Topic: Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash? - page 24. (Read 35954 times)

Also one person or group owning many masternodes. If there were some way to ensure that 3000 masternodes were actually owned and controlled by 3000 fully-independent individuals that would be one thing (and somewhat decentralized, even if not really permissionless), but there isn't and they aren't.

No one said you were.


You think that innovation that possibly scams people or misleads people is still a good step in that direction of innovative development?

I strongly disagree with that. If it is avoidable by disallowing scam coins to flourish in the ecosystem based on lies and deceit I think that is a good enough metric to attempt to salvage newbie's from getting conned as opposed to just saying "its a good step even though people get scammed along the way". That essentially down play's people's losses.

You say that "crypto is the future and will improve and take over many different industries..."

Now let's stop for a second and consider that it is possible for a crypto project (not necessarily DASH) can gain mass adoption but also mislead their user base at the same time and possibly strip them of even more of their privacy and rights etc because no one vetted the software and cryptography or just believed that it "works".



I'm not saying there won't be knowledge to be gained from experimenting. In fact that is Bitcoin and altcoins (experiments).

I would probably support DASH if they weren't so shady in addressing concerns/issues and dismissing FACTs as trolling. (not that you want to get into that. I get it).



I thought you said you weren't talking about investing but now are talking about investors? ...uhh..?

A. Ripple was open about their premine. Dash tried to play a bait and switch calling it "no premine" when it essentially is. Not a good start to gaining trust with the community in general.

B. Masternodes are not decentralized if most of them are hosted on Amazon and other cloud hosting providers. Not to mention some people have offered services to allow small investors to purchase "portions" of a masternode. Thus that is a form of centralization on a different level.

By using masternodes you are trusting some 3rd party to protect your privacy. I think there are better methods than relying on a 3rd party to accomplish that.

I'm not against creativity. I'm against outright lying and deceit on the part of Evan and their inner-circle. It reminds me of Solidcoin and realsolid aka CoinHunter.

I am not talking about investing, and I didn't mean to say Dash/Monero is a good or bad investment... I am not getting into the middle of this fight.

I am talking on more on an ideological level. I believe cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology are the future, and that they will improve and take over many different industries. Any innovative development is a good step in that direction, even if people get scammed along the way. As horrible as that sounds... Dashcoin is useful for the "greater good" of the future of cryptocurrencies because of the knowledge gained from the experiment.

Two things I am learning from the Dashcoin experiment, although I admit it is still early in the experiment:

A. Investors may be willing to look past premining if the technology is decent enough (as evidenced by ripple as well)
B. Investors may also be willing to look past more centralized features as long as a cryptocurrency is still largely decentralized (masternodes, also evidenced by several other cryptocurrencies...) Most people said Darkcoin would fail because masternodes were too centralized when it came out. It is either a very long con pump and dump or those people have been proven wrong.

Plus they have introduced some neat ideas and code.

That is with the assumption that each operating party with separate crypto experiments have good intentions. i.e. Not trying to scam you out of your money or plant backdoors into your computers because you installed broken hackable software.

You can't just assume that all parties are honest and have good intentions...

Well... you can....if you don't care about getting swindled and just buy into what someone tells you is TRUTH.

This is where we then defer.

I prefer to make sure that the underlying tech is sound backed by vetted cryptography....OR the project and new tech in question is willing to take public/constructive criticism.

Sorry I don't agree with your "we should be embracing all types of open source block chain innovation" statement ....as it has been proven time and time again that if you don't do your homework and be somewhat cynical then you will get scammed and/or realize you've been lied to down the road.

If I were to reword your statement I would say :

"Open source block chain innovators should be embracing criticism and peer review by the best and brightest minds in the ecosystem that can backup their criticisms with facts/math/proofs and not just bullshit/trolling."

We are obviously created from different molds. I prefer to look at the source and read it and test it myself...and not just take what some USER says is truth and say "yes I accept and embrace it". If you see a fraud and don't shout fraud....you are a fraud. <---- very clear cut.

The hard truth ^

Well I don't agree with the bolded, and therefore I don't agree with your conclusions about zerocash. Conceding your IP traffic opens you up to a lot of timing and correlation attacks independent of the blockchain. The problem with blockchain analysis is that it can disclose a lot about you even if your net traffic is private. I contend you need both.

I also contend that the point of the pigeon example is that there will always be ways to make your net traffic private (at least what minimal net traffic is needed to send transactions), and even if regular users can't be relied upon to use great opsec, reasonably good opsec and network-level privacy can be automated and hidden where users don't need to know about it, just as end-to-end encryption in messaging apps now make using encryption easy even though using encryption directly (and correctly) can be hard.

Anyway, all that really matters is that people make serious and competent efforts to solve these problems. Even if one project doesn't get everything right immediately, lessons can be learned and applied by others.

EDIT: The above was a bit too extreme. I do somewhat agree with the bold in that identifying one transaction doesn't support blockchain analysis to unravel a large part of the rest, which means the blockchain can't become an amplification of existing surveillance techniques. After all we don't expect that having a private blockchain by itself suddenly blocks all surveillance. I also agree (of course) that Zerocash is more effective in theory at protecting privacy than the techniques currently used in Monero. But then, comparing some future solution and assuming no undiscovered issues against something that exists now and is almost two-years mature is always pretty one-sided. Likely that will apply to what we are now calling Zerocash at some time in the future as well.

neither. they are both bullshit because they feel the need to engage in a pissing contest instead of bettering our species. fuck both of em.

I disagree. If you look at every innovative alternative cryptocurrency as each being their own separate experiment, then I feel like the ecosystem as a whole benefits from the knowledge gained by each experiment. Each innovative implementation benefits the ecosystem from the knowledge of the idea, economic experimentation, and the open source code gained (no matter how bad of an investment it ends up being.) Any idea not published is an idea that corporations can steal from the people (patent) and enslave us with. We should be embracing all types of open sourced blockchain innovation.

honestly how is it any different from the Bitcoin core and Bitcoin xt camp's drama?

 

Both have annoying communities who argue like 5th graders. I used to try and follow both but gave up after reading the back and forth drama.

As for a potential solution to the IP address obfuscation issue, there is a white paper that I was first introduced to by jl777 this year and now someone else has asked me about it in a PM:

http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent/

http://bford.info/pub/net/panopticon-cacm.pdf

Section 3 explains very well some of the major attacks against the onion routing (OR) in Tor and I2P.

The problems with this Dissent protocol some of which they admit in the section "5. Challenges and Future Work":

• It requires N² communication for N participants. If the entire network isn't included in one grouping, then next problem results. They offer a federated server "solution" but this I believe puts jamming (and anonymity?) at risk of collusion of the servers?
• Same as for any mixnet (incluring OR and Cryptonote), if there are multiple groupings (or rings) then users can be unmasked by (a form of an intersection attack whereby) correlating which groups they participated in. This same problem results from one grouping and the fact that different users are participating at different times. This is a fundamental problem for mixnets  (including on chain mixes such as Cryptonote) that caused me to realize the problem was unsolvable.
• Anti-jamming is based on an identity. Per the criticism I made against CoinJoin in 2013, we are creating anonymity so identity can't be insured. Perhaps we could tie identities to specific UTXO and confiscate those who jam. I would need to look into the details of that change to their design, as to whether this would violate the anonymity (and I assume yes it would until shown otherwise because of what I've learned over the past 2 years).
• It has a simultaneity requirement (similar to Dash's mixing), more so than Tor or I2P.

Why use this complex mixnet stuff (that won't really work well) when Zerocash elegantly solves the problem and is entirely autononomous. To quote smooth (he was referring to Cryptonote but he should have been referring to Zerocash), "a pidgeon could carry your transaction to the block chain and it wouldn't matter". Let me rephrase that, "a truck with your name painted on the side could carry your transaction to the block chain and it wouldn't matter". With Zerocash, everything is hidden so even if you put your name in the transaction packets, it wouldn't affect your anonymity because no one can see any of the details of the transaction. All they will see is you put your name on this encrypted blob of data. So you are worried about the compromised key of Zerocash leading to a hidden inflation of the money supply (I was too), but it doesn't affect the anonymity in any case. Well even that has solutions, e.g. make multiple sets of keys and sign all transactions with more than one signature so you have more assurance that all of the keys weren't fraudulently generated. Or run Zerocash only as a mixer and net out all the coins in/out periodically to be sure it is not creating coins out-of-thin-air.

That is one of my main reasons. Also, their designs can't protect against DDoS (at least not a microtransaction scale volume) when the sender's IP address is obscured by the mixnet. But worse than all that is simply the fact that users can't jump through those hoops regularly in perfection. And that includes you and I. It simply isn't realistic to obscure the IP address. I tried my best to find a way to perfect obscuring the IP address and then in shame I realized I was stupid for even wasting so much effort trying to. Because conceptually it (obscuring the IP address) doesn't make any sense[1] and it violates the end-to-end principle of the internet.

Okay I am stopping now. I don't want a war. And I don't really care what this forum thinks is the best coin. I am somewhat concerned about speculators being ill informed, but that isn't my job to make sure they are informed.

[1] I covered the logic on that in my recent debate with smooth which is saved in the Zero Knowledge Transactions thread.

You raise a few valid points, but then again, there is currently nothing better out (yet). Better with respect to anonymity.

Also, regarding bolded, you are saying this because you assume both I2P and Tor (Monero will have I2P integrated, but you can also run Monero over Tor) are "flawed" and don't protect your identity (IP).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Btw, stop opening these kind of threads please. They are nonsense anyway.

Did you research my thread speculating that the technologies in Monero are a waste of time:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13143507

Cryptonote (even RingCT) can't obscure your IP address. Zerocash can. That was painful for me to admit, given I had expended a lot of effort to design a technology similar to RingCT based on the more compact CCT.

None of those can do microtransactions. Even Dash Evolution's instant transaction feature is afaics highly flawed and can be reverted by an orphaned chain (where orphans are a normal occurrence in a PoW coin).

And afaik none of them have any viable plan for attaining million user adoption.

Comparing coin plans and features can turn into a war. So that is my 2 cents. I will not continue. Suffice it so say that investors are relatively blinded and uninformed, because they don't understand the technologies (which are always changing too because we are still in R&D phase of cryptocurrency).

It doesn't take much research to figure out dash is a scamcoin, it took me less than an hour. Ive been a btc hodler for a longtime and recently decided to invest a little in Monero. Will it be profitable? Who knows, but i like a lot of what I'm hearing/researched about the coin.

A. Antonopoulos agreeing with E. Voorhees is an amazing sight. And yet they are now saying things that I was writing back in early 2014. Wonder if they got the idea from me?

Note A. Antonopoulos isn't arguing that Dash is the right answer per se, rather he is just agreeing with my bi(or multi-)furcation concept:


So above it appears I was also thinking about micro-transactions even though I explicitly articulated the anonymity feature. Seems after the altcoin community focused on anonymity, but meanwhile I have focused on micro-transactions also so as to compete with the advertising model of internet funding.

Below we can see I was already thinking about IPO distribution models and also how to scale decentralized mining.

So of course I think Dash, Monero, and Aeon are all behind me in terms of insight and creating the killer altcoin. Time will tell. I don't feel any great need to convince anyone on this forum of anything nor do I really care. I just don't think the arguments here in this forum about which coin is better are relevant. What is relevant is how many users your coin has and will have. Or what unique function it will serve for a smaller market if that is the intention of that altcoin (in which case arguing in this forum as if you are concerned about usershare derived from this forum is an indication that the intention is not to serve a smaller market).

See one of many famous price predictions as well:

Two post above, all you say are lies or incorrect statements.

Monero don't have Development the new version is only bug smash to make it actually usable, no new feature nothing really new. One year coding for make it usable no more no less.
The only focus of Monero is privacy, privacy privacy.
You don't have a biggest community, the noisiest sure, you have lot of Monero shilling on how much? maybe 8 or more threads trying to discredit Dash: and they are really Pathetic.

Here what we have in Dash development: Already working : InstantX, budgeting system, MasterNode network (more node than all alt-coin (except BTC)), privacy.

The upcoming Dash Evolution or the Miami Bitcoin Conference in January 2016?  I have the cure just for you  :


Disclosure of Dash Evolution : https://www.dash.org/evolution/



Dash Evolution creates a new type of cryptographic currency with various advanced features that assist in the creation of decentralized technology. Dash introduces a tiered network design, which allows users to do various jobs for the network, along with decentralized API access and a decentralized file system.

We will be writing the software for this project in stages, the first stage will take about 2 months to have a very early prototype for Dash Evolution that includes a basic implementation of DashDrive, Primitives, DAPI and a simple T3 wallet. In six to eight months, we should be entering testnet phase with most basic functionality. In 12-18 months, we plan for the first release version (a stable prototype).

Included below is our current work on Evolution, that adds many components such as:

• DashDrive – A decentralized shared file system that lives on the second tier network
• DAPI – A decentralized API which allows third tier users to access the network securely
• DashPay Decentralized Wallets – These wallets are light clients connected to the network via DAPI and run on various platforms
• Second Tier – The masternode network, which provides compensated infrastructure for the project
• Budgets – The second tier is given voting power to allocate funds for specific projects on the network via the budget system
• Governance – The second tier is given voting power to govern the currency and chart the course the currency takes
• Quorum Chain – This feature introduces a permanent stable masternode list, which can be used to calculate past and present quorums
• Primitives – We introduce Users, Groups and Accounts which allow a common way of interacting with the network.
• Social Wallet – By utilizing primitives, we introduce a social wallet, which allows friends lists, grouping of users and shared accounts.
• DSQL – A query language for administering the network via majority quorums (banning users, setting important network variables such as sporks on/off, etc)

Evolution Documentation Release

We’re going to try something different with the development of Dash Evolution. This is a social experiment on building an entire currency completely in the open, with extreme transparency, as such, things will change constantly. This is intended to be an open discovery process that helps us to create the best possible implementation, GUI and feature set for Dash Evolution.  Help us to flesh out these documents by editing, correcting or even coming up with new ideas that we could work into the system.

The documentation below is intended to be very high level, which should give a clear understanding of how to build and secure such a system. These aren’t really intended to be whitepapers, just simple technical documents showing the design choices and structures.

Many of these documents are outlines of ideas of how different pieces of Dash Evolution will work, they aren’t complete, feel free to add to these as well. To help us, simply click the “EDIT” button, then request access to the given documents. Please do not edit the documents directly, instead use the google docs “Suggest” feature. This is intended to be an open discussion of the technology in the documents, that will evolve with the project.

Thanks!

Evan Duffield

—

We will be releasing many more documents not here yet in the near future, please keep coming back to see updates and progress of Evolution.

Releases: Last Updated – December 4th, 2015





"See you in Miami"

Credits to @alex-ru Productions:
Credits to tungfa

If we forget all the "hate" people putting towards both cryptocurrencies, I'm more of a fan of DRK.
Yes, DRK, not DASH.

Code wise, DRK, again.

Renaming was just another reason to pump it higher, by making people believe that it'll become less "dark" for the wide masses.

In all honesty, I could never get behind Dash. I've tried to empathise with its mission on many occasions but it always falls short for me.

Okay fine, it is trying to carve a name for itself in the privacy sector. That is something to be respected. But the way Evan Duffield negotiated the situation with the instamine punctuates a character flaw that is deeply troubling.

The privacy sector is a battlezone that is fraught with serious global players. Bitcoin stands to upheave the entire economic world order, and in turn, there has to be a force to do the same for Bitcoin.

Darkcoin was a money making enterprise for Evan Duffield, no more no less, and he succeeded in pocketing over 1 million USD as a result of its inception. That is his motivation, and that's the driving force in its continuation. At every corner he has lied about whether the instamine exists, whether it is a good thing, whether it is now part of the infrastructure.

I'm pretty sure Dash will do well for itself, but the majority of its protagonists are deeply ignorant people with grubby motivations. So Erik Voorhees waves the flag for Dash - so what? Of course he does. It's all about profit for these guys.

Monero has the luxury of a bigger community and, frankly, better technology. But Dash has the luxury of 1 million USD of play money to which it can prostitute itself to gormless investors.

Which will flourish? In all honesty, both will. But as long as Dash remains the unrespected trust fund rat that it is, it will always lose its community to Monero, and other coins. That's one thing you can rely on.

One of the greatest things about Monero, is that no-one really is in charge. There isn't the same 'great leader' worship that exists with Dash. It just simply does it's thing without the bullshit.

Is it perfect? Maybe, maybe not. I'd be interested in seeing what Zerocoin can do.

There's also a darkhorse in this race that the OP hasn't mentioned: Aeon.

Technically, Aeon is very similar to Monero. But owing to the fact Aeon is so utterly cheap and disenfranchised right now, there is the very real prospect that it could suck up both the Dash community and Monero community in one fell swoop, leaving both coins by the way side. Something to be watched like a hawk.

I was at laBITconf in Mexico and I can told that they have a real intesrest about Dash evolution, and the actual budgeting system, and masternode network.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYDd4vqHwGs&feature=youtu.be