Topic: [DASH/XDN/XMR/SDC] Comparison between the most known anonymous coins (MUST READ) - page 17. (Read 33664 times)

Unlinkable transaction upgrade to CryptoNote and blockchain bloat reduction are probably the two biggest upgrades to any CryptoNote currency so far. XMR has probably done a bunch of stuff too but I can't think of a specific thing off the top of my head that could be more important than those two upgrades. XMR devs plan to do their own versions of these upgrades down the line, but they have a lot on their plate so I wouldn't expect them anytime soon.

CryptoZoidberg is still around. He's done a lot of work and it's a bit silly that you would dismiss that and have the balls to put Ducknote above BBR in relevance.

It is okay, children do that since they know I am showing clear flaws in its design.
He is frustrated he is bag holding a technology that has little future outside of the pumps organized by the mass instamine and early adopters..

I just can't resist momma jokes for some reason. It was inappropriate, I made a mistake and I apologize. Sometimes when spending too much time on this forum it's easy to forget there are also civilized people reading. I edited my post and hope you will edit the quote as well.

Be ↄareful, the ↄult of Darshↄoin uses Scientology's 'Attack the Attacker' strategy against its ↄritics.   


QFT.

The part with his xxx was completely unecessary.
I am a DRK/Dash-investor and I enjoy this thread and the discussion, please stay on topic.

I buy Darkcoins from a party that is KYC compliant, and transfer them to my wallet address A. Now the address A can be linked to me.

Next I put them through the Darksend mixing process, and now instead of having coins in address A, I have coins in addresses B1, ..., B10 for example. Then I proceed to spend the money in address B5 by sending it to a public donation address of WikiLeaks.

However, you strongly oppose WikiLeaks and everyone who supports it, and want to know who that B5 is. You import private key of the address B5, and then what?

Please, Stealthcoin is not even anonymous. Could you tell me what makes it anonymous ?  

For Navajo I don't think anyone have seen anything until now. It will be added if it proves its tech for some weeks.

This comparison can be perfected, but there is no reason to put coins that don't have the tech.

And that is all you can say? whether it uses or not is irrelevant ... I can de-anonymize 100% of the network for all completed transactions. Every time you make a new transaction because I know the previous history I can also accurate analyze it. That was based on your/drk logic.

Regardless I like the way you answered the one part that suited you.
The point is "You have to break a single algo to deanonymize DRK and yet would have to break multiple to have the same effect on CN/Shadow" and that is ignoring the design flaws such as 92% of your MN reside at 9 different ASNs etc etc etc

I look forward to the day a cryptographer has anything good to say about the DRKs MN design ... IMO never will happen!

I meant it's unfeasible to think that the NSA is everyone out there but yourself(Which is impossible, they are no omnipresent, lol). The 100 was just a random number, it could be even 20,000, etc etc, which is one of the beauties of Monero/ring signatures/cryptonote.

Ok, ill your word on the inputs being separated from the outputs

Denominations are almost irrelevant at this stage, since most people use the term "1 Darkcoin", not "1 Darkoshi etc". This is because the coin has a relatively low price, and using denominations would make the price of one coin even "lower", which is unnessecary. That's why taking darkcoins out of the markets and stocking them up on masternodes is such a bad idea, unless you plan for Darkcoin to be used solely as a commodity.

 
that is a biaised "comparison". goal = promo for shadowcoin.
 
i like how the subject say "...the most known..."  like, is SDC really that known?

where is navajo? where is stealthcoin?  and there are others too...

Sorry, but with current state of Boolberry (not even in top 100 marketcap - no development since months) and the few differences with XMR or XDN, it doesn't seem to be useful to put Boolberry in the comparison

Take the time and can unravel the "randomization" - well that's what it's designed to prevent. It removes the link from inputs to outputs. There is no correlation in the blockchain anymore.



Well you brought it up so that's why.



What does that even mean? 

Darksend does not reuse addresses.

"With on chain anonymity everything is in one database. Forever. With off chain anonymity no one has all the information."

Not true, you can see look at the blockchain and see the mixings happening and if you take the time and can unravel the "randomization", you might be able to identify the reciever and sender(Since it is coinjoin) . Cryptonote coins protect against blockchain anaylsis, unlike other coins(Darkcoin).

"How do you know those 100+ are actually different people? They could all be NSA."


That arguement could be used for any coin or any item online, including Bitcoin, Darkcoin, Google, Facebook, etc. Not very practical.

" 1 Darkcoin is divisible by 100,000,000. They won't run out."

That doesn't matter as all altcoins besides Bitcoin as of now have low prices per coin, making denominations almost irrelevant. That's why you need as much coins as you can to be on the markets, not locked up in masternodes taking liquidity away.


https://cryptonote.org/inside

You are missing the point again ... when you cannot find any weaknesses is the design of both CN/Shadow you have to resort to breaking the one thing which fundamentally makes crypto currencies secure.

But if you want to play this game lets play.

For arguments sake lets say ECDSA is broken ... so now for every address that has ever made a transaction we can derive the private key.
So as a average crypto user; I could simple import this private key into my wallet and reindex. Voila! I now have every transaction that address every made. Good luck with your dual network or whatever you call it as simple chain analysis will reveal all!

Now try doing that with a solution that uses ring sigs and stealth address. You have to break a single algo to deanonymize DRK and yet would have to break multiple to have the same effect on CN/Shadow.

^ see how your logic is flawed! just like the masternode design.

That is a very common fallacy. Or maybe you just have nothing to hide?

When the cryptography securing on chain anonymity is broken, everything in there will be revealed. New algorithms will be implemented to secure everything else from future attacks like your coins so they can't be stolen, but what has been put into the chain will be there and can't be made anymore secure.

I read the first two paragraphs and got bored? Really where going down the route of "you are using cryptography to secure anonymous transactions and this is bad?" this is a ridiculous argument.
Why not go one further and start telling this to those who want to see Crypto fail, lets give them a heads-up that Satoshi was mad using cryptography to secure Bitcoin.

Firstly, if the cryptography is compromised the least of my worries is remaining anonymous; you would have alot of other things to worry about.
Secondly, there is something called "stealth address" oh and of-course if that cryptography is broken well then sir you have more more to worry about than remaining anonymous.
Thirdly, see 1 and 2 and oh yeah why not send a note to Satoshi about it whilst you are at it about how dumb his idea was of creating a cryptography secured digital currency.

A network must be online in order for it to work as a network. And this a huge weakness? Bitcoin has nodes that must be hosted, otherwise you can't connect to it at all.



With on chain anonymity everything is in one database. Forever. With off chain anonymity no one has all the information.



How do you know those 100+ are actually different people? They could all be NSA.



1 Darkcoin is divisible by 100,000,000. They won't run out.

Daily volume for Monero: $ 49,562 (heavily centralized to Poloniex, insiders tossing coins from one pocket to another?)
Daily volume for Darkcoin: $ 178,984
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/volume/24-hour/

No. They are categorically not 'centralised' because of that.

Your talking about hosting of particular instances of the daemon as opposed to the logical architecture of the network. This word 'centralized' gets jumped on as if it's the holy grail of everything - a hammer that turns everything else into a nail. Its use with regard to cryptocurrencies alludes to the logical interaction of each node with the rest of the network. The whole *point* of a decentralised architecture is that things like machine hosting of particular 'nodes' have no bearing on this.

All of crypto, including bitcoin, is inundated with cloud mining facilities - in fact they are positively *promoted* all over the place. Despite that, if you consult blockchain.info's metrics regarding mining 'centralisation', they're not remotely interested in who's hosting the mining nodes, rather what pools they are subscribed to.

This is just another example of picking some random aspect of a network's demographic (not its logical architecture) and manically banding about straw men based on it simply to have something to shout about.

Now lets consider a couple of extreme cases - say, [1] - if a hosting company were to shutdown all the nodes it hosted and [2] - if it were to compromise (take control of) all the nodes it hosted.

Case [1] is a benign attack. The nodes can simply be resurrected elsewhere (because, being wallet daemons, they are logically decentralised). It's no different in that respect from shutting down a cloud mining array - in fact it's even more benign since the blockchain hashpower isn't affected. That is secured by the regular mining function just as in bitcoin.

Case [2] is impossible. The attacker needs the private keys to the masternode collateral account to gain control a masternode and they are held offline and have nothing to do with where the particular daemon happens to be hosted.

Even if you did have access to the actual machines hosting masternodes, so what ? All cryptocurrency architectures have to *assume* bad actor operations in every aspect of their design. With the next revision of node blinding, you won't even be able to learn anything from the logs and even if you did, all you'd do at the absolute theoretical worst is de-anonymise some random transactions between one anonymous part of the money supply and another.

There's no systematic vulnerability there.

Because this is a not so subtle attempt at advertisement.