R is still blaming the transaction problem on cryptsy. There have been bugs found in the anoncoin code and cryptsy is compiling from source. Other exchanges and even desktop qt clients are having the same problem as cryptsy. So this can't be a cryptsy problem. I would really like if the devs would work on this problem seeing as a cryptocurrency with transaction problems is obviously really bad. What are the devs doing to fix this? We need anoncoin back on exchanges asap.

K1773R is in agreement that we should switch to the 0.9.3 codebase.

Quote

2. Meeh has been working on myriad auxPoW for the past month but recently asked what myriad auxPoW is. Since he can't develop something he doesn't know about what has he been doing? An update on the supposed "imminent" hardfork would be great. The sooner this hardfork happens the sooner anoncoin can fix the difficulty issue.

3. Anoncoin code is still based on bitcoin 0.8.6 which is almost a year old at this point. Why hasn't the anoncoin code been updated? Bitcoin is currently on 0.9.3 and there have 4 updates in between 0.8.6 and 0.9.3. Why has anoncoin missed all 4 updates? Gnosis recently posted that meeh was working on updating the code to 0.9.3 but that concerns me because meeh was also supposed to be working on myriad auxPoW but seems to not be doing too well with that either.

Meeh definitely knows what myriad is, so this was probably a misunderstanding. Anyway, I am doing the porting to 0.9.3 and adding a replacement for KGW. Our faulty difficulty algorithm is a major contributor to block difficulty oscillation. After all this is released, either myself or another developer (probably not meeh) will work on myriad auxpow. Meeh seems to be extremely busy with his job these past weeks, but we are capable of doing this without him.

Quote

4. This conversation with ian miers of zerocash is also troubling. He doesn't seem to think our RSA UFO's are strong enough. https://twitter.com/secparam/status/449576116161089537

He doesn't seem to get it. Maybe Twitter is the wrong medium for such conversations.

It appears that he thinks an n-bit random integer has a 100% probability of being factored in T time by an attacker (in other words, he thinks there's no variation in time to factor). This is definitely not the case. Also, if it was the case, then the Sander UFO construction would not be secure.

Thank you Gnosis for explaining everything and for all your hard work on anoncoin! This really helped settle my concerns