Topic: [neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin? - page 36. (Read 95279 times)

Are you referring to block chain compression or some variant of pruning?

Afaik, Monero can't handle very high TX/sec for the reasons which are same propagation versus orphan rates issues that plague Bitcoin if the block size is increased too much.


My point was the two have the same target market demographics of speculators.

I will link from that point in the comparison table to this post so readers can find your elaboration, and the extended discussion.


Giving away coins for free, thus not a MSB. Not a centralized virtual currency, because the protocol is decentralized PoW (with a twist). Also not an unregistered investment security, because not being sold to nor significantly obtained by investors.

Note it has been brought to my attention that most of the Auroracoins were dumped to speculators. Obviously I don't plan to repeat the mistakes in their marketing. Remember marketing is very nuanced. You have to get the details right. Just one detail can totally change the outcome.

There was discussion in this thread relevant to legal issues of IPO or mining distribution and also w.r.t. to harvesting developer funding from mining. I have moved that discussion to a pre-existing thread on such legal topics.

I have deleted the posts from my thread because they now are quoted in the other thread. No posts have been lost. Let's continue the legal discussion at the other thread.

I already updated the table to link to our discussion and added "potentially improving". So hopefully it is clear to readers that the characterization is contested to some degree.

I somewhat agree with you that "spyware" is a bit harsh and doesn't imply that the mixing might work in some scenarios, except in another sense I think it is unfair if I don't draw attention to the fact that it can be the opposite of anonymity and actually increase the odds of intercepting user data in clear text in certain attack scenarios. For example, it provides prefiltered list of those who are attempting to be anonymous— which is one example of why multiple rounds won't help in some scenarios of "privacy".

It's your table / your labels / your definitions so I don't mind really. I just needed some clarification because it was stated as fact that dash is ...spyware.

I disagree with the probability miscalculation that says many mixers assures the probability of unmasking is reduced asymptotically towards 0. There are patterns that develop and can be correlated. The more visibility, the more correlation. For me to enumerate all scenarios would require writing a research paper.

When all the masternodes are hosted, it is not crap to say the NSA can probably get access trivially. When most are hosted on one cloud provider (something I read, don't know if it is true), then even an employee could potentially get access trivially.

You simply can't get anonymity without cryptography. The masternodes see everything in clear text. Dash is more likely to be spyware than anonymity. In fact, I've conjectured the wild speculation that Evan hasn't been worried about SEC because he might be on the dole of the NSA (but that is too conspiratorial to assert as likely).

Dark my ass. Dark where the NSA got its fist up the users' buttholes. I have often returned to the wild speculation that Dark(Vader)Coin was really a big data harvesting coin.

The official definition of spyware is any software that exposes your data out on the wire. It doesn't have to actually be intended to do that. Just opening the security hole is sufficient to meet the definition.

Ah yes, I actually knew that at one time. Corrected.

OK, I missed that (just got to the thread), but Spyware, as a term, is something entirely different.

It's one thing to say that an obfuscation model could be vulnerable under XYZ circumstances with a probability of x% of that happening, and another thing altogether to say "spyware". This is sensationalist crap. Especially when the masternode model as is implemented right now can use multiple rounds of laundering where each round reduces the probability of that happening to an insanely low percentage.

Sybil attacks with those you are mixing with is a very overlooked -yet much weaker point- than masternodes being crooked. Pretending to be a mixing partner does not require NSA-level resources. Unfortunately, all mixing systems will have this problem to one degree or the other.

Some notes:

1) ShadowCash is proof of stake.
2) Monero does support mass TXs and has a market based solution in place to allow the main chain blocksize to grow to accommodate them. This is done without the need for a secondary level that is subject to government regulation. It is by the way a classic case of take care of the long term and the short term will take care of itself.
3) The proof of stake vulnerability in Dash is actually much higher than in regular proof of stake coins because of the 1000 Dash requirement for masternodes.
4) Lumping "IPO or mineable by speculators" into one makes no sense from a US or global regulatory point of view.

I will elaborate on 4. The critical US government agency for crypto currency regulation is FinCEN and not the SEC. The SEC has already argued before the courts that Bitcoin is money. This was critical in the Trendon Shavers / pirateat40 case since Trendon Shavers argued that he was not issuing securities with out SEC registration because Bitcoin was not money.. Furthermore internationally we see crypto currency regulation moving on the direction of treating crypto currency as money. The European Union being a good example.  It is for this reason that FinCEN has issued clear guidance close to three years ago, https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html, while the SEC has not.  There are three further FinCEN rulings that are also very significant.
https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/pdf/FIN-2014-R001.pdf
https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/html/FIN-2014-R011.html
https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/html/FIN-2014-R011.html

The first question and this is critical is whether the crypto currency is classified as a centralized virtual currency or a de-centralized virtual currency. The definition of de-centralized virtual currency is as follows from FIN-2013-G001
Mining of POW coins has been clarified in FIN-2014-R001.

Now for my thoughts, First I am not a lawyer.
A POW coin with no premine, such as Bitcoin or Monero is a de-centralized virtual currency. Developers and miners are not MSBs. This is the ideal case. This requires that development of the coin be funded solely by donation of time, money or both. Any attempt to use the emission to fund development will require one or more of the players to register as an MSB.
Dash will likely require an army of lawyers to figure out. As far as I see it, miners are likely MSBs (since they are required to turn over a part of the mined coins to the masternodes) masternodes are also likely MSBs (since they are required to turn over a portion of their coins to development) and the holders of the spork keys are also likely MSBs (since they have in effect been given central administrator responsibilities). Anyone involved with Dash in the above capacities, especially those in the US, would be wise to get professional legal advice and get a ruling from FinCEN on their particular situation.
Delegated structures have also a high regulatory risk.
Issuers of crypto - currencies (such as those behind Ripple, Ethereum etc.) are MSBs

I do not know what issuance model is being proposed by the OP.

Here is what I wrote:


I don't need to dig in the source. It is a conceptual truth in terms of the way the anonymity has been described (at least the last time I paid attention).

Evan mentioned he was going to improve it for Evolution, but even if he shifts to onion routing across masternodes, that won't entirely absolve the attacks on anonymity from colluding masternodes (although it can improve the statistics on the masternode coverage needed for breaking anonymity). Ditto any mixnet he employs, including if he prefers to implement CoinShuffle.

Instead if he implements Cryptonote then he won't have RingCT's features. If implements RingCT, then he is copying Monero's recent research. Also I doubt he is capable of understanding the RingCT white paper and implementing it. He will probably have to work by copying source code or hiring some expert crypto assistance.

In any case, that won't correct the other flaws in InstantX and mass-scale transactions that are his other big selling points of Evolution. And none of that will correct the fact that masternodes reduces Dash to an inferior proof-of-stake security/politics model.

I will correct the comparison chart to indicate the anonymity may be improving for Evolution.

Where exactly is the "spyware" aspect of DASH located?

It's an open source project, so please, if possible, name of file and line of code...

Nada on PMs recently. Perhaps one or two many moons ago, but I've forgotten.

Yeah I was talking about after that post.

Wasn't sure if he PMs you etc. or if a post was made and then deleted either.

The only reply I saw was this one. If you mean my reply to that, then I suppose the answer is no (unless he replied and deleted it before I saw it... we have to consider such possibilities of disappearing money supply and posts).

Just look how he did you and your cohorts with that accidental instamine story and now he's got you on the hook (12-18 months) with a bunch of vaporware and promises. Yeah, he's a doer.

I doubt it.

You're a talker. He's a doer.

Even anoncoin was I think implementing Zerocoin last year. But Zerocoin is not Zerocash (although Zerocash does have coins names zerocoins). It is Zerocash that might be the holy-grail of provable anonymity, but afaik there doesn't exist a stable, fully vetted implementation. No one can really deliver Zerocash today. It is on my future list to delve into (that doesn't mean a promise of implementation).

Note when I write that anonymity in Cryptonote (and plagiarized version such as ShadowCoin) is "unprovable", I mean that no one can prove the level of their anonymity mathematically. That doesn't mean there is no mixing going on. It just means no one can prove the mixing is of a certain level of probability to be anonymous. Or to be even more precise, compared to Zerocash, no one can prove that the asymptotic anonymity is 100% (even Zerocash can be Sybil attacked but the non-Sybils accumulate in the anonymity set unbounded whereas the anonymity sets in Cryptonote are ephemeral, bounded thus collapsing into combinatorial cascade + Sybil reduction).

I will not bother to enumerate again the flaws of Zerocoin. I concur with smooth's statement that others have done that already.