Topic: Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash? - page 10. (Read 35946 times)

He trashed me and I haven't even challenged him yet.  After I read the treatice, I will respond.  I can even put in footnotes .

You could have fooled me. You don't seem to have much experience of engineering design principles. Your posts read more like those of a court prosecutor.


There's no practical project in existence - whether bedroom hobby or industrial scale - which doesn't come riddled with "philosophical" and theoretical adversities that have been either engineered out of them or judged as being practically insignificant.

That goes for household furniture, domestic appliances, modern airliners or interplanetary space vehicles. In fact, if anything the larger the scale the more theoretical reasons there are usually are as to why "it shouldn't work".

Of course it works the other way as well. Practical issues can blow up a project that was theoretically perfect on paper.

Thats why I don't hold much store by your theoretical naval gazing, nor are you justified in going around arrogantly trashing and insulting anyone that challenges your analyses on that basis.

If you are not planning a widely adopted coin, then you don't need any security. I have no interest in a circle-jerk pump with no actual users.

Make it widely adopted, and that will not be a philosophical concern. Of course stupid shit echo chambers where the insiders own all the coins and there are no users will never be attacked based on stake.

I am engineer and a mass marketer. You all here are snake oil echo chamber salesmen.



I am quaking in my boots. You are now disingenuous.

I haven't forgotten about you, response coming up later.

That discussion - while not necessarily untrue in a philosophical sense - is so full of generalisations and assumptions as to be useless in appraising any practical implementation of "stake" or otherwise.

It's a bit like observing that an airliner wing's aerofoil profile is perfectly stall-able in severe turbulence and concluding that it's unfit for purpose. You can't really argue with the point and yet millions of airliners are safely covering billions of miles in diverse atmospheric conditions without a problem.

Take points like this for example:


As with most of Anonymint's arguments, this is a philosophical point only. Calling it "truth" and trashing everyone who disagrees with it is just over indulgence and myopic obession with arbitrary dimensions of the appraisal. Though it may apply generally at a philosophical level, it could be a practical concern in some cases and of negligible significance in others. In fact I already raised an issue similar to this in on the Dash forums and it's under discussion as are a host of others.

The fact is if you were to look back at the technological breakthroughs of the 20th Century you'd have no difficulty in making that kind of philosophically adverse appraisal retrospectively. However if the creators had done that at the time to the exclusion of all mitigating practical factors, none of them would ever have been brought into existence. (Which possibly explains why Anonymint's own projects have never materialised or are likely to).

They are being paid for continuous uptime.  Part of that uptime is locking txes.  There is no reason to opt out of tx locking (or future services).  What would that accomplish, saving a few CPU cycles?

First of all, masternodes will still be paid even if they don't serve lock requests. They're not being paid for performing the service. They are being paid and they perform the service, if they feel like it.

There isn't even a system to politically vote out bad actors as there is in Bitshares. In Dash any masternode operator who figures out how to cheat can get away with it indefinitely.

Second, the miners will just ignore the locks if they are more than six blocks ahead. All that requires is a big-ish farm get disconnected for 10 minutes, some luck in mining and propagation, or a deliberate attack, or probably some other scenarios I don't feel like trying to think up.

When you start following ethical academic principles of citing and documenting from prior art, then you will have the high ground. Not until then. Period.

The next post from you better be a quotation from the prior discussion and coherent logic documenting your  claim.

Otherwise you are disingenuous.

Assume much?

sheesh.

Go read the discussion. Smooth, monsterer, illodin, and I worked through all the logic on it. I am not going to replay a discussion from last month. That is what forum archives are for. The lazy will remain ignorant.

If I had to perpetually rewrite everything I already wrote, I would never do any programming. Probably that is your goal.

When making claims you should always quote the prior art. So go read the prior discussion and document your claim. Don't put extra work on me. That is not the way academic inquiry is done!

If the deterministically chosen quorum of masternodes is "corrupted", Instantx defaults to a normal transaction.  Where's the flaw?

I guess the math flaw I revealed that is only takes a very small % of the masternodes to corrupt the system doesn't matter. Security doesn't matter. Evan's lies in the math he showed don't matter.

Facts don't matter.

All that matters is the bullshit and ignorance you are swimming in and the lies you tell yourself to make it taste yummy.

I don't own any fucking Moaneuro! I talk about facts as clearly and fairly/ethically as I can.

It won't help you to refer to clear facts as bullshit. Politics doesn't win over truth when we are talking about getting a coin adopted by the world. Politics works when fooling dumb speculators who can't discern the difference between facts and bullshit (they tend to refer to facts as bullshit, because they own the bullshit).

Hmm, I guess having the masternodes locking transactions in seconds counts as "just sitting around".

In our prior discussion, you agreed it devolved to PoS. I don't have time to go digging for our rationale. Afair, we sorted out that masternodes do control the coin because of InstantX.

Is Evolution delayed because Evan is trying to find ways around the flaws we have enumerated? Is he going to try to copy the design I have been working on? It will be interesting to see what transpires.

I'll try and read through the mountains of bullshit in that thread.

It is still a PoW coin under the current design because masternodes don't really decide anything important. They just sit around, stay online or pretend to be online, and collect interest (and possibly cause real trouble if malicious). In the proposed Evolution design that apparently changes, but it is hard to comment meaningfully about vaporware.

Neither did the Madoff investors, or they wouldn't have been investors. That's the obvious point.

Your comment about the investors being happy with the situation (and non-investors seeing it differently) is tautological and stupid. It applies to every single tradable asset in the history of the world, no matter how bad an investment, how fraudulent, or how doomed to fail. The ones who own it like it, but that doesn't make them right and everyone else wrong.

What rock have you been sleeping under since the last time I posted in this thread. The InstantX math flaw I presented was earth shattering. You didn't hear about it?

Have you not reviewed the flaws in PoS which is what Dash devolves to. Did you believe the lie that claims it is a PoW coin?

What the hell are you talking about?  Instantx is the SOLUTION, not a problem.  What is the flaw?