The so-called "whitepapers" are actually content-free, buzz-word heavy marketing brochures.
Topic: DASH Collapsing Monero UP - page 14. (Read 40405 times)
The market reaction to Dash's Evolusham speaks for itself:
The so-called "whitepapers" are actually content-free, buzz-word heavy marketing brochures.
The so-called "whitepapers" are actually content-free, buzz-word heavy marketing brochures.
The less scrutiny an algorithm has been under the more risk for vulnerability existing.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
Why are you trying to distract from the issue? The crippled miner issue was fixed quickly in Monero and with little effects, whereas the instamine 100% happened to the tune of 30% of current emissions and the algorithm issue is current and on going, and far as I know, has no plans of being changed.
Typical, ....
Wants to distract from the huge pink elephant in the room of the dash-ers
...
So what are the technical weaknesses of Monero, nutilduh?
We've discussed the weaknesses of dash: the algorithm(s), the instamine, darksend, the fallacy of decentralized goverance where a few probably hold an inordinate amount of coins thanks to an instamine and the lowering of emissions shortly thereafter (I may have missed one or two).
So what are the technical weaknesses of Monero, nutilduh?
We've discussed the weaknesses of dash: the algorithm(s), the instamine, darksend, the fallacy of decentralized goverance where a few probably hold an inordinate amount of coins thanks to an instamine and the lowering of emissions shortly thereafter (I may have missed one or two).
... or economic or regulatory for that matter?
...
Just stating the facts, ma'am.
Just stating the facts, ma'am.
"Facts" that are irrelevant to the debate.
I know, its the core principle by which the Maneurians spread their feces, ahem, gospel.
If Manuero was based on technical premise alone, it wouldn't even be discussed here.
Its just the same handful of desperate retards that have decided to use their precious hours on planet earth trying to swindle their fellow man 24/7.
So what are the technical weaknesses of Monero, nutilduh?
We've discussed the weaknesses of dash: the algorithm(s), the instamine, darksend, the fallacy of decentralized goverance where a few probably hold an inordinate amount of coins thanks to an instamine and the lowering of emissions shortly thereafter (I may have missed one or two).
...
Just stating the facts, ma'am.
Just stating the facts, ma'am.
"Facts" that are irrelevant to the debate.
Shouldn't this thread have been titled "Icebreaker is a Hardcore Monero Shill?"
It would have made much more sense.
It would have made much more sense.
Maybe if we focused on the technical, economic and regulatory strengths and weaknesses of both coins rather than this endless bashing of personalities we could have a somewhat civilized debate.
Just stating the facts, ma'am.
X11 has had its use which was to make creating GPU and ASIC miners harder and slower process. It was a good decision at the time compared to some other algorithm which already had optimized miners for the devs but were launched with deliberately crippled miners for the public.
X11 was launched crippled. The hashing library used was and is very unoptimized, and there was zero basis for believing it would be GPU resistant at all. The algorithm was in fact very GPU-friendly (all of the hash functions were already known to be easy to compile on a GPU) and Evan even stated this shortly after launch. Yet there was no optimized CPU miner or GPU miner at launch. Private GPU miners were rumored to be on the network (probably correctly so) within weeks.
Shouldn't this thread have been titled "Icebreaker is a Hardcore Monero Shill?"
It would have made much more sense.
It would have made much more sense.
Maybe if we focused on the technical, economic and regulatory strengths and weaknesses of both coins rather than this endless bashing of personalities we could have a somewhat civilized debate.
Shouldn't this thread have been titled "Icebreaker is a Hardcore Monero Shill?"
It would have made much more sense.
It would have made much more sense.
The less scrutiny an algorithm has been under the more risk for vulnerability existing.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
Why are you trying to distract from the issue? The crippled miner issue was fixed quickly in Monero and with little effects, whereas the instamine 100% happened to the tune of 30% of current emissions and the algorithm issue is current and on going, and far as I know, has no plans of being changed.
... but what is far more important than the instamine, is that the multiple algorithm issue remains as a vulnerability in Dash.
Edit: The instamine issue in Dash has been beaten to death and distracts from some significant technical and economic weaknesses and regulatory risks in Dash that are far more serious.
The less scrutiny an algorithm has been under the more risk for vulnerability existing.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
Why are you trying to distract from the issue? The crippled miner issue was fixed quickly in Monero and with little effects, whereas the instamine 100% happened to the tune of 30% of current emissions and the algorithm issue is current and on going, and far as I know, has no plans of being changed.
illodin is just proving how naive he is ... i mean he was the guy Evan lied too about the launch time ( "can i go to sleep and will there be an ETA for launch" Evan : "yup... oh wait nvm it is launched" ... and he is still not mad lol... and defends it even though he said he lost his wallet....
The less scrutiny an algorithm has been under the more risk for vulnerability existing.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
Why are you trying to distract from the issue? The crippled miner issue was fixed quickly in Monero and with little effects, whereas the instamine 100% happened to the tune of 30% of current emissions and the algorithm issue is current and on going, and far as I know, has no plans of being changed.
The less scrutiny an algorithm has been under the more risk for vulnerability existing.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
11 times whatever likelihood is still less likely than the 100% certainty of launching with an intentionally crippled miner. Unless you believe 11 times 10% risk is 110% risk for example.
And as Anonymint/tptb_need_war pointed out, it could already be broken and rolling it back or changing it won't undo the damage done:
Yes, any coin's hashing algorithm could be currently "broken".
If any one of the hashes in the chain of 11 hashes has a lower entropy then the entire chain does. Say you found this vulnerability and didn't announce it. Instead you could use it to amplify your hashrate. With that you could take unfair levels of mining rewards, or potentially launch double-spend attacks.
Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.
So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash.
Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.
So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash.
I openly admit to being too stupid to understand what it means that something is 11 times more likely than something else. Could you perhaps please explain?
He says it in pretty clear language. If you find a vulnerability in one hash, you can abuse it, so it only follows that having 11 hashes gives you 11 hashes which can be exploited, therefore 11 times the risk. So your earlier statement that any hashing algorithm in a coin can be broken (some are more secure than others and much more so) is a faulty comparison because the more hashes the more vulnerability exist and rolling them back and deleting one is not a solution if the attack has gone on for too long. If you wan't a more detailed explanation, you can ask tptb_need_war as this explanation is meant for easy consumption for someone like myself.
And as Anonymint/tptb_need_war pointed out, it could already be broken and rolling it back or changing it won't undo the damage done:
Yes, any coin's hashing algorithm could be currently "broken".
If any one of the hashes in the chain of 11 hashes has a lower entropy then the entire chain does. Say you found this vulnerability and didn't announce it. Instead you could use it to amplify your hashrate. With that you could take unfair levels of mining rewards, or potentially launch double-spend attacks.
Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.
So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash.
Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.
So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash.
I openly admit to being too stupid to understand what it means that something is 11 times more likely than something else. Could you perhaps please explain?
Don't see how DASH https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/dash is collapsing compare to Monero
When technical arguments are brought up, dashtards tend to scatter. You're the only one, except for Evan, who has bothered defending X11, but still when it's explained that you failed to grasp that a rollback and elimination of a algorithm won't always work--you get crickets....
Shame that your whole investment centers around an algorithm that has a pretty glaring hole in its design--but that doesn't matter to you, because you lost all your wallets and you're defending this poorly designed coin out of the goodness of your heart, right?
Shame that your whole investment centers around an algorithm that has a pretty glaring hole in its design--but that doesn't matter to you, because you lost all your wallets and you're defending this poorly designed coin out of the goodness of your heart, right?
I think I've said X11 or any of its algorithms can be changed at any time, it's not like Monero that has this "social contract" anchor tied around its neck preventing it making any sort of meaningful changes all the way until the bitter end.
X11 has had its use which was to make creating GPU and ASIC miners harder and slower process. It was a good decision at the time compared to some other algorithm which already had optimized miners for the devs but were launched with deliberately crippled miners for the public.
And as Anonymint/tptb_need_war pointed out, it could already be broken and rolling it back or changing it won't undo the damage done:
If any one of the hashes in the chain of 11 hashes has a lower entropy then the entire chain does. Say you found this vulnerability and didn't announce it. Instead you could use it to amplify your hashrate. With that you could take unfair levels of mining rewards, or potentially launch double-spend attacks.
Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.
So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash.
Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.
So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash.
So would Evan just relaunch as another coin? Or maybe he plans to abuse this weakness and give himself another big payday? Maybe he could even award you back the coins you lost. How many was that? On how many wallets? And you just lost them all at once? Seems like Evan isn't the only one with a diminished capacity to think ahead.
Why is Evan buying Dash on the open market while selling Dash Over The Counter?
?
?There is no good explanation for such an action, especially when we take into account the fact Evan was also hyping Dash with faulty TA ("zomg triple bull signal") and pumping ("zomg I'm buying") with this right arm, while his left arm (Dash "marketing") dumped.
To be honest I understand most of your criticisms they are often not true or manipulated but I get them, they normally refer to a current weakness that is being worked on like the reference node. You were right on criticizing the reference node as the dev team also understood it was part of the plan to remove it until they were successful. It is the same with any coin being actively develop. You are right on criticizing I made a bad call on the market as the BTC pump made the BTC ratio go down, it happens, although I would argue in dollar terms we have been pretty stable.
But I really dont understand the OTC criticism, it just makes no sense. Evan is free to buy coins on the market as much as he wants. We have an OTC program to sponsor activities from the budget system that are specific to the things that get approved like going to a conference or financing the electrum client, Evan has nothing to do with that and he does not handle that.
I dont understand what you are trying to imply, he got around 30BTC worth of Dash from the markets and I got around 5K USD around the same time. So what? Sometimes we just want coins as we are still accumulating. He also helps sponsor activities separate from that as do many other supporters and team members. I really dont get what you are trying to imply as our OTC program is part of the sponsoring of official activities and the coins that are sold are only those approved from the budget system for a specific purpose so sometimes there are just no coins available to sell. Evan can personally buy as many coins as he wants, one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Minotaur doesn't understand
He doesn't understand that it's more evidence of fraud from the DASH team (as if more was even needed). Nice try attempting to brush it off.. it took you almost 1 month to say you don't understand what the big deal is? Did you finally consult your attorneys and they advised you playing dumb was your best course of action?
Don't worry, some people understand exactly what Darkcoin is all about. Deliberate instamine fraud, continuous lies, deception and changes to benefit the fraudulent instaminers/developers, and a core team that hype their shitcoin while selling OTC.
Please Minotaur26, let us know if there's anything we can do to help you understand
He means poor in the sympathy context not the wealth context. It's pretty standard use and the misreading makes me wonder if you'll think "pretty standard" means "beautiful common" or "above average looking average."
illospin is well aware, he just has to keep spinning. Spin it illodin.. harder better faster stronger!
Poor illospin
What is funny about this is that I probably would have way more MONERO than you if I hadn't accidentally deleted all my wallets.
Maybe so, and that matters because......
Do you always go around bragging about how much more money you have than someone else? It might help if you were more concerned about keeping proper backups than comparing yourself with others. Just a thought.
Poor illospin, he sounds so insecure
I thought it mattered a lot to you given it's you who started with the "poor" thing in the first place, no?
He means poor in the sympathy context not the wealth context. It's pretty standard use and the misreading makes me wonder if you'll think "pretty standard" means "beautiful common" or "above average looking average."
I thought strawmen and misunderstanding on purpose were highly valued conduct in Monero threads.
Unless it's you eating dem apples I suppose.
When technical arguments are brought up, dashtards tend to scatter. You're the only one, except for Evan, who has bothered defending X11, but still when it's explained that you failed to grasp that a rollback and elimination of a algorithm won't always work--you get crickets....
Shame that your whole investment centers around an algorithm that has a pretty glaring hole in its design--but that doesn't matter to you, because you lost all your wallets and you're defending this poorly designed coin out of the goodness of your heart, right?
I think I've said X11 or any of its algorithms can be changed at any time, it's not like Monero that has this "social contract" anchor tied around its neck preventing it making any sort of meaningful changes all the way until the bitter end.
X11 has had its use which was to make creating GPU and ASIC miners harder and slower process. It was a good decision at the time compared to some other algorithm which already had optimized miners for the devs but were launched with deliberately crippled miners for the public.
Jump to: