Topic: Is Dash a better alternative to Bitcoin? - page 5. (Read 23691 times)

You're saying that's irrelevant to linkage? Sorry but that's BS. What if someone had 1/3rd of the network and attempted to de-anonymise funds? 1 round of Darksend and that's a 1 in 3 chance of tracing linkage, 2 rounds 1 in 9, at 8 rounds that's 1 in 6561 and Darksend is set for permanent integration so you're talking hundreds of rounds. Possible? Yes, probable? Hell no.

That explains a lot 

Yes or no? I don't have time for your weird theories of money.

That has nothing to do with what is being discussed: linkage.

Maybe a little clarity on that point:


What that means is Bitcoin transactions could be broken but the barrier to that is so far outside the realms of possibility to be entirely improbable and Darksend works the same way, in theory its possible to trace back but the resources needed to do it push it beyond reasonable probability.

Read again if it gives you so much indigestion 

Do cryptonote coins have value? Again, just want to cut through the BS and get at the heart of it and get you on record.

No. They have no "fungibility" because they have no universal visibility.

Cryptonote is a privacy - not anonymity - technology. It's a cyphering system, not a monetary medium. (Unless you regard it as 'bookkeeping money in which case it needs to be backed by a trusted party).

The thing about money is, making it private is not the challenge. That is a technical problem that can be solved by a few boffin heads and academic papers without the co-operation of the general public.

The challenge is value. Monetary value. That is not a technical problem but a sociological one which involves lots of complex interrelated properties, not least usability, unconditional visibility, high fidelity with historical properties of money etc.

In that respect, Dash has its priorities right because what gives the tokens at any particular address their value is the fact that the whole world can see them and verify them - albeit intuitively (which is just as important as mathematically). What gives me privacy protection is that they can’t tell the coins at my address apart from those at any other address. Those two priorities in balance are what will maximise value so they need to be seen as complimentary, not conflicting.

If you myopically focus on infinitesimally small theoretical edge cases to the exclusion of all other priorities then that balance is blown to kingdom come (and the value of your currency with it).

Thank you for confirming what i already knew: the protocol level privacy of Monero, Boolberry and aeon is better than the non-protocol level privacy of dash. Which means those coins have better fungibility and have superior privacy IE they make a better digital cash than dash.

No. There are always theoretical edge cases to everything and I'm sure you'd love to turn these from theoretical into practical which is what I'm inviting you to do. If I take a piss in the Atlantic Ocean someone could make a case for me having 'polluted the seas'. It would be practically ridiculous but theoretically true.

Similarly, there comes a point in the fungibility of money where far more de-anonymising can be done from information gleaned outwith the medium (blockchain) then from within it. The goal is to push fungibility at least to that point. Dash pushes it umpteen orders of magnitude beyond it.

The beauty of the Dash approach to anonymity is that is follows the cash paradigm rather than the credit money paradigm which means it deploys a continual recycling of the anonymisation process in full public view to maximise fungibility. The credit paradigm simply "hides" everything from view because in that world, addresses are synonymous with people. There is no fungibility because there are no tokens to view. Another aspect of its approach is that it retains compatibility with the Bitcoin technology ecosystem - this policy is now turning out to have worked to a significant advantage in propelling useability to the forefront in terms of wallets, 3rd party support and so on.

Money is not, has never been and never will be based around some kind of 'secret cyphering system' of the type you are constantly alluding to as desireable - at least unbacked, trustless, publicly accountable electronic tokens won't be. But feel free to keep trying to flog that horse if you want. You'll only discover that value is a prerequisite to "privacy". It doesn't work the other way around.

So you are saying: if an adversary didn't have control of enough nodes, they couldn't reveal which account was making which transaction? I just want to get you on record.

If you really think a masternode operator can unravel the blockchain history systematically and to any practically useful extent then that is a very different proposition from saying masternodes are centralised.

I doubt thats remotely possible even now - never mind after a further year's worth of protocol hardening. Feel free to try it if you even know where to start. I don't think you do.

You miss the difference between a system that cannot reveal anything of worth to a third party because the privacy is done at the protocol level and one that must have a certain number of human controlled nodes (following best practices--YIKES!) in order for privacy to be maintained--doesn't matter the physical location; what matters is who controls them and what is their intent. It's pretty simple: protocol level privacy is better than non-protocol level privacy.

I think as usual you just made and exploded your own case in that one post.

The nature of decentralised nodes is such that people can put them up wherever they like so Dash's masternodes are distributed amongst a mix of cloud hosting services and collocated servers just the same as any other crypto's 'full nodes' are.

As for your attempt at introducing some kind of 'people' dependency as an adverse phenomenon, this is part of your usual nonsense propaganda rhetoric. The very fact that cryptocurrencies are decentralised puts people in the loop. That is the whole POINT of decentralisation and so called "peer to peer" networks.

This is BS. When coinmarketcap listed dash with a significant premine**, the dash community was quick to call bloody murder and raise such a stink that coinmarketcap relented and did the wrong thing. We all know why BTC and Monero don't get this label (they didn't funnel 30% of their stash into their own pockets), but whether a coin does it in a day or a second is of little concern to an investor who cares about not rewarding the greedy, the underhanded, the human who cannot go a minute without setting his eyes on a win/lose proposition where everyone else is marked to lose.

Remember, the reason cryptocurrencies came into existence in the first place was to stop this despicable kind of behavior and create systems that didn't need you trust anyone, least alone one that wants you to trust the nodes carrying your information to not be owned by a small syndicate or be run on servers hosted by a few companies around the globe--sorry that your dev and the shitorati of other fly by night coins forgot this tenant of the cypherpunks, but I'll gladly remind you:

All good cryptosytems are built to work away from human failure, not towards it.

I agree there is really not a valid comparison there. Dash and Bitcoin are somewhat a valid comparison as both are attempting to be primarily payment systems, not smart contract platforms. They differ somewhat in how they approach things like privacy, fast payments, etc. but the goals are at least similar.

Well, Ethereum got a nice boost when they got endorsement from Microsoft but its not focussing
on all the digital properties of money (transaction speed, transaction privacy, fungibility, decentralised voting and budget)
like Dash is doing.

Instead it seems to be more of a platform for developers where others can create applications that they can then run on top of it.
So i consider Dash and Ethereum two totally different projects and both have space to grow in their own niche.

edit : with perhaps Ethereum operating in a much bigger niche than Dash...

 
  

I would go for Ethereum before Dash.

Why should we ? every troll out here on the Bitcoin forum is doing it for us. There is simply no need for us to announce it anymore,
the Bitcoin forum trolls are that effective ...

So should Bitcoin post their instamine problem on the first page ? (you know, that 1 million BTC from Satoshi) or should Monero post about
their crippled miner problem on their first page ? Dash acknowledges the instamine and has it covered in the Dashtalk forum where serious investors
go to if they need information, end of story.


  

So for the third time, what specifically is preventing you from also mentioning the instamine on the Bitcointalk forum as well?

What enables you to speak for every Dash user when you claim every user has "moved on" from the instamine scandal?