Topic: Has Dash the unlicensed pyramid game run its course? - page 4. (Read 8070 times)

"It's better to have intelligent enemies than stupid friends." --Anonymous.

Good luck Otoh and Evan. 

You did not.

You quoted me point for point and then promoted your usual random nonsense at each one about the strength of cryptography and the importance of privacy as if anyone's challenging it.

I'm sorry to tell you that what you're bagholding is a cryptographic bookkeeping system that isn't money, though it doesn't surprise me since you don't appear to have much appreciation as to the significant differences between fiat and crypto as far as privacy is concerned.

As far as your equally inaccurate statements about "centralisation" goes, be advised that any function that's redundantly reproducible cannot be described as 'centralised' despite the best efforts of a little band of jaundiced propagandists rattling around in their self indulgent threads.

If you really feel so comfortable in dismissing the challenges that Dash's approaches are addressing so successfully then maybe you should take a look at the latest litany of squabble threads in the Bitcoin Core vs Bitcoin XT saga and the spectacle of "celebrity devs" warring over the relative merits of a rock and a hard place.

Then again, that might distract you from your hobby of recycling stale agendas and have little relevance to endorsing your delusions about the relationship between "privacy" and "value" in crypto.

i didnt realise that Satoshi is your god and you have to listen to him, if he told you to jump over bridge, would you do it?

bye the way, we still dont know who the guy is so i dont belive to someone who does not exist, and what about his instamine BTC ? how come nobody is talking about his instamine?

dont get me wrong, really i dont want to start fight-arguments with any of you, i just like DASH community and coin it self, im no bagholder or anything, im mining and buying when i can, but when i think about that my paycheck is 3 months late... damn  

lol, lets all dump fiat and put our money into D[tra]sh. Isnt this what satoshi wanted?

Like i said earlier... Monero Scammers hate everything that is not Monero and in my book thats something only scammers would do... FUD everything that isn't on their side

So much hate, for what?

So many insults, with lack of arguments only SCAM SCAM SCAM

Scam what? where? whom? instamine? so what? EVAN deserve to be a milioner, i know you are just jealous because guy is braniac in his line of work

There are no real alternate coins except maybe Litecoin and Dogecoin. Why? Because you have to secure your distributed network with enough hashing power that it won't go away when the coin dumps to oblivion.

Right now i can't see why anyone would own anything other than LiteCoin, DogeCoin and Bitcoin. Dash 84 Ghs = joke coin.

If you could argue me point for point the way i did you without reflecting evasively back to arguments a few posts back or from posts from entirely different threads that would be a debate--this is just you hoping no one notices your flimsy argumentation. Good luck selling a clear blockchain as good privacy technology--I'm sure there are some idiots who will buy in and give that market cap a few more pumps.

Lots of new people catching onto what a scam DASH really is, its good to see.  Enough people have been scammed in cryptos short life.

No body cares because Dark Dash or wtv you wanna call it is a big instamine scam.

Don't be sorry because that's a very different thing from defining what is and isn't "money" which - I reiterate - is a much more nebulous process in the absence of trusted counterparties and one that is ultimately arbitrated on by public consensus.

If you measure everything in terms of degree of cryptographic obfuscation of the public blockchain then all you'll get is the best "obfuscated blockchain". Good luck with that because monetary media derive both their consensual existence and value from a whole lot of properties, none of which is obscurity.

Fungibility is, however, an integral property of monetary media and you don't improve fungibility by implementing "strong cryptographic obfuscation" between one address and another on the blockchain. All you do is frustrate people who regard that as an essential element of public accountability, prepare the ground for scams and heists and generally kill confidence.

Dash has improved Bitcoin's fungibility in the most optimal way any approach could have while preserving transparency and confidence. It does it in exactly the way that traditional cash does.

Somebody earlier in this thread said they were surprised at how long Dash had lasted in the "top 10" and noted that despite their preference and the subject line of this thread, Dash was doing "insanely well".

In fact there was no need to be surprised - Dash is the only public blockchain which improves on Bitcoin's fungibility by orders of magnitude.

Privacy in crypto calls for different cryptographic priorities from what privacy in fiat does. Some things are necessarily more public, others are more private. Cryptonote simply sends us back to the dark ages with the old fiat model again which is why it's seen zero adoption and next to zero development in more than a year other than its bare existence.

Get real and stop harping on about garbage non-arguments that are well past their sell by date such as instamines, centralisation that isn't, amazon servers and the faux innovation that is invisible blockchains.
 

1.Sorry to tell you that that cryptographers and mathematicians define whether a cryptosystem is strong or weak and a system that depends on masternodes is more insecure than a system that doesn't, so implying that the market won't take their opinions into account is like saying investors won't take the opinions of software developers into account when evaluating a software company's stock.

2.As far as no one giving a fuck about privacy, it will be good for dash if they don't. But I'm only worried about my privacy, so i don't and won't use it. Also, you might want to ask governments, corporations, husbands, dissidents, libertarians, arms dealers, drug dealers, human traffickers,  tax evaders, teenagers, wives, ect. if they're willing to use inferior privacy just so dash's marketcap gets pushed up. For these few examples, privacy actually is a major part of an opaque blockchain's value proposition.

3.Again, this is a false choice. The experts (cryptogapher and mathematicians) have validated ring signatures time and time again, so unless you can prove otherwise with math, you're going to sound like ice salesman trying to tell people to not use refrigerators because you can't see electricity--again, I already pointed out that if ring signatures didn't work that there would be evidence of inflationary or deflationary amounts of coins in the wallets of exchanges of users. So the evidence and the experts are only countered with, "but you can't see it." This is why i think you are stupid.

4. Again, people trust math with their money  (and their lives--try flying without math building or guiding your plane) every day and a ring signature coin's transactions aren't any more hidden than Bitcoin's are--you just can't link them to a single wallet without the user's permission, which is the point. And this is really big when you have companies taking in billions of dollars a year and do not want a competitor monitoring their every transaction or pinpointing their payroll.

5. You are partly right for once. In any age, you want to see where money goes and you can see where your money went by checking the account screen in front of you. You have no right to know where my money went though--unless you are governmental agency--and this is the cash effect that clear blockchain's miss. As far as knowing where your money came from--next time you go into a mom and pop restaurant or a convenience store dump out the tip/donation jar and tell them it's only money if they can tell where every cent came from. And please record it and uplpoad it to youtube.  

Many are assuming, I'm one of them, that Onymous was carried out by one of these exploits--no evidence that's been outed yet, so i'm guilty of being intuitively biased. Guess we'll have to wait for next Snowden before we can bet money on it.  

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


https://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-nsa-or-anyone-else-can-crack-tors-anonymity

maybe the premine is being dumped 

Because cryptographers don't define money. Users and markets do and the only reason they need to worry about privacy is because they have something of value. If there's no value proposition in the first place then nobody gives a f* about privacy, no matter how much you scream about cryptographic proofs and mathematical certainty.

Contrary to what you allude to in your posts it doesn't work the other way around unfortunately.


A "clear blockchain" is money - and yes, they're going to need money to pay for those things. As far as their anonymity goes, they'll be slightly more worried about divulging a delivery address than an anonymous cryptocurrency address.


Well I don't have any problem agreeing on the first of those points. As far as people "not trusting math", we can probably even agree on that as well. Unless they see results that mean something to them * most people wouldn't trust math as far as they could "notionally" throw it  

* (In modern electronic 'money' with no trusted third party, that means "where did my money come from and where did it go")

In case you're referring to Operation Onymous, I thought it wasn't known how they found the hidden services' real IP's? I'm not following news regarding TOR very closely though so maybe they have disclosed their methods since.

Is there proof somewhere that they have been "buying TOR nodes" and how does that help to break its anonymity?

Tok, you should give that fungibility lecture to the guys who ripped off evolution--they could have just sent it to BTCe and that would have been the end to it.

I do enjoy how you argue with things i didn't say and don't actually refute things that I did say--neat trick. Did they teach you that infographic school?  

But those are the rules, so here:

Until you can use math to disprove the validity of cryptonote transactions, you're just a word salad machine intent on using FUD tactics in a world ruled by cryptographers and mathematicians. Why don't you send GMaxwell your poster so he can hang it on his wall as a token of your unheralded genius after he takes his XMR address off his profile page. Listen up everyone, the cryptonote protocol was just broken by a poster, not math, a poster! Yes, you heard right. It wasn't the mathematicians or cryptographers who have looked over the code, but a lone man who had the insight to make graphics and quote himself with his brilliant, but not shared by anyone else, views of money. Listen up! Use a clear blockchain to buy drugs, sex, gambling, evade your taxes, send donations to political dissidents, buy your wife a dildo, or pay for your gay sons wedding, because Toknormal amateur economist said that opaque blockchains will never work because people are too stupid to trust math and won't ever trust what they can't see. Never mind that you would have seen evidence of cryptonote coins deflating or inflating  in number based on the code creating improper transactions, coin inflation and deflation that would be easily noticed and have exchanges and users screaming bloody murder, never mind all that, because some random guy declared himself an economist and says nobody will trust a system that is verified over and over and over again by math.

Your stupidity is exhausting.

Speaking of "flawed logic", look no further than your own avatar. You're one word short of perfection - change "fights" to "is" and you'll have a semblance of reality because you make 2 fatal flaws your propagandistic “reasoning”:

[1] - that the detection of a sending address in a given blockchain transaction amounts to generalised "de-anonynimsation"

[2] - that hosting centralisation equates to functional centralisation

In [1], this is only true in the case of a fiat banking system. It isn't true in the case of crypto, where regardless of what's visible in the blockchain you can only "de-anonymise" an address from social or other means of communication outwith the blockchain (for example you inform me of an address that you control).

Even then, I can’t glean much more information about your financial movements as long as the blockchain remains sufficiently fungible (i.e. undergoes perpetual pre-emptive mixing as happens on the Dash network). The reason for that is that crypto (at least Satoshi's privacy model) broke the association between bank accounts and individuals.

Lets take a step into history for a minute. The 'cryptographically hidden' transaction mechanism that technologies like cryptonote are trying to push was originally designed for FIAT, not crypto. It is both needed and can be accommodated in the fiat system for 2 reasons:

[1] - needed because in fiat, an ‘account’ is synonymous with a legal entity (or person)

[2] - can be accommodated because fiat has a trusted third party (a bank) in the loop to endorse the veracity of the monetary medium and therefore does not rely on public consensus

See this NSA document from 1996 which by now has been fairly well circulated amongst the crypto community. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm#2

It describes to a ’T’ the privacy principles behind Cryptonote hidden blockchain. In particular, this paragraph:



There is one noteable exception, however - Figure 1. There is a bank in the equation, hence the need for the cryptographic plumbing because in those days we WERE talking about shuffling identities around the blockchain.

Satoshi model
Bitcoin did away this model and introduced 2 fundamental revisions:

[1] - eliminated the “Bank” as the ultimate arbiter of monetary veracity and replaced it with a public consensus model where all aspects of the system were directly accountable to the end users

[2] - anonymised it so there was no longer any association between a person and an address

That fact right there ended the need for cryptographic obfuscation of the transactional mechanics. In fact, it now made it positively toxic in the context of the new mined cryptocurrency world where the trusted third party had been eliminated.

The implications of this are that the two conditions that applied to Fiat cited earlier are now reversed, i.e.:

[1] - it is not needed due to the fact that an address is no longer synonymous with a legal entity (or person)

[2] - it cannot be accommodated (is toxic) due to the absence of a trusted third party

No matter how hard proponents of 'invisible blockchains' try to get us to go back to fiat and bang our eardrums with the broken record that "addresses are people", the reality is that they are not. Far from being the “leading edge” the cryptographically protected private blockchain is a relic of the 90’s and has no place in modern cryptocurrencies.

As for financial censorship, the invisible blockchain isn’t protection from the NSA, it’s OWNED by the NSA.

You do know that's over a trillion dollar market, right?

Also, coins that employ view keys will be as private and as voluntarily reviewable as cash.

But this is all off-topic--I don't really care if dash is dying or not--i just can't listen to the flawed logic of its privacy argument.

There is not ba big chance that anonimity coins s will fly off big, exactly because of anonimity. The only ones that will de it are the black markets in the end..

It doesn't matter if you have a guy on the moon as a Dev; you still have the masternode problem, which is too many are owned by too few and encouraged to keep the number of nodes at 1000. And the biggest holder is most likely Evan who can be easily be gotten to, and if even he couldn't be (or was out as a Dev), most masternodes are currently on Amazon servers--Amazon!--a company known to work with the NSA. And even if none of this were true, you still depend on humans to not do stupid things like run masternodes on Amazon servers--this is an inherent weakness in any system that requires human best practices to be followed in most cases. Why? Most humans are worried about themselves and their costs, not worrying about the network and the residual cost to everyone else--in short, some humans are selfish and won't care that the system breaks as long as they are getting there's, while other humans are ignorant of how their actions might break a network and will do so unknowingly--this is why good cryptosystems don't use things like masternodes.

Lets be honest, unless I actually do it or have done it, you will always weasel out of the argument with rationalizations that protect your investment in your head--there's no way for you to know that Evan or the majority of masternodes were compromised in all situations and that would be the start of the end for current Dash. Hell, the NSA could be gleaning transaction info off the Amazon servers right now and no one but Amazon and the NSA would know.

And this part isn't for Aleix; he's already made his choice and is intent on riding it till it sinks. Anyone who cares about their privacy should only have confidence in cryptosystems that are decentralized and do not depend on humans or humans following best practices to maintain their security/privacy. This is an easy rule that saves you from having to come up with infinite attack vectors for infinite solutions for a problem that will infinitely follow a system built in this flawed way.