5 ms·

The current market cap of Zcoin is 1,538 BTC [0], so this person created 1/4 of all the coins in circulation (410 BTC), and these guys are saying: "We knew we w

by josu 10y ago

The current market cap of Zcoin is 1,538 BTC [0], so this person created 1/4 of all the coins in circulation (410 BTC), and these guys are saying: "We knew we were being attacked when we saw that the total mint transactions did not match up with the total spend transactions". It took them way too long to realize that they were being outsmarted. EDIT: u/aftbit also posted this on the thread: "They even cited the ability to detect hacks like this as a key advantage over Zcash. [1]" [0] https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zcoin/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/zcoin/ [1] http://blog.zcoin.tech/zcoin-and-zcash/ http://blog.zcoin.tech/zcoin-and-zcash/

desdiv 10y ago
Or alternatively, the developers designed this hard-to-find typo/bug years ago and have now just quietly cashed out.
- meowface 10y ago
  Seems very unlikely since it would inevitably cause many to lose faith in the currency. If they really want to cash out, they can just do what almost every other upstart cryptocurrency founder does and make it clear they're taking some of the pie.
  - GrinningFool 10y ago
    If they just want out, the things that happen to the currency don't matter to them - they're already gone.
    - meowface 10y ago
      That's true, but if this was the epic exit scam they were planning for so many years, it's a bit disappointing.
      - dnautics 10y ago
        410 BTC is half a million dollars.
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        meowface 10y ago
        True, but many of these currency founders are looking for millions. Not saying it's impossible this is a scam, but I still doubt it.
  - hueving 10y ago
    You're assuming the one who introduced the bug was a founder with the ability to do that.
    - meowface 10y ago
      That's the assumption the parent poster made, not me.
      - hueving 10y ago
        Uh, no it's not. You're the one that mentioned founders. The parent poster just mentioned developers.
        meowface 10y ago
        He said "the developers" and "years ago", implying the founders.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Making a currency is already a gold mine. Mine the first 100k coins and hide them for 5 years.
kobeya 10y ago
Well yes, they were not wrong to cite the ability to detect hacks like this as a feature over zcash. This same class of error could exist in zcash and we would never know. We know it happened here because of the ability to audit.
- josu 10y ago
  You are completely right, I hadn't considered that. This is what Zcash has to say about it: Since the value sent between shielded addresses is private, how can we determine the number ZEC in circulation? Currently, we know that every miner validates every transaction, and each transaction comes with a zero-knowledge proof that it doesn't violate conservation-of-money (i.e. a proof that the money coming out of the transaction is ≤ the money going into the transaction). This reasoning depends on the soundness of the zero-knowledge proofs. If someone could get the miners to accept a transaction that created new money — if you could somehow forge a zero-knowledge proof or defeat the zero-knowledge-proof-verifier software in the miners — then you could counterfeit money. We are investigating options for the future which would enable accounting for all ZEC in existance(sic). Stay tuned to our blog for any proposals on this matter. https://z.cash/support/faq.html https://z.cash/support/faq.html
  - jackgavigan 10y ago
    This type of challenge is implicit in any cryptocurrency with strong confidentiality (i.e. which conceals the amount being transferred from public view) unless you trust the "inputs-equal-outputs" proving mechanism (which, in Zcash's case, is the zk-SNARK that accompanies a shielded transaction). One potential solution is to periodically require that all coins be unshielded (i.e. sent to a t-address) and passed through a turnstile mechanism (thus allowing them to be counted). After a reasonable amount of time, a new consensus rule kicks in that prevents coins from being spent unless/until they've been put through the turnstile. That would effectively allow for a full audit of the monetary base without compromising privacy.
    - kobeya 10y ago
      What? This is totally incorrect. It is perfectly possible to build systems that verify total issuance while concealing amounts. Blockstream's Confidential Transactions does this, for example.
j_s 10y ago
Smells like the original Jurassic Park! But at the insistence of Malcolm, Arnold tries different ways of counting the animals on the computer. The count reveals that there are 292 animals in the park, much higher than the official figure of 238. Malcolm concludes that the animals, including the deadly velociraptor, are breeding. Wu cannot believe it, because all the dinosaurs are female. http://www.novelguide.com/jurassic-park/summaries/iteration3 http://www.novelguide.com/jurassic-park/summaries/iteration3

by josu 10y ago

desdiv 10y ago

Or alternatively, the developers designed this hard-to-find typo/bug years ago and have now just quietly cashed out.

meowface 10y ago
Seems very unlikely since it would inevitably cause many to lose faith in the currency. If they really want to cash out, they can just do what almost every other upstart cryptocurrency founder does and make it clear they're taking some of the pie.
- GrinningFool 10y ago
  If they just want out, the things that happen to the currency don't matter to them - they're already gone.
  - meowface 10y ago
    That's true, but if this was the epic exit scam they were planning for so many years, it's a bit disappointing.
    - dnautics 10y ago
      410 BTC is half a million dollars.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - meowface 10y ago
        True, but many of these currency founders are looking for millions. Not saying it's impossible this is a scam, but I still doubt it.
- hueving 10y ago
  You're assuming the one who introduced the bug was a founder with the ability to do that.
  - meowface 10y ago
    That's the assumption the parent poster made, not me.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Uh, no it's not. You're the one that mentioned founders. The parent poster just mentioned developers.
      - meowface 10y ago
        He said "the developers" and "years ago", implying the founders.
brianwawok 10y ago
Making a currency is already a gold mine. Mine the first 100k coins and hide them for 5 years.

kobeya 10y ago

Well yes, they were not wrong to cite the ability to detect hacks like this as a feature over zcash. This same class of error could exist in zcash and we would never know. We know it happened here because of the ability to audit.

josu 10y ago
You are completely right, I hadn't considered that. This is what Zcash has to say about it: Since the value sent between shielded addresses is private, how can we determine the number ZEC in circulation? Currently, we know that every miner validates every transaction, and each transaction comes with a zero-knowledge proof that it doesn't violate conservation-of-money (i.e. a proof that the money coming out of the transaction is ≤ the money going into the transaction). This reasoning depends on the soundness of the zero-knowledge proofs. If someone could get the miners to accept a transaction that created new money — if you could somehow forge a zero-knowledge proof or defeat the zero-knowledge-proof-verifier software in the miners — then you could counterfeit money. We are investigating options for the future which would enable accounting for all ZEC in existance(sic). Stay tuned to our blog for any proposals on this matter. https://z.cash/support/faq.html https://z.cash/support/faq.html
- jackgavigan 10y ago
  This type of challenge is implicit in any cryptocurrency with strong confidentiality (i.e. which conceals the amount being transferred from public view) unless you trust the "inputs-equal-outputs" proving mechanism (which, in Zcash's case, is the zk-SNARK that accompanies a shielded transaction). One potential solution is to periodically require that all coins be unshielded (i.e. sent to a t-address) and passed through a turnstile mechanism (thus allowing them to be counted). After a reasonable amount of time, a new consensus rule kicks in that prevents coins from being spent unless/until they've been put through the turnstile. That would effectively allow for a full audit of the monetary base without compromising privacy.
  - kobeya 10y ago
    What? This is totally incorrect. It is perfectly possible to build systems that verify total issuance while concealing amounts. Blockstream's Confidential Transactions does this, for example.

j_s 10y ago

Smells like the original Jurassic Park! But at the insistence of Malcolm, Arnold tries different ways of counting the animals on the computer. The count reveals that there are 292 animals in the park, much higher than the official figure of 238. Malcolm concludes that the animals, including the deadly velociraptor, are breeding. Wu cannot believe it, because all the dinosaurs are female. http://www.novelguide.com/jurassic-park/summaries/iteration3 http://www.novelguide.com/jurassic-park/summaries/iteration3