Topic: Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash? - page 8. (Read 35954 times)

Announced masternode blinding - not delivered.
Announced on chain anon (ring sigs) - not delivered.

Those are two off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are others.

I don't even necessarily consider these a bad thing, as changing priorities and direction during development is fine.

But I say let's wait and see until we can fully evaluate Evolution in terms of not only its claimed (and then delivered) benefits but also costs, compromises, and drawbacks.

Lol, stupid tit for tat statements

Mining a block and relying on third party nodes for mixing have huge differences. We are talking anonymity here dumbo, btw you seem to be too stupid for logic, so this ends here

Sorry, you just disqualified yourself from any further discussion due to massive willful ignorance.
"Closed source" Epic LOL.

*ignored*

What do you mean "DarkSend is becoming default in Evolution rendering mixing obsolete"? Is DarkSend not mixing? Is Dash cancelling the privacy aspect of their coin? Or are you suggesting DarkSend will work instantly and by default whenever Evolution is released? Now I see you're saying:

Yes, exactly; with the small difference that the third party MasterNodes will not be involved in the mixing process nor (I guess) collecting fees for services not rendered. That leaves them with instantX transaction fees (3 cents each) and

So you've proven my fact wrong by ignoring it and saying it's going to work different soon?

Depends. That's why I choose words carefully. Let's change emphasis again:


There's your answer.


As for Anonymint: I'm ignoring you on grounds of insanity. Yours.

True.

Evolution is also advertised to be able to handle millions of tx per second outpacing traditional FIAT systems, which would indisputably tower over any currency system in efficiency. Since anyone can claim this kind of thing it would be easy to yell "vaporware". Thing is: We're talking about Evan Duffield here, not some, say, random Hashfast scammer with non-existent ASICs.

Let's check his track record, shall we:

Announced DarkSend - Delivered DarkSend
Announced opensourcing DarkSend - opensourced DarkSend
Announced Masternode functionality - delivered Masternode functionality
Announced instantly confirmed transactions - delivered InstantX
Announced Decentralized Governance by blockchain - Delivered DGBB

I'd say tirelessly working on this project qualifies as a pretty damn good indicator that the promised features will also be delivered.

You still have not answered my question:  Is mandatory mixing a good thing or a bad thing? As for ignoring your posts I am focusing on the bold part of your post. It was bold for emphasis when it was posted. There is no need to get into a font shouting match here.

As to what Dash and Monero have accomplished it depends one one's priority. If flashy marketing is the priority then by all means pick Dash, if building a solid foundation is the priority then pick Monero. I pick Monero and frankly when I see see flashy marketing with little substance to back it up, I run as fast as I can.

It is the math of attack vectors which thus converts Dash into a PoS(hit) coin. Smooth appears to have forgotten the conclusions we arrived at in the prior technical discussion on this matter (or I have).

In any case, Dash has shown their technology is always half-assed, and this is indicative of the intellectual capabilities of its developer(s). Not to mention the fraud and the fact that masternodes are illegal unregistered money transmitters under FinCIN regulations, since they transfer value to the developers.

On top of all that, Dash has NO USERSHIP and NO ACTUAL MARKETS (other than some delusional speculators playing greater fool game theory with each other).

Enjoy the circle jerk.

The "efficiency" of Evolution remains to be seen as not enough details have been released to evaluate it.

Efficiency can't ever be measured, or even defined, without comparing benefits relative to costs. Higher or lower costs in and of themselves do not equate to higher or lower efficiency. Bitcoin, for example, has orders of magnitude higher costs than traditional banking, but Bitcoin provides (at least some measure of) censorship resistance which banking does not. Thus Bitcoin can't be said to be "less efficient" than banking because it isn't even doing the same thing. Likewise for these other systems.

Any form of mixing will carry a cost, so we will have to await further details to see how that cost plays out in Evolution, and compare that cost to the value of the benefits delivered.

Also, I realize this is an old post but it was quoted here so I'll respond to it:


CryptoNote does not have one one selling point, and it also isn't "bloated and slow" compared to Bitcoin. If you look at the white paper, section 2.1 addresses privacy but sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 address other shortcomings of Bitcoin addressed in CryptoNote, including efficiency. When compared on an apples-to-apples (equivalent functionality -- see above) it is faster and more compact (section 2.5).

Nice going ignoring my previous points.
Alright you wanna play shitcoiner, let's play:

I chose these words extremely carefully, which you failed to recognize. Let's change emphasis a little to make it clear...


At the expense of efficiency & usability... which doesn't happen in Evolution.


lol.
When our devs say: 1-2 years it's 6-9 months.
When your devs say: 1-2 years it's 6-9..... years.

What has Monero achieved in 2015 btw?
Oh right: Fixing bugs
Here's DASH

Nice official GUI btw.
How much does your butt hurt?

Next, please.

First we have


... but then we have


So which is it? Is mandatory mixing a good thing or a bad thing?

Or did Dash come to the realization that Monero was right all along and decided to implement mandatory mixing in Evolution whenever Dash Evolution comes out in 2 -5 years?

You said it yourself: PREmixing. Even with non-finished mixing you have a partial anonymized balance which can be spent instantly. DarkSend is becoming default in Evolution rendering mixing obsolete anyway.

Bitcoin/Bitclones also rely on many 3rd parties. They're called miners. And they are nothing other than nodes collaborating in self-interest. Exactly like the Masternode network.


Proven wrong by the above.


Relying on miners to mine your transaction? Oh my god, third party! Shut. Down. Everything!

Classic Moronero faillacy.

Does rely on third party "masternodes"

Classic Dashtard, understands nothing

You'd be surprised how common that answer is among merchants. Most merchants don't want to change their payment systems because they know the digital currency market is small. They have a working system that they're used to, taxes to account for (their system in most cases will be set up already) - why would they take on the risks of downtime, computer security & volatility?

Merchant adoption of Bitcoin is happening so slowly, not saying it's impossible for the same to happen with alt coins but it'll be a tough sell, especially in Dash's case because its main touted advantages over Bitcoin are more privacy & faster transactions. Right now Dash has either privacy or faster transactions, but not both. When merchants discover these kinds of dishonest marketing tactics it will be very difficult to restore Dash's reputation.

http://blog.makemoneywhileyouwork.com/2016/01/15/using-alt-coins-to-mix-bitcoins_zh/
http://blog.makemoneywhileyouwork.com/2016/01/15/using-alt-coins-to-mix-bitcoins_zh_TW/

Me: "Hello Mr. Merchant.  Would you like to use a payment system that is Instant, Secure, Doesn't rely on a third party charging you 3-5% in fees, and leaves all of the funds in YOUR control?"

Merchant: "No, those things sound terrible"


Somehow, I don't think that would be their answer.

It makes no sense that the vote is so close.

You are obsessed with pursuing theoretical absolutes. No useful solutions come from such an exclusive approach.

Successful practical solutions need a whole lot of characteristics and properties in an appropriate balance. For example, as we've seen, anonymity is at best a vague concept which means different things to different people at different stages of the monetary cycle. Bitcoin's basis for being called "anonymous" is that the addresses are decoupled from their owners, unlike credit money which can only exist when synonymous with a legal entity who's state of debt/credit it reflects.

That is an acceptable basis for being called "anonymous" by most accounts.

On the other hand, you use the term with specific regard to a transaction where one party can associate a known identity with a payment address due to information gleaned off-blockchain. That is a specific interpretation which may or may not be relevant to certain design priorities. If you A. obsessively deploy such exclusive definitions to to appraise every solution and B. make the assumption that such a technical property is desirable over all others, then yes I can see why you call Dash a "rubber band".

But that is not engineering. That's myopic zealotry.

For example, there is no way that something like Zerocash can ever be anything other than a highly specialised, niche transport mechanism that is in fact more suited to encrypted record keeping than transferring money - never mind aspiring to BE money. It simply is not a popular requirement to place that level of obfuscation at the top of the tree in a base monetary medium, in fact the reverse is true. Nobody generally gives a f*ck about privacy when they don't own it - they care about value.

As far as the fungibility-anonymity association goes, I already defined what I meant in that regard which was the mitigation of distinction between one address and another (and consequently one associated off-blockchain identity and another) so you can give your insults a rest.

You spoke nonsense in my thread in the past. I tried to engage you a bit until I realize it is pointless/impossible to argue with an idiot who thinks he is smart.

The only anonymity that might be worthwhile will be Zerocash.

Monero might have some limited uses interim.

Dash is like a windup rubberband driven toy. Cute but not useful for anything serious.

If I shared your flawed understanding of "anonymous" I'd of course agree with you. Fortunately I don't.


I do now.