1PaLDgUGDAbHy2bYChmAbbErLdAriDnpNB

Why scam though? Just leave the site running and rake in that house edge monies. Unless the guy is just a completely soulless bastard, or got hacked and decided to cut and run.

Maybe you should follow your own advice there? Only people who hold a lot of coins can work to develop a coin? It's open source so anyone who wants to can develop it. What the fuck are you doing bashing developers who put in the effort to develop an open source project for no pay, maybe you should GTFO.

Ah yes, that's where I was getting confused. Thanks for the clarification.

Nekomata, I'm also an XMR supporter but I agree with some of the other posters in this thread that there are a lot of new Monero threads popping up recently (arguably too much), which will undoubtedly lead to fatigue and frustration of other board members & other coin supporters.

I have no doubt that a fair amount of the new posts are 'false-flag' anti-XMR trolls posing as XMR fanboys trying to piss people off. I don't think (or at least I hope you are not) one of those but I also don't think this thread was needed. I would suggest sticking to the existing threads in future.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but would that analysis not require the assumption of constant hashrate/difficulty over the period considered? If there is a sharp rise or fall in hashrate over the period then you will end up with some very improbable results.

So I did a little analysis on the number of blocks generated in the past 3 days (since the timewarp was 'set in motion'). I've broken them down into 12-hour (0.5 day) increments from 11:00 to 23:00 and vice-versa. I then compared the number of blocks we'd expect in these increments given one block per minute, vs the number of blocks we have actually had.

I further considered both cumulative variance (the total blocks generated between now and then vs what we would have expected) and the period variance (the number of blocks generated in any 12 hour increment vs what we would have expected). For any 12 hour period we should be getting, on average, 720 blocks.

Days		No. Mins		Block height		Total Blocks		Cumulative Variance		Period Blocks		Period Variance
0		0		236012		0		0.00%		0		0.00%
-0.5		720		235287		725		0.69%		725		0.69%
-1		1440		234495		1517		5.35%		792		10.00%
-1.5		2160		233792		2220		2.78%		703		-2.36%
-2		2880		233083		2929		1.70%		709		-1.53%
-2.5		3600		232353		3659		1.64%		730		1.39%
-3		4320		231678		4334		0.32%		675		-6.25%

As we can see, the major number that jumps out was the 10% period variance in the 12-hour interval between block 235287 and block 234495. This means there was 10% more blocks generated than we would have expected.

Personally I don't believe this to be outside of the bounds of normal generation-rate fluctuations, especially given the prolonged increase in difficulty over that period of time (see difficulty on http://chainradar.com/xmr/chart between 11am and 11pm on 26th September). This suggests there was an increase in network hashrate over this period, which could account for the 10% extra blocks generated while difficulty caught up.

Obviously this is just my opinion and it's possible that it may be the symptom of some sort of timewarp attack, but I do not believe this to be the case. Especially given that there has only been 0.32% more blocks generated than there should have been in total over the past 3 days.

I'll continue to analyse the block generation rate in 12-hour intervals going forward, and post the results on these forums, pointing out anything I spot that seems anomalous.

I welcome the opinion of others on these figures, or any suggestions on how to improve this analysis going forward.

tl;dr there's nothing wrong with the block generation rate since the 'attack' started. Will keep an eye on it going forward.

~pst~

Just catching up on this thread so forgive me for replying to a post from some pages back.


You would know all about that wouldn't you, being an expert in back-peddling and all. Like the time you claimed to be able to steal Monero private keys, then it just became a timewarp attack. Or like the time you used your Poloniex trollbox name (that you had confirmed by a post on here to be yours) to threaten Poloniex with an attack in a matter of minutes, shortly before it coincidentally went down due to DDOS, then come on here to deny any involvement.

Edit: Not that I'm saying you're not currently trying to execute an attack. Hell, you might even pull it off. But to call someone else out for back peddling is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black in my eyes. And as a result of your past untruths I have my doubts.

Crying at your own party? How tragic.



Maybe you should find less sociopathic hobbies?

So are we just going to keep extending the timer by another day every time the 'attack' fails to materialise? Is that how this works?

Hi Rough,

Do you have anything to substantiate your claim that you were mining Bytecoin in 2012? I'd be really interested in the following:

- How did you obtain the Bytecoin distributables back then?
- Was there open-source code available on the darknet, or precompiled binaries?
- Where did you find the code/binaries, and do you still have any of those early copies kicking about anywhere?
- Were there any darknet forums or sites where like-minded individuals could discuss and/or trade bytecoin, and if so where?
- Was it just solo mining or was there any pool mining available?
- When viewkeys are implemented, would you be willing to share the viewkey of the address you were mining to back in late 2012? To validate your claims.

I'm genuinely interested in your answers here!

#rekt

Looks like you forgot a few points in your post there so I went and fixed it up for you.

Thankfully the Monero team (not to be confused with the original dev that launched Bitmonero) were on the ball and released optimised miners as soon as they were able to. This was all done while the total number of coins emitted was still pretty low, so the overall impact of that early period of scammyness was minimised.

Wow, such insight. Thank you for that valuable contribution to this discussion.

There is actually a tl;dr in the OP btw:

I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that it was pointed out, on the previous page, that your account was registered less than 4 minutes after someone who you just happened to be agreeing with. Way back in January too, what are the chances?

Not really doing your credibility in this thread any favours if I'm honest with you.

That's from the darknet paper though, not the CryptoNote website. The fact that the date is based on the host computer basically means it can't be trusted because someone can easily change their system clock. Since we have no historical record of the darknet site, it's possible someone could have gone back and 'fixed' the dates using a correct version of latex after this thread was posted. If a hacker really did manage to gain access to the Cryptonote site they could have planted much more 'conclusive' false evidence than a messed up whitepaper.

Oh... Ok so the signing time on the darknet paper could easily have been faked too. All you'd need to do is set your system clock.

The only motivation I can imagine for this would be to discredit CryptoNote/CN coins as Hexah suggested. Maybe I'm not seeing every angle to the situation but it's hard to envision what else a nefarious actor would have to gain from illegitimately controlling the CryptoNote.org domain. Spread dissent from within and the whole community destroys itself.