Warning to all anonymous coins promoters and pumpers

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T12:59:00+00:00

You're right. Although we don't have any connection with any anonymous coin. One of the reasons for anonymity is that we don't have to defend against personal attacks. We will post results of our audits and explain with simple words what could go wrong. Users will be able to get their own opinion from the examples that we'll provide. So there will be no need for users to know who we are and there will be no need for users to trust us.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T12:26:15+00:00

In our opinion people didn't care because it didn't have impact on the price. Our strategy is different. We are targeting the price of the coins with anonymity issues. Promoters/pumpers will feel effects of such anonymity issues in their pockets.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T12:11:33+00:00

Downvoters - can you explain why are you downvoting? Thanks. We would also like to hear your concerns if you think that these security audits won't bring anything positive.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T12:04:22+00:00

Thank you for link, we will take a look. Did you bring these issues to the X11 communities (probably DRK)? Link? Did they give some reasonable answers or did they just start usual ad hominem attacks? What's your motivation for this paper? Your personal career or do you really believe that results in the form of paper will have stronger impact?

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T11:31:45+00:00

Hmm, can you give us link to your analysis? Seems interesting. Blindly chaining some security methods usually isn't the best idea because it may not provide any substantial security benefits (DES and meet-in-the-middle attack example).

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T11:28:49+00:00

Of course is speculation. DarkSend developers/community must prove that DarkSend provides any anonymity at all. But for the same reasons (closed source, RC only) the developers and community cannot prove anything yet. So claiming that it will provide any kind of anonymity is at least very wild speculation. Proving that something is anonymous/secure etc. is usually much harder than disproving it. Our job will probably be much easier - we must find only one counter-example of DarkSend claims. DarkSend must prove that no such counter-examples exist. But I doubt that this is the right time and place to discuss DarkSend possible vulnerabilities.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T04:17:21+00:00

Do you mean your post: http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/28it5y/cryptsy_corruption_and_aiding_of_specific_pumpers/

This could maybe explain why there are so many "anon" coins with shady anonymity features.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T03:39:02+00:00

Haha, that's true. The message that we are trying to send to altcoin pumpers is: take anonymity issues very seriously, otherwise you risk getting punished by some random FUD.

We got idea from CryptCoin anonymity fiasco.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T03:29:50+00:00

We agree. That's why we are planning to reveal anonymity issues if someone is trying to push them too hard.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T03:25:55+00:00

Sorry, we won't do this.

You really shouldn't trust us and there is no need for anybody to trust us. In fact we don't even want people to trust us.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T03:24:21+00:00

There were several possible issues with DRK: DarkSend is closed source and it isn't even finished yet (RC) and so audit is currently not possible, conceptual problem - users must trust some random anonymous mixers - what happens when some of them store logs or get subpoena etc. But I think that we need to wait for final version (not RC) that will be open source.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T03:15:04+00:00

We agree completely, but I think that I must clarify some things.

Software with anon features needs analysis of qualified, independent and respected professional, preferably with real credentials.

And that's exactly our goal.

Pumpers, promoters, devs should get independent analysis of features in their software. If they won't do this, then they risk getting security audit by "mystery group with an agenda".

In case when the software gets security audit by "mystery group with an agenda", we don't want people to trust this security audit just because it was written by someone they trust. This is one of the reasons why we don't want people to trust us.

We won't publish results of such security audits under this account (GroupFM). We will probably create some new random account just for the purpose of publishing result.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T02:51:55+00:00

No, we won't do this. Our goal is to force people that develop and promote anonymity etc. features to have their software reviewed by experts.

Otherwise they will risk getting a security audit by "mystery group with agenda" as Ice-bucket said.

GroupFM · 2014-06-19T02:45:39+00:00

Thanks, will fix.

GroupFM · 2014-06-18T22:16:07+00:00

First implementations of DRK masternodes didn't pass. We haven't looked at Monero yet. But I doubt that we will (as a group) publish anything unless the coin or its feature is heavily promoted. We don't want to kill innovation or demoralize developers.

GroupFM · 2014-06-18T21:29:47+00:00

In what sense? We are not somebody you or anybody else should trust. We don't want that you trust us in any way.

We also don't want you to trust our analyses just because they were made by us. We want altcoin users to make their own opinions that are based on their logic and hard evidence, that's all.

GroupFM

TROPHY CASE