-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
TheShadowBrokers Monthly Dump Service - June 2017 *** Update ***
TheShadowBrokers is making decide to be accepting Monero. For subscribe sending 500 XMR to the following address.
41jwGGMNRBKNurVnuo7ZW4HqrgPnfiJbfHUi3k46b5nFhvbpwcK6KdTSjvTRdbzdEzZbQ1t5GWhsW7scxcNv2adUJSbtExP
Monero is having "Payment ID" not "Encrypted Memo Field" but being almost same thing, small exception. Email Address you including in "Payment ID" is needing be converted to hexidecimal. If you are uber geek and converting ascii to hex in your head then fucking you. TheShadowBrokers is using webpage, ascii to hex.
[email protected] = 75 73 65 72 6e 61 6d 65 40 64 6f 6d 61 69 6e 2e 63 6f 6d
Monero requires Payment ID to be 32 bytes or 64 hex characters so pad difference with 00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
75 73 65 72 6e 61 6d 65 40 64 6f 6d 61 69 6e 2e 63 6f 6d 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
"757365726e616d6540646f6d61696e2e636f6d00000000000000000000000000"
Is theshadowbrokers doing correct? If not theshadowbrokers is sure many haters be posting smart comments. Is being ok, theshadowbrokers fucks your moms. You getting idea.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=Er8U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I wonder if they will accept ETH or Steem next!
Steem has absolutely no privacy features yet so it wouldn't be a good choice. Confidential transactions were on the roadmap at one point but not clear when if ever they will be a priority.
To be fair, Monero's "confidentiality" has also been somewhat broken, according to this paper. The reason I somewhat jokingly suggest Steem is due to them already using the platform :)
Edit: Apparently, as some users have pointed out, this attack is mitigated against. I should have researched further before jumping to a conclusion based off one paper.
No, it hasn't. The paper just outlines the methods and basic metrics of old and known issues that have been mitigated since.
@antanst is correct, Fluffypony addressed this already a while back. It involved all CryptoNote based coins.
there's a rebuttal here: https://getmonero.org/2017/04/19/an-unofficial-response-to-an-empirical-analysis-of-linkability.html
Thank you, I've added a correction. Interesting subject matter, will be doing further reading.
Hey,
quite nice that you're so open to willing to rethink your 'position'. If any more questions there's always the monero stack exchange : https://monero.stackexchange.com/ or the monero reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/
Although they haven't collected any rewards. It seems Steem is being used exclusively for the censorship-resistance aspect.
So it appears you have no idea what you're talking about. But nice "try".
Eh, so I misunderstood something I had read. I've now read the rebuttal, edited my above comment to acknowledge this (while retaining the original content), and we can all get along with our lives in a civil fashion, right?
That paper is BS none of that is current - none of that can work - all of it was fixed ages ago. FUD
I acknowledge this in the comment with an edit. To be fair, the Monero team only (as far as I could see) published an unofficial rebuttal as opposed to an official one with a request for correction. Surprised that the authors of the paper haven't issued a retraction/update of some form to explain its been fixed anywhere easily findable...
(I'm not one of the authors of that paper.)
As far as I know there's nothing incorrect in the paper that needs to be retracted.
You can see one of the authors of the paper — Andrew Miller — being interviewed by a journalist about it here: https://cointelegraph.com/news/monero-transactions-history-can-be-revealed-and-exposed-research The journalist specifically asks "Say I downloaded a Monero wallet right now and got some and tried to send them for a transaction. How linkable would a transaction be today?".
Since some people posted speculations about my company's involvement in the research and our motivations, our company posted this statement: https://forum.z.cash/t/on-improving-user-understanding-progressing-tech-with-science/15387
By the way, check out the awesome block explorer that the paper came with: https://monerolink.com
Yeah well your mom goes to college
Hey @shadowbrokers how are you today? haha
Your doing great job, I like it. Ps: you need a great bankster, I wanna be !
Assure you , you not being hacked. lmaorolf. Hasta la victoria siempre.
Congratulations @theshadowbrokers! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honnor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPBy upvoting this notification, you can help all Steemit users. Learn how here!