Pages:
Author

Topic: Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash? - page 6. (Read 35946 times)

legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
... what you are missing is that having security dependent on masternodes is the problem, not government cooperation. Your brilliant leader built a flawed system that will only work when it's small potatoes, you look up and see the moon, but fail to notice the bullet proof glass ceiling with trigger happy FBI and NSA operatives standing in wait. I doubt it will ever be a problem, so you shouldn't worry; dash won't reach those kind of heights playing a game of greater fool musical chairs.

Really?  That's your argument?  "trigger happy FBI and NSA operatives standing in wait"?

bye.

That's a perverse misreading of what I wrote (I guess you missed the glass ceiling metaphor and that it wasn't meant to be taken literally), but do you actually think that any coin claiming to be anonymous won't need to be hardened from the security risks posed by governments? You want to be big time, yet you don't want to acknowledge the big time risks. But run away to dashland where everyone will nod in agreement and worship the false crypto-god of Evan.

In truth, none of these coins are currently government proof, but a very, very few are working toward that end and have the proper base to make it an actuality. I would say the best chances are a few of the cryptonote coins and what TPTB_need_war is working on (though more needs to be shown of his design), but none of them will be using masternodes, multiple hashes (like x11), or an instantx scheme.

Now waits for Toknormal to chime in with his idiotic theory of money in a desperate attempt to deny the superiority of opaque blockchains for anonymity.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
What is funny is that even with all of the dash sock puppet accounts voting the total votes is still lower for DASH.

No no no, they're not sock puppets. They are people who showed up brand new to crypto in 2014 when there were hundreds of coins being launched, new coins every single day, and all just happened to fall in love with Dash at first sight. It's all organic and real, I'm sure of it.

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
What is funny is that even with all of the dash sock puppet accounts voting the total votes is still lower for DASH.
full member
Activity: 524
Merit: 100
... what you are missing is that having security dependent on masternodes is the problem, not government cooperation. Your brilliant leader built a flawed system that will only work when it's small potatoes, you look up and see the moon, but fail to notice the bullet proof glass ceiling with trigger happy FBI and NSA operatives standing in wait. I doubt it will ever be a problem, so you shouldn't worry; dash won't reach those kind of heights playing a game of greater fool musical chairs.

Really?  That's your argument?  "trigger happy FBI and NSA operatives standing in wait"?

bye.
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
So your argument is:

"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of DASH to force their cooperation.

How is this different to:

"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of BTC to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of Monero to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of Doge to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of ETH to force their cooperation.


By your logic, every crypto currency in the world is superior to DASH.  Makes perfect sense.

Those on the list are, but what you are missing is that having security dependent on masternodes is the problem, not government cooperation. Your brilliant leader built a flawed system that will only work when it's small potatoes, you look up and see the moon, but fail to notice the bullet proof glass ceiling with trigger happy FBI and NSA operatives standing in wait. I doubt it will ever be a problem, so you shouldn't worry; dash won't reach those kind of heights playing a game of greater fool musical chairs.
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
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.
full member
Activity: 524
Merit: 100
So your argument is:

"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of DASH to force their cooperation.

How is this different to:

"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of BTC to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of Monero to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of Doge to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of ETH to force their cooperation.


By your logic, every crypto currency in the world is superior to DASH.  Makes perfect sense.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
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.
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
I already answered  up thread how over 50% of the masternodes could be controlled which makes them pretty easy to attack. I'm not sure what you don't get. Prodding isn't coming after someone by the way. It means trying to provoke a reaction--iit could be threatening, but it's more petty and annoying in our context.

OK, how are you (or anyone else) going to control them?



LOL. It's not where the masternodes are, but who controls them. How many are under the control of each service provider, whose jurisdiction are they in, who owns the masternodes and do the countries or companies comply with domestic and foreign interests? I would say there are just two people (maybe one) who need to be brought in the fold in order for compliance (and he happens to be the lead dev in a country known for getting secret cooperation for data capture}. The real problem isn't how this is done, it's how did so much power get centralized in a few hands of a system that depends on trusting nodes? Seems like piss poor design work.

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).
full member
Activity: 524
Merit: 100
Come after you?  Because you posted this:


Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.

IX requires 6 of 10 signatures to create a transaction lock.

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).

How is attacking 50% of the masternodes going to work?  Your hero TPTB doesn't say, I thought you might know since you claim it is the "death blow".

He doesn't say that you need 50% of the masternodes to perform any attack (and you indeed don't). Read more carefully.

What does "given a 50% attack on the masternodes" mean?
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
Come after you?  Because you posted this:


Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.

IX requires 6 of 10 signatures to create a transaction lock.

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).

How is attacking 50% of the masternodes going to work?  Your hero TPTB doesn't say, I thought you might know since you claim it is the "death blow".

He doesn't say that you need 50% of the masternodes to perform any attack (and you indeed don't). Read more carefully.
full member
Activity: 524
Merit: 100
I already answered  up thread how over 50% of the masternodes could be controlled which makes them pretty easy to attack. I'm not sure what you don't get. Prodding isn't coming after someone by the way. It means trying to provoke a reaction--iit could be threatening, but it's more petty and annoying in our context.

OK, how are you (or anyone else) going to control them?

legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
Come after you?  Because you posted this:


Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.

IX requires 6 of 10 signatures to create a transaction lock.

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).

How is attacking 50% of the masternodes going to work?  Your hero TPTB doesn't say, I thought you might know since you claim it is the "death blow".

I already answered  up thread how over 50% of the masternodes could be controlled which makes them pretty easy to attack. I'm not sure what you don't get. Prodding isn't necessarily coming after someone by the way. It means trying to provoke a reaction--iit could be threatening, but it's more petty and annoying in our context.
full member
Activity: 524
Merit: 100
Come after you?  Because you posted this:


Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.

IX requires 6 of 10 signatures to create a transaction lock.

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).

How is attacking 50% of the masternodes going to work?  Your hero TPTB doesn't say, I thought you might know since you claim it is the "death blow".
legendary
Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036
Facts are more efficient than fud
General, how are you going to deliver the "death blow"?

TPTB_need_war already did. So I'm not sure why you are prodding me.
full member
Activity: 524
Merit: 100
General, how are you going to deliver the "death blow"?
full member
Activity: 178
Merit: 100
So if Evan or the decentralized budget, issued a bounty for third parties to break InstantX, would you break it or would you say "oh, but we don't have the X million dollars required to buy the necessary amount of masternodes that are necessary for our attack to work"?

Don't Evan and Otoh own enough of the network for this type of attack? Don't authorities (if they noticed this little sham) have the means to induce Evan and Otoh to spy on or break dash?

See how the discussion moved from code and maths to "the police will come for your coins" Cheesy
The police coming for coins is the least of worries. The government will be content knowing who's behind every transaction.
full member
Activity: 524
Merit: 100
I'm still waiting to hear how General Itis is going to attack 50% of the masternodes.
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1049
So if Evan or the decentralized budget, issued a bounty for third parties to break InstantX, would you break it or would you say "oh, but we don't have the X million dollars required to buy the necessary amount of masternodes that are necessary for our attack to work"?

Don't Evan and Otoh own enough of the network for this type of attack? Don't authorities (if they noticed this little sham) have the means to induce Evan and Otoh to spy on or break dash?

See how the discussion moved from code and maths to "the police will come for your coins" Cheesy
Pages:
Jump to: