Topic: How to get free Bitcoin by exploiting a DASH InstantX (Read 6244 times)

Yes, please attempt, by using the method you outlined. If there was a bounty for breaking the testnet, people would cheat by launching enough masternodes they'd have 99% of the masternode network.



Well, you already created a sockpuppet account and this thread. So why not go all the way? And it wouldn't be for free, think how your bag of shitcoins would skyrocket if just the big evil DASH would go away.



Can't say for sure, but probably because it would be an extra effort. Let's assume it is secure, and no one will break it. What's the use of the bounty then, it would only cause hassle as people would submit invalid cases and someone would have to potentially spend a lot of time to verify/invalidate them.

Apparently you don't need one according to your original thesis

It's a self funding exercise who's reward is potentially unlimited   

Evan thinks otherwise and asked me to attempt a double spend on testnet.

Why should I do this for free?

If it's so secure, why not have a bounty for exploits?

Why ? Did he force you to invest or something ?

(Hint - if only he had you'd be a whole lot better off    )

When ever I see him come into the light, I'm gonna bring it up. Can't he answer for himself? I honestly don't care about insta-whatever, I saw him post and wanted an answer. I got it, cowardice.

When your dreams of InstantX being easily exploited get shattered, switch to off-topic ad hominems. Standard.



And another one.



One more.




After such premature ejaculation bukkake party getting angry when the candy is taken away from you is quite understandable.

I don't think there is. And there shouldn't, as starting up as many masternodes as one pleases in testnet is easy and free. AFAIK if you own both the hashrate and the masternode network, then you can do what you want, as you basically own everything.

Meet me over here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dash-versus-ring-signiture-coins-1031729

Surely there is a bounty for this?

How about 50 BTC to double spend an InstantX on testnet?

That isn't the 'upshot' at all.

How many daily hours do you think are spent on blockchain.info verifying transactions and wallet balances ? There are a load of reasons that my wallet might not be showing me the correct balance which are nothing to do with "math" - I installed the wrong wallet file, didn't catch up with the blockchain, my wallet is hacked, whatever.

blockchain.info and its like are positively SCOURED daily for verification purposes. Thousands of hours are spent on there checking stuff including "where did it come from and where did it go" type audits. All that activity is of immense value in terms of maintaining a high level of confidence in the system. What do I do if I open my wallet which I think had 500 XMR in it and suddenly it's only got 300 ? How does someone in that situation seek "public consensus" that the balance is correct - whether for reasons of getting drunk the night before and gambling it away without remembering, getting hacked or it not having been there in the first place ?

Does Fluffypony come along and wave a math paper at them ? Are you seriously proposing that people are just going to accept losing all that transparency ? (Because if you are then you can kiss the value goodbye as well).


Not in the fiat system by most certainly yes in a cryptocurrency.

This is why I say Monero is a fiat business model. Everything is seen from the perspective of bank accounts in a fiat system with scant regard to the things that make crypto totally distinct and nothing like the counterparty based banking model.

There is no statutory "us and them" in crypto as there is in fiat. That applies to any base monetary medium such as gold. First parties and third parties do not exist. There is simply a blockchain thats in the public domain and a bunch of anonymous private keys to control it. The correct place for such an "ownership model" is in the next layer - financial services such as ETFs or managed funds.

It's the very fact that the blockchain IS in the public domain that gives the private keys their value. There's no need to make it invisible - all your doing is re-inventing the wheel because we already have privacy built into the blockchain.

What's needed is to maximise its fungibility - for all kinds of reasons, not just privacy - to mitigate recurring and identifiable patterns of movement.

And here's this:

LoL. When in doubt, call in reinforcements from the Monero troll army.

Altogether. Lets do the "instamine scam" dance.

Here you go: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/dash-versus-ring-signiture-coins-1031729

That isn't the kind of audit thats important in crypto. Your thinking of the accountant that walks into your office and "audits" your bookkeeping.

For a start, the idea that cryptocurrency based economies will "just work like fiat ones" is a bit ludicrous. As I keep trying to explain, crypto is anonymous. For that reason, showing a compliance auditor a random balance on the blockchain carries about as much weight as pulling a set of keys out of a drawer and showing them those.

Secondly, all forms of money are validated by some kind of trusted third party. Thats what gives money its value. The fiat money system has a counterparty in the middle of the transaction to fulfil that role. With art it's a trusted auction house. Nobody's going to buy the bar of gold from under your bed without it being rubber stamped in public as part of the elemental continuum with atomic number 79 (a publicly verifiable and visible form of money).

In crypto, all counterparties have been eliminated from the transaction. Instead, the entire blockchain is publicly visible and verifiable so that public consensus can act at the "trusted third party". Bury that and you've buried your whole value proposition with it.

Not only that, there are loads of other 'signals' that the whole cryptonote way of approaching things is all wrong.

The fact that visibility had to be compromised to deliver "fungibility" (<-- in inverted commas because fungibility and visibility are different things) is only one. Dash managed to avoid this compromise because it has diversified its network functionality.

Other areas of "compromise and fudge" of mono-functional networks include:

 - having to find a fudge between low blocktime and too many orphans to get the comfirmation speed up
 - having to find a fudge between blocksize and efficiency to address the problems of scaleability

In both these areas, Dash has achieved the best of all worlds through functional diversification whereas others are stuck with the worst. Perfect launch or not, it’s an original crypto who’s innovative approaches to “big problems” are working, and working in visible ways.

He asked about a bounty on the last page.

I love the fact the the OP has been called out to prove that his claims are possible in testnet but can't do it...because its a flawed theory.

I don't have any false illusions that Dash is perfect but it has been a long time since somebody has come up with a vulnerability that actually works. 

Possibly the last person was that dude who managed to manipulate masternode payments for a while? 

No. It doesn't mean that because an auditor wants to verify the origin of the funds and therefore has to see the balances in the sending addresses as well.

Ever heard of "double entry bookkeeping" ? That alludes to the fact that there are two or more balances involved in a transaction, not one.

A great tribute to bitcoin's success as 'money' is the fact that their is public consensus that all the recent bitcoin "heists" of late (Bitstamp, etc) were in fact thefts and not somebody 'fooling the system'. That consensus is only achaived by virtue of the public blockchain and the fact that EVERY SINGLE ADDRESS is auditable. Not public by choice but public by force.

That is the very same consensus that gives the balance in an address its value - and thereby turns it into money.

Privacy is supported by the private blockchain. The phrase "public-private key encryption" alludes to the fact that one key is supposed to be public and the other private. In cryptocurrency therefore, we maximise the anonymity of the private key by maximising the fungibility of the public addresses - not my making them invisible but my making them more fungible, a very different thing.

You can't go burying the public blockchain in a mountain of cryptography.

What you've got is an encrypted bookkeeping system for banks. Go the Ripple route and try selling it to them