Pages:
Author

Topic: Cryptonote: More Bitcoin Than Bitcoin - page 3. (Read 11316 times)

legendary
Activity: 1276
Merit: 1001
March 14, 2015, 05:47:20 PM
What does cryptonote do? Can someone give a beginners explanation pls.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/xmr-monero-a-secure-private-untraceable-cryptocurrency-583449

Look for "What is CryptoNote?" in the first post. This is a pretty good overview of what it is and what it does.

newbie
Activity: 11
Merit: 0
March 14, 2015, 05:21:59 PM
#99
What does cryptonote do? Can someone give a beginners explanation pls.
hero member
Activity: 700
Merit: 500
March 14, 2015, 04:40:11 AM
#98
I don't know enough about it to be able to meaningfully contribute to the discussion, but there is quite a bit of discussion about it in the Alt Coin Discussion forum, especially in some of the Monero threads.

At a similar level of knowledge but I'll keep a watch on it myself looking at how much discussion it has generated
It sounds interesting in concept though reading the wiki article on it
Some contorversies on that page but it's new relatively so I'm sure the dust will settle if the crytography is what is promised.
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
March 13, 2015, 08:29:26 PM
#97

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons Wink 
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.

If we didn't think cryptonote's features had some value, we wouldn't be here.  It is worth pointing out that simple fundamental privacy is not something to be offered but something to be claimed.  Lets look at privacy with a specific example to make things more clear.  Using tor, I send some litecoin to a throwaway poloniex account and convert it to bitcoin and send it via coinjoin to a stealth darknet market address so I can buy antibiotics.  How is my privacy? 

Good enough for a hundred quid worth of antibiotics I'd wager. 

On the other end, the dealer redeems with the stealth address and uses tor to move the coin, moving to another alt and through a dice game before cashing out using an e-coin card. 

It is possible to have pretty good privacy with bitcoin.  It just isn't default out of the box behavior.  Could we do better with ring signatures and cryptonote avoiding all the counterparty risk in my example?  Maybe we could.  However we aren't there yet.  First you guys will have to build a working full node wallet that can run with 512M ram, and a javascript library or equivalent for easy paper wallet creation.  That's to enter the race mind you, not to win it.         




     
legendary
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1014
March 13, 2015, 11:57:07 AM
#96

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons Wink 
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.

This. It has been said before, Blockchain cant adopt ring signature technology, it would need a major rewritting of the code, fork.. tons of stuff that are not good for the stability of the network.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be what it isn't, that's why both Bitcoin and Monero have legitimate value.

This is also a very important point.  It is arguably better for each blockchain for them both to exist.

Andreas Antonopolous himself has been saying repeatedly that Bitcoin cannot guarantee total anonimity and that other altcoins should be used if one was concerned about remaining 100% anonymous, so he does not see a problem with it.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 5146
Note the unconventional cAPITALIZATION!
March 13, 2015, 11:24:19 AM
#95

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons Wink 
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.

This. It has been said before, Blockchain cant adopt ring signature technology, it would need a major rewritting of the code, fork.. tons of stuff that are not good for the stability of the network.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be what it isn't, that's why both Bitcoin and Monero have legitimate value.

This is also a very important point.  It is arguably better for each blockchain for them both to exist.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 509
March 13, 2015, 11:15:58 AM
#94

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons Wink 
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.

This. It has been said before, Blockchain cant adopt ring signature technology, it would need a major rewritting of the code, fork.. tons of stuff that are not good for the stability of the network.

Bitcoin doesn't need to be what it isn't, that's why both Bitcoin and Monero have legitimate value.
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 5146
Note the unconventional cAPITALIZATION!
March 13, 2015, 11:14:17 AM
#93

In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons Wink 
  

Your most important two words are "in theory".

Bitcoin could possibly survive adding features from branches of it's own codebase, but even if a coin added ring signatures etc to the bitcoin codebase inheriting changes this fundamental and large would arguably destroy the trust in the protocol.

It's obvious you don't think cryptonotes features are worth having in crypto-finance, but there are many many of us who believe they are not only worthwhile, but essential.  It may not be Monero, or cryptonote, but some blockchain that offers solid simple fundamental privacy HAS to exist.

It will never be Bitcoin.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
eidoo wallet
March 13, 2015, 11:07:40 AM
#92

OK I'll bite.  Please enlighten us as to what the obvious reasons are that software projects or communication protocols which build on bitcoin tend towards the not worthwhile.  


They are Bitcoin clones essentially. If they ever made a feature worthwhile (most haven't but you never know), Bitcoin would be able to incorporate it with relatively no problems. Think of it like a treebranch, and Bitcoin is the entire tree, and the altcoins based off Bitcoin are the branches and leaves. Why would anyone take the leaves when they have the whole tree? Those altcoins who use Bitcoin's codebase are basically trying to compete with Bitcoin while being an initial clone of Bitcoin.

Those that don't use Bitcoin's codebase are new territory. If someone/company finds the coin interesting, they can create new services based around it, and be the first in the field to do so(Which is more profitable since there is likely to be less competition at the beginning with new codebases, unlike bitcoin based coins). Those coins are entire trees themselves, not "leaves" on the tree like bitcoin based coins are.


In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons Wink  

Your arguments suggest that coins are always in direct competition with one another, which is not necessarily the case.  You also suggest that building services for little-used coins is more profitable than building services which have a large number of existing potential customers.  The only reason this would be the case is if you plan to design services of such low quality that they can't compete.  

  

"You also suggest that building services for little-used coins is more profitable than building services which have a large number of existing potential customers.  The only reason this would be the case is if you plan to design services of such low quality that they can't compete. ", that's not what I said. I said the competition will be less, since you'd be required to design your services based around a new codebase(That isn't bitcoin based, and that requires skill and time to make), which means the profit might be higher for those services if the coin surges in popularity, potentially higher than that of a bitcoin-based coin.

The main argument comes down to this: Would the public use a coin that's basically bitcoin+other features? Or a coin that's entirely different from bitcoin down to the protocol level+other features? The latter.
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
March 13, 2015, 11:00:47 AM
#91

OK I'll bite.  Please enlighten us as to what the obvious reasons are that software projects or communication protocols which build on bitcoin tend towards the not worthwhile.  


They are Bitcoin clones essentially. If they ever made a feature worthwhile (most haven't but you never know), Bitcoin would be able to incorporate it with relatively no problems. Think of it like a treebranch, and Bitcoin is the entire tree, and the altcoins based off Bitcoin are the branches and leaves. Why would anyone take the leaves when they have the whole tree? Those altcoins who use Bitcoin's codebase are basically trying to compete with Bitcoin while being an initial clone of Bitcoin.

Those that don't use Bitcoin's codebase are new territory. If someone/company finds the coin interesting, they can create new services based around it, and be the first in the field to do so(Which is more profitable since there is likely to be less competition at the beginning with new codebases, unlike bitcoin based coins). Those coins are entire trees themselves, not "leaves" on the tree like bitcoin based coins are.


In theory, bitcoin could incorporate any feature from any codebase.  It could move to cryptonote even, if a consensus majority agreed.  Which they never would, for obvious reasons Wink 

Your arguments suggest that coins are always in direct competition with one another, which is not necessarily the case.  You also suggest that building services for little-used coins is more profitable than building services which have a large number of existing potential customers.  The only reason this would be the case is if you plan to design services of such low quality that they can't compete. 

   
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
eidoo wallet
March 13, 2015, 10:33:49 AM
#90

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.


Yes, we all know that codebases which are more buggy and less well tested are generally more likely to "go somewhere".  

Actually much more likely to go somewhere. Clones of Bitcoin/Altcoins that use Bitcoin's codebase tend not to be worthwhile, for obvious reasons.

OK I'll bite.  Please enlighten us as to what the obvious reasons are that software projects or communication protocols which build on bitcoin tend towards the not worthwhile.  

They are Bitcoin clones essentially. If they ever made a feature worthwhile(most haven't but you never know), Bitcoin would be able to incorporate it with relatively no problems. Think of it like a treebranch, and Bitcoin is the entire tree, and the altcoins based off Bitcoin are the branches and leaves. Why would anyone take the leaves when they have the whole tree? Those altcoins who use Bitcoin's codebase are basically trying to compete with Bitcoin while being an initial clone of Bitcoin.

Those that don't use Bitcoin's codebase are new territory. If someone/company finds the coin interesting, they can create new services based around it, and be the first in the field to do so(Which is more profitable since there is likely to be less competition at the beginning with new codebases, unlike bitcoin based coins). Those coins are entire trees themselves, not "leaves" on the tree like bitcoin based coins are.
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
March 13, 2015, 10:28:05 AM
#89

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.


Yes, we all know that codebases which are more buggy and less well tested are generally more likely to "go somewhere". 

Actually much more likely to go somewhere. Clones of Bitcoin/Altcoins that use Bitcoin's codebase tend not to be worthwhile, for obvious reasons.

OK I'll bite.  Please enlighten us as to what the obvious reasons are that software projects or communication protocols which build on bitcoin tend towards the not worthwhile. 
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
eidoo wallet
March 13, 2015, 10:08:37 AM
#88

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.


Yes, we all know that codebases which are more buggy and less well tested are generally more likely to "go somewhere". 

Actually much more likely to go somewhere. Clones of Bitcoin/Altcoins that use Bitcoin's codebase tend not to be worthwhile, for obvious reasons.
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
March 13, 2015, 05:15:08 AM
#87

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.


Yes, we all know that codebases which are more buggy and less well tested are generally more likely to "go somewhere". 
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
eidoo wallet
March 12, 2015, 05:15:13 PM
#86
Not sure if it's already been mentioned in this thread, but there is actually a coin called ShadowCash (SDC) that uses cryptonote tech as a layer on top of Bitcoin codebase. Best of both worlds.... perhaps.

...but its pos
...so absolutely uninteresting

Besides PoS, it uses the bitcoin codebase. I'm sure it's common knowledge(or ough to be), that altcoins using the bitcoin codebase aren't going anywhere.

*cough* bitcoin clone *cough*
*cough* bitcoin can add on their features instantly if it's actually worthwhile*cough*
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
March 12, 2015, 04:32:54 PM
#85
Not sure if it's already been mentioned in this thread, but there is actually a coin called ShadowCash (SDC) that uses cryptonote tech as a layer on top of Bitcoin codebase. Best of both worlds.... perhaps.

Best of both worlds or worst of both worlds, or some of each. Hard to say.

Also as later poster added, PoS comes from neither Bitcoin nor cyptonote tech, so the above isn't even true. It is more like cryptonote tech on top of a Blackcoin code base or something. Less compelling when described that way IMO.

sr. member
Activity: 252
Merit: 251
March 12, 2015, 06:16:38 AM
#84
Not sure if it's already been mentioned in this thread, but there is actually a coin called ShadowCash (SDC) that uses cryptonote tech as a layer on top of Bitcoin codebase. Best of both worlds.... perhaps.

...but its pos
...so absolutely uninteresting
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
Cloak Creator and Veritise - www.vcode.tech - See
March 12, 2015, 05:51:35 AM
#83
Not sure if it's already been mentioned in this thread, but there is actually a coin called ShadowCash (SDC) that uses cryptonote tech as a layer on top of Bitcoin codebase. Best of both worlds.... perhaps.
legendary
Activity: 1066
Merit: 1050
Khazad ai-menu!
March 12, 2015, 05:31:38 AM
#82

Well, that's the beauty of cryptonote. It can provide both relative transparency and secure anonymity. It's not one thing, it's both.

Hmm that reminds me of another coin, I just can't remember the name.  

Edit:  I remembered!  It is "bitcoin". 
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
March 11, 2015, 10:18:48 PM
#81
Pages:
Jump to: