Topic: DRK vs XMR warez - page 4. (Read 13362 times)

That's quite the honorific. Altho I must say I prefer:
the caesar of bcttalk

Shadow is upsetting the "balance". Shadw is disruptive? Good.

^ the cancer of btctalk

EXCELLENT!

So I dragged your sorry ass outta ur DRK cave
Good. Back on neutral territory. I have you now, hehe.

BTW just in case u think i might be phased by ur horrible use of our language… ur wrong

LETS DO THIS! \o/

C'mon XMR - come out & play

I fully support shadowcash dawg. Me and shadowcash wit Our preminz, we go rain on yo mothfuckaz!

Ayyo, SDC may be a scam 10x worse than darkcoin, but we still go own yall! #neverstopthefight

@MalMen

Could u pls update the name of this thread to:

SDC vs DRK vs XMR warez

Thx o/

So i guess that's First Blood?
And the there were two…  

Here is something ur man smooth probably doesnt know about Shadow…   LOL

LOL.  Well done!  Monero and SDC win!

We look forward to seeing you both further up the market cap list in the future 

^what he said. Replace references of XMR to SDC (obviously since it's me)

Lets end the war in simple words -

Darkcoin relies on masternodes for mixing. These masternodes are controlled by third parties. Why should i rely on third parties for my privacy?

Whereas Monero has mixing hardcorded into the system itself. No need to rely on anybody


Hence Monero > Darkcoin

hehe… ill take a look… i think i know what to expect

Perhaps I was too harsh on smooth yesterday. I did have several pints of ale so prob got carried away.
Anyway as u can prob tell Im in a better frame of mind today…
Why pick out Pline btw? He's a gent.

p.s. aren't u the guy i tried speaking Esperanto to on twitter? You never got back to me

I have to agree with you on the pools front but thats a problem to solved by a man or lady greater than I.

Hrm, I guess then this transgresses into the POW POS debate.

But here its particularly interesting, due to the DRK networks privacy technology being intermingled with the value of the currency.

And this can spawn the "cc's wil be the only currency so it doesn't matter" but yes, it does. If DRK becomes worldwide, value skyrockets. Then MN requirements either have to change (by what authority?). Potential for epic forking.

BTW, pools are a stop gap measure. True decentralization will find a way to rid of these, IMO.

The network isn't "owned" by a small number of people any more than the Bitcoin network is owned by the "small number of people" who happen to be running full nodes at any given time.

The only thing anybody "owns" is portions of the coin supply - i.e. they control addresses holding coins. That makes the entire coin holding population the "owners" of the network whether they hold 50 DRK or 50,000. Sometimes certain people are running masternodes, sometimes others are.

Masternodes are *de-centralised*, not centralised.

What that means is that anyone who has access to sufficient coin supply can launch one anytime anywhere without recourse to a central authority. They don't even need 1000 DRK anymore to benefit, own and draw a return from the masternode network because there are masternode pools emerging which people can subscribe to by "parking" whatever balance they want with the pool - analogous to mining pools.

The idea that there are "2100 masternodes" makes it seem like a static block of nodes representing a static block of owners. It isn't, it's a constantly changing block representing a constantly changing block of owners.

Finally, the redundant coin supply also represents "implicit" masternodes ". With Bitcoin, we often refer to blockchain addresses as "wallets", even though no actual wallet application is running that accesses that address. Masternodes are exactly the same - any blockchain address that has a minimum of 1000 DRK in it is a potential masternode - it just needs the daemon to be launched against it. If the Darkcoin devs had called masternodes "wallets" (which they are - they are just regular wallet daemons with the masternode status set to "active") instead of masternodes the perception would be a whole lot different but the reality the same.

So there you see - masternodes are just as decentralised as regular wallets. In fact they *are* regular wallets and the fact that there's fewer of them does'nt make them any less decentralised.

You raise some very good points.

Firstly, Darkcoin masternodes are fully decentralized. Anybody with 1000DRK can run one wherever and however they like.  There is no central control over the masternode network.

Your concerns about distribution amongst VPS providers is entirely valid and one that the community has been concerned about since masternodes started to exist.  At one point over 50% of masternodes were hosted on AWS for example.  Since then there has been a concerted effort to spread hosting locations to other providers in different jurisdictions around the world.  I haven't seen a breakdown of VPS provider for a while but I suspect that there is considerable diversity now, if not a small preference towards AWS still.

Home hosting is a real minority but I wouldn't be suprised to see this increase in the future.  Testing on the new Raspberry Pi has gone very well and masternodes seem to be stable on them.

In terms of IP addresses, yet another valid point although the code for IP blinding was released onto Github by Evan yesterday.  This won't protect masternodes from direct attack rather blind masternodes of each other's existence and involvement in a transaction which greatly increases network security. 

my main concern with DRK is the masternode concept, and what I assume is the centralized nature of it. Is there anyway to analyze the MN network? I'm sure there is - IP addresses and all can be traced back. What percentage are VPSs, that could be shut down due to misinterpretations of terms of service? EVen private servers hosted somewhere are still prone to terms of service interpretations. How many of these MNs are actually sitting in someones private residence, where they are at least relatively protected by whatever laws exist (and yes, this can spawn another debate) as opposed to a business arrangement?

For me, it's all about decentralization. Bitcoin is not decentralized or is increasingly becoming centralized in my opinion. I'm your relatively average joe. I can't afford the 1.2 kw miner to be running constantly, not at current XBT value. Will increase in value change things? Who knows. Probably not, because the rich get richer. I see this MN concept moving in the same direction.

We can have this healthy debate regarding privacy technology, but if the network is owned or capable of being owned by small groups of people, who cares?

And XMR doesn't have this decentralization thing completely figured out yet either, IMO.

Regardless, I'd like to see this component of the technologies discussed.

Some people host from home (even on Raspberry Pi) but high bandwidth use (recently lowered quite a lot) and requirement for fixed IP could be a problem.

Our code review and security review was performed by Kristov Atlas, a fairly well known cryptographer.

Suddenly having 4000 masternodes would not hurt Darkcoin from a operational perspective but from an individual masternode owner's perspective or from an economical perspective I cannot answer as I do not have the necessary knowledge.

I think you mean "refusing to buy it", not acknowledge it.

"Acknowledging" cryptonote technology and buying a cryptocurrency based on it are 2 very different things. For one thing, buying into a currency such as Monero, DarkNote, Boolberry etc comes with a whole load more baggage than just "cryptonote technology" - developers, roadmaps, incompatible API's, diverse blockchains that are work in progress, endless clonedom.

There's nothing "sickening" about it. I'm sure these technologies have a bright future - whether in crypto currencies or outside them.

This is interesting. Does this imply that the system becomes less optimal/efficient with a larger number of masternodes, say 10k? Or is it just saying more is better? If the latter and there is no "downside"** to doing so why not change the limit to 500DRK. Doubling the MN's cannot hurt. Or can it?

Who carried out the security review?

Thanks for your replies
I hope the readers see the value in this exchange.

**I think we can disregard the added hosting costs. u could always host from home, anybody do that?

And good luck to whichever anon coin you think is best.

Darkcoin is in the lead at the moment because of its adoption levels and so far unbreached privacy.  Maybe this will be different in future.  Time will tell.