Topic: delete - page 4. (Read 165543 times)

Of course, and that is possible with just any coin.
Monero it's true makes checkpointing easier by not having to compile anything.

But still, that does not make away with the fact that there is an "official" list
produced centrally that is explicitly being compared with "alternative" checkpoint lists.

True decentralized checkpointing would be totally distributed like the block creation, and
that may be impossible.

You could add your own checkpoints in a text file with copy/paste the block hash and block height and those will be enforced on your local copy of the blockchain - no centralized authority is needed to do that so it's decentralized.

From the Monero missive:


https://forum.monero.cc/1/news-and-announcements/47/monday-monero-missives-13-october-6th-2014

I may be missing something, but this doesn't look decentralized to me.
Unless you want to define decentralization as the ability to choose between being notified vs. automatical enforcement.

A few points:
1) This functionality you seek (the ability to continuously bring a checkpoint more current on a continuous and decentralized basis) is enabled by the innovation pioneered by the Monero development team.  
2) Individual miners can do it themselves, easily, without requiring any central authority.
3) The threat of a chain reorganization is always present with any PoW coin that may be subjected to a 51% attack.
4) There was no "real problem" to fix.  The problem was perception/FUD.  But the dev team recognized an opportunity for an advancement that benefits all coins and implemented it swiftly so that others need never be subjected to this brand of FUD, ever again.

There's no reason to list the coin on cryptsy as long as it is continuing to decline.  Much better to let it fall until it finds a real floor, sweep them off the floor, and then list it.

And our favorite, the trolls

There's absolutely nothing wrong to checkpoint a block that has been confirmed 1000x. Bitcoin does the same, just manually.
There's no real problem except that this forum is full of scammers and liers.

well yeah. i do not mean expire, expire. but out of range. unless the check point is made to check to validate short block range. say 100-1000. However this make them become a centralized solution. checkpoint are not the optimal solutions. they are there to give temporary strength while the real problem is fixed. then they should be removed or brought closer to few blocks.

First of all checkpoints do not "expire" and second, we have a DNS checkpointing system, adding a checkpoint is as easy as updating a DNS record for us, the clients update the checkpoints "on the fly", the system itself levarages DNSSEC for security.

he is probably waiting for the checkpoints to expire and then he will introduce his massive fork!

unless monero peeps keep adding time check-points ever week ....

This is no SMALL thing, as anyone who watches TOR Node security closely knows.

EDIT: I wrote this before reading the post above. DOH

http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-tor-anonymity-can-busted-2500-month/

Granted the nodes aren't TOR.  But it's impossible for me to believe there aren't exploitable holes in a node based mixing service.

Math gives me more confidence for a variety of reasons.  Namely that the method can be more transparently succinctly independently verified rather than thousands of moving parts.

I'm surprised you didn't bring up the blockchain size.  It's probably my biggest problem with ring signatures - the cost of storing the blockchain on thousands of machines as well as the bandwidth is much more expensive per transaction.


Yeah ... dumping tons & tons of coins on "accident" at the beginning to early developers / adopters on purpose might be a net plus for you.  For me it's a negative.  Mostly because those early adopters can rain fire and brimstone on the head of later adopters & profit while doing so.

Profit for targeted incompetence at the expense of current adopters.

I don't have a problem with the rich dumping - but when the rich have ill gotten gains it just doesn't sit so well with me.  Maybe I'm alone in this - time will tell.  But I seriously doubt it.  For all Monero's distribution woes - it looks angelic compared to darkcoin.


A currency needs to be branded as a currency.  Not a darknet fanboys wetdream.  What I mean by this is that the majority driving force of the coin needs to happen because it's a currency - not just because it's anonymous.

Wanna know why the darknet still primarily uses bitcoin instead of an anon coin?  Because they like the currency aspect of bitcoin that no anon alt has.

People need to use it because it's money, it's easy to use, it's got a stable infrastructure, it's got long term value.  Being anonymous should just be one aspect of the proper currency.  Darkcoin sounds like something pimplefaced 17 year olds gather and exchange for random sex acts in black hoodies to feel badass.  Monero ... not so much.

The broader audience where anonymity is one aspect of the currency is where the marketing strength lies (in my opinion).


Haha - a long long time.  Darkcoin has pretty much saturated it's core audience.  Monero has lost (based on pricing) some of it's audience.  I'm betting long on the thin wallet, the branding and cryptonote in general (without a stupid name & a dedicated development team) and a PoW coin that isn't/wasn't a scam.

Congrats to Darkcoin on the instant transactions - I just think with your name, your branding, and your initial instamine you saturated your market long ago.  

It's one of the markets I forsee being weak enough to be sucked into a future coin that has less baggage.  But obviously the price doesn't agree with me right now - so it's all an opinion.

Depends on your goals I suppose. Is it to beat bitcoin in the game of mainstream adoption?

And if it really happens that the name and branding will become a real obstacle when trying to reach certain areas of the market, that can be solved easily. I wouldn't worry about it.

Concerning image/branding opportunity. Monero is by far in the lead, it's name sounds like money...Dinero.. anyone? Darkcoin's sounds like something strictly illegal hence the Dark part. Darkcoin's name alone(Outside of the small crypto community here) already puts it at a large disadvantage.

He asked for advantages, which one has the advantage? Having the anonymity in the chain trusting the math won't be broken / is not buggy vs taking that risk out by not putting the mixing in the chain in the first place.



Oh, did you miss the lunch? Without fast distribution drk wouldn't have 1200+ masternodes running and enabling services like anonymization and instant transactions. Sometimes good things can follow from a mishappening in the beginning.



The other is instantly brandable, everyone will at least have a hunch of what it's doing.



Can't wait. How long will that be btw?

Block chain math anonymity vs node mixing service.

Instamine scam vs not scam.

The name "Darkcoin" vs "Monero"

Current pricing if both coins are worth the same allows for profit when we are down to 3000 coins a day.  Darkcoin does not.

I have to admit it was succesful.
The price is nothing but tanking. Even if he was serious, I doubt he would have performed anything since Monero is tanking to the deepest pits of the ocean currently.
Was MEW able to change the emission? If no, the price might drop additional 70 % down. With the current emission the fair price of Monero is 0.0005 btc - with emission cut 60-70 % the fair price is something like 0.007-0.01 btc without pump.

Darkcoin has emission roughly 3000 coins a day and the max amount of dark coins is 22 million (however it probably will be something like 16-18 million), and the price is currently around 0.007 btc.

What are the advantages of Monero compared to Darkcoin from investor's point of view?

Except it's almost half of what it was during bcx fud

Thank you for stating the obvious aside from him ego pumping.