Dash is better and older but I like monero 
Monero was the first to offer anonymous transaction actually.
We can somehow just look at those newer ones today as just the derivative of monero. Was interested to monero when i first heard of it.
Topic: Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash? - page 5. (Read 35954 times)
Monero was the first to offer anonymous transaction actually.
We can somehow just look at those newer ones today as just the derivative of monero. Was interested to monero when i first heard of it.
Dash is better and older but I like monero
Older by how much?
Dash is older only half year, but got mined first day because of a "bug" for like 5 years plus.
Dash is better and older but I like monero
Older by how much?
Monero hands down
Monero has some very compelling code.
Monero has better cryptography but Dash has better marketing.
Dash is better and older but I like monero
Dash is more popular, but Monero have stable user base. In fact Dash is better then, because of popularity.
Price does not mean it is more popular !
Popular comes from lat. Populus = the folks, say in that case with stable user base you mean it has the better popularity
Can also be seen here https://www.coingecko.com/en?sort_by=community_score
But to answer _nur's question... do not follow anything, always research for yourself as far as you can. Your own opinion is always the best opinion for yourself
Dash is more popular, but Monero have stable user base. In fact Dash is better then, because of popularity.
Remember that, if you are in a non-Monero moderated thread, and you advocate X coin over Monero, the devs and bag holders , finding that they cannot delete your posts, will resort to other bullying tactics like spamming your trust.
For that reason alone I would chose Dash over Monero - although I am agnostic on the comparable technical merits of each.
too many opinion can i just follow the poll?
Monero's technology has always been better than Dash's "bad crypto."
And now we're about to lap them:
And now we're about to lap them:
It seems like Shen is going full steam ahead! Some updates regarding Ring Confidential Transactions for Monero:
https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required/2450/ring-ct-c-crypto
Quote
edit 1/9/2016: Looks like its fully funded! Thanks to everyone who funded - I've started the work (https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero/commit/9ede58897808bee784dab296654b99899a58c109), and I will be posting updates here for the next two weeks as I work on this, rather than updating both here and the stickied reddit post.
edit 1/13/2016: MG sigs + demo are done (git clone https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero.git, cd brief, make, a.exe (or a.out depending on system)). Most of the helper functions are there, so the rest should go a little bit quicker. Also fixed a tiny bug in Monero's keccak function.
edit 1/14/2016: ASNL + demo are done. (https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero/commit/88b2d93e137bd5a2e2a2700ac11136705bd463c5) I will probably do some additional checks on these and the MG sigs once I get everything finished, however they are working as expected now.
edit 1/15/2016: spent an all nighter getting a rough version of all the code finished - I will most likely clean it up, and then make it available early next week.
edit 1/13/2016: MG sigs + demo are done (git clone https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero.git, cd brief, make, a.exe (or a.out depending on system)). Most of the helper functions are there, so the rest should go a little bit quicker. Also fixed a tiny bug in Monero's keccak function.
edit 1/14/2016: ASNL + demo are done. (https://github.com/ShenNoether/MiniNero/commit/88b2d93e137bd5a2e2a2700ac11136705bd463c5) I will probably do some additional checks on these and the MG sigs once I get everything finished, however they are working as expected now.
edit 1/15/2016: spent an all nighter getting a rough version of all the code finished - I will most likely clean it up, and then make it available early next week.
https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required/2450/ring-ct-c-crypto
But as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).
The game theory doesn't add up in terms of cost/benefit. You buy 10% of the nodes with millions of dollars in order to ...jam one out of every several hundred IXs. And you gain what for that?
It would be far cheaper to just buy/rent hashpower and make 51% double spends based on PoW.
You don't need to buy the nodes when you have a the owner of most of them under your thumb via escaping a fincen investigation through cooperation. Are you guys really this naïve? Chimerical? On one hand you say dash will compete with global currencies and on the other you think the authorities won't have incentive to attack or destroy dash if it becomes plausible that it could do so.
Listen to yourself. The government will take over a big percentage of the masternodes in order to jam one out of every few hundred transactions. You don't burn such a card for ...jamming instantx txs. The game theory doesn't add up.
Of course it doesn't add up if you use Evan's math (remember this is the same math that called darksend fast and X11 secure). I suggest you use TPTB_need_war's math and arrive at the correct solution.
From what I read, it's 10% nodes for jamming one every 666 InstantXs.
So, let's say the government takes over 10% of the nodes. And they will take them over to maliciously jam 1 out of 666 InstantX transactions? Why? Don't they have anything better to do, like DEANONYMIZING TRANSACTIONS?
If I am a government and tap into a good portion of masternodes and I'm able to deanonymize a small % of few-laundering-cycles of DarkSend (~2 rounds), why would I burn that card for ...jamming 1 out of 666 instantx txs? It doesn't make any sense.
The scenario is that Evan owns more than 10% (hard to believe otherwise), so you are already starting with a faulty/biased premise. Dash is most likely centralized, so any attacks that have governments buying large chunks of masternodes seems like a faulty start point. Start with Evan owning 30-50% of the masternodes and the government only needing to threaten him with a fincen investigation to gain control of all of them. Again, this is presuming that dash survives (doubtful due to the weakness in X11) and that it grows big enough to be on the government's radar--which seems preposterous given its weakness at anonymity (time and dependence on masternodes) and the flaws TPTB_need_war has alluded to.
But this is the more complicated way to get at the truth. Why don't you ask Evan why he ran away from TPTB_need_war's response to his claim that his math was incorrect. I've never seen smooth or shen walk away from an argument with TPTB_need_war when they thought the point was in contention or the math was incorrect.
But as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).
The game theory doesn't add up in terms of cost/benefit. You buy 10% of the nodes with millions of dollars in order to ...jam one out of every several hundred IXs. And you gain what for that?
It would be far cheaper to just buy/rent hashpower and make 51% double spends based on PoW.
You don't need to buy the nodes when you have a the owner of most of them under your thumb via escaping a fincen investigation through cooperation. Are you guys really this naïve? Chimerical? On one hand you say dash will compete with global currencies and on the other you think the authorities won't have incentive to attack or destroy dash if it becomes plausible that it could do so.
Listen to yourself. The government will take over a big percentage of the masternodes in order to jam one out of every few hundred transactions. You don't burn such a card for ...jamming instantx txs. The game theory doesn't add up.
Of course it doesn't add up if you use Evan's math (remember this is the same math that called darksend fast and X11 secure). I suggest you use TPTB_need_war's math and arrive at the correct solution.
From what I read, it's 10% nodes for jamming one every 666 InstantXs.
So, let's say the government takes over 10% of the nodes. And they will take them over to maliciously jam 1 out of 666 InstantX transactions? Why? Don't they have anything better to do, like DEANONYMIZING TRANSACTIONS?
If I am a government and tap into a good portion of masternodes and I'm able to deanonymize a small % of few-laundering-cycles of DarkSend (~2 rounds), why would I burn that card for ...jamming 1 out of 666 instantx txs? It doesn't make any sense.
But as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).
The game theory doesn't add up in terms of cost/benefit. You buy 10% of the nodes with millions of dollars in order to ...jam one out of every several hundred IXs. And you gain what for that?
It would be far cheaper to just buy/rent hashpower and make 51% double spends based on PoW.
You don't need to buy the nodes when you have a the owner of most of them under your thumb via escaping a fincen investigation through cooperation. Are you guys really this naïve? Chimerical? On one hand you say dash will compete with global currencies and on the other you think the authorities won't have incentive to attack or destroy dash if it becomes plausible that it could do so.
Listen to yourself. The government will take over a big percentage of the masternodes in order to jam one out of every few hundred transactions. You don't burn such a card for ...jamming instantx txs. The game theory doesn't add up.
Of course it doesn't add up if you use Evan's math (remember this is the same math that called darksend fast and X11 secure). I suggest you use TPTB_need_war's math and arrive at the correct solution.
But as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).
The game theory doesn't add up in terms of cost/benefit. You buy 10% of the nodes with millions of dollars in order to ...jam one out of every several hundred IXs. And you gain what for that?
It would be far cheaper to just buy/rent hashpower and make 51% double spends based on PoW.
You don't need to buy the nodes when you have a the owner of most of them under your thumb via escaping a fincen investigation through cooperation. Are you guys really this naïve? Chimerical? On one hand you say dash will compete with global currencies and on the other you think the authorities won't have incentive to attack or destroy dash if it becomes plausible that it could do so.
Listen to yourself. The government will take over a big percentage of the masternodes in order to jam one out of every few hundred transactions. You don't burn such a card for ...jamming instantx txs. The game theory doesn't add up.
Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.
Which is exactly what I wrote it must do, and exactly what I wrote when I surmised that your white paper was implying the highly jammable design of 10-of-10.
But as I pointed out in the correct math (which is clear you still haven't grasped), even 6-of-10 can be jammed 62% of the time (and multiply spent the other 38% of the time) given a 50% attack on the masternodes (i.e. the 50% attack on masternodes can attack 100% of the InstantX transactions).
Attack 50% of the masternodes, huh? Pray tell, how is anybody going to accomplish that feat?
If that 50% of masternodes is controlled by a master entity, he will make sure nobody else can attack the network. So it is quite safe.
He also missed that one target is easier than many.
FBI, "Hey this currency purports to be anonymous and lots of people are using it, is there any way we could get a guy who has or is breaking fincen regulations to cooperate with us in a data capture? Come on guys, is there anything we can hold over this guys head? .....Nothing? Oh, well, lets just stand here with our dick in our hands while this digital currency usurps the dollar -- wait, did someone say terrorist used this stuff to fund a bombing plan in Uruguay in 2014? And he lives in Arizona?"
Thus began "Operation Reality Check".
Now waits for dashboys to say an FBI crackdown is a big fantasy--missing that people using dash widespread enough to garner FBI interest is the bigger fantasy.
Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.
Which is exactly what I wrote it must do, and exactly what I wrote when I surmised that your white paper was implying the highly jammable design of 10-of-10.
But as I pointed out in the correct math (which is clear you still haven't grasped), even 6-of-10 can be jammed 62% of the time (and multiply spent the other 38% of the time) given a 50% attack on the masternodes (i.e. the 50% attack on masternodes can attack 100% of the InstantX transactions).
Attack 50% of the masternodes, huh? Pray tell, how is anybody going to accomplish that feat?
If that 50% of masternodes is controlled by a master entity, he will make sure nobody else can attack the network. So it is quite safe.
Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.
Which is exactly what I wrote it must do, and exactly what I wrote when I surmised that your white paper was implying the highly jammable design of 10-of-10.
But as I pointed out in the correct math (which is clear you still haven't grasped), even 6-of-10 can be jammed 62% of the time (and multiply spent the other 38% of the time) given a 50% attack on the masternodes (i.e. the 50% attack on masternodes can attack 100% of the InstantX transactions).
Attack 50% of the masternodes, huh? Pray tell, how is anybody going to accomplish that feat?
If that 50% of masternodes is controlled by a master entity, he will make sure nobody else can attack the network. So it is quite safe.
Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.
Which is exactly what I wrote it must do, and exactly what I wrote when I surmised that your white paper was implying the highly jammable design of 10-of-10.
But as I pointed out in the correct math (which is clear you still haven't grasped), even 6-of-10 can be jammed 62% of the time (and multiply spent the other 38% of the time) given a 50% attack on the masternodes (i.e. the 50% attack on masternodes can attack 100% of the InstantX transactions).
Attack 50% of the masternodes, huh? Pray tell, how is anybody going to accomplish that feat?
Jump to: