rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 165.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: darkota on July 15, 2014, 02:43:27 PM

Quote from: illodin on July 15, 2014, 02:34:55 PM

Quote from: Its About Sharing on July 15, 2014, 02:27:24 PM

That is my first post of that link and you call it "cluttering" the thread? And you have to add the "Unlike you" comment, just to rub it in? I missed the OP's comment and didn't realize it was bad to post a list, but then what do you go ahead and do? Post a link with that list and your responses to it? Double standard, no?

Yes, please read the earlier posts in this thread when the back and forth was going on. We don't want another round of the same.

Illodin's "responses" were answered as well by myself around 10 pages back and by reading those posts and their "responses", anyone can see that the outcome of that debate is obvious Roll Eyes

, I listed everything(flaws for drk, gmaxwells comments over drk, anonymints comments over drk) and answered all to what they said. I don't want to get into it since OP says all points have already been made and not to talk about it anymore.

Yes you do, because you added your subjective opinion "outcome of that debate is obvious". But I won't drag myself down to your level.

darkota

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

Quote from: illodin on July 15, 2014, 02:34:55 PM

Quote from: Its About Sharing on July 15, 2014, 02:27:24 PM

That is my first post of that link and you call it "cluttering" the thread? And you have to add the "Unlike you" comment, just to rub it in? I missed the OP's comment and didn't realize it was bad to post a list, but then what do you go ahead and do? Post a link with that list and your responses to it? Double standard, no?

Yes, please read the earlier posts in this thread when the back and forth was going on. We don't want another round of the same.

Illodin's "arguments" were answered as well by myself around 10 pages back and by reading those posts and their "responses", anyone can see that the outcome of that debate is obvious Cheesy

. I listed everything(flaws for drk, gmaxwells comments over drk, anonymints comments over drk) and answered all to what they said. I don't want to get into it since OP says all points have already been made and not to talk about it anymore.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Its About Sharing on July 15, 2014, 02:27:24 PM

That is my first post of that link and you call it "cluttering" the thread? And you have to add the "Unlike you" comment, just to rub it in? I missed the OP's comment and didn't realize it was bad to post a list, but then what do you go ahead and do? Post a link with that list and your responses to it? Double standard, no?

Yes, please read the earlier posts in this thread when the back and forth was going on. We don't want another round of the same.

Its About Sharing

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1000

Antifragile

Quote from: illodin on July 15, 2014, 01:40:09 PM

Quote from: Its About Sharing on July 15, 2014, 12:27:21 PM

Worth repeating, thanks Darkota...

No it's not. Unlike you, I won't clutter this thread with the same old back and forth that OP already said should stop. Instead, read this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7816757

That is my first post of that link and you call it "cluttering" the thread? And you have to add the "Unlike you" comment, just to rub it in? I missed the OP's comment and didn't realize it was bad to post a list, but then what do you go ahead and do? Post a link with that list and your responses to it? Double standard, no?

I did go and read through your link however, and I did so twice. Your arguments are not very convincing and I'll leave it at that.
I am not against DRK, though I did sell off what I had of it and put it into XMR, (and for the sake of transparency) I did the same with my remaining LTC. I'm a bit in Counterparty as well but moved my NXT holdings into XMR as well. Looking forward to what Ethereum comes to be too.

I think there is room for a few Anonymous coins to coexist. But, I've made my "bet", for now anyway. If DRK changes things to come up to par with XMR I might reconsider, but the instamine would not be fixed and that is worrisome, as is some of the other "dark" things that have been repeatedly brought up about DRK.

Its about sharing

Brilliantrocket

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 15, 2014, 02:01:04 PM

So Evan is the central banker here I guess ?

He couldnt implement Masternode payments so now decides to tax miners 20% ?

I personally have DRK but I think its time to part with them.

Next he is going to make DRK POS and cut supply (LMFAO)

Sorry guys but thats not how cryptos work.

Please wise one, continue to tell us how cryptos work while we create the first viable ecash.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 15, 2014, 02:01:04 PM

So Evan is the central banker here I guess ?

Every coin dev has a lot of power on how things will develop, when the coin is still new.

Quote from: HardwarePal on July 15, 2014, 02:01:04 PM

He couldnt implement Masternode payments so now decides to tax miners 20% ?

What does that even mean?

HardwarePal

hero member

Activity: 565

Merit: 500

So Evan is the central banker here I guess ?

He couldnt implement Masternode payments so now decides to tax miners 20% ?

I personally have DRK but I think its time to part with them.

Next he is going to make DRK POS and cut supply (LMFAO)

Sorry guys but thats not how cryptos work.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: othe on July 15, 2014, 01:49:05 PM

Quote from: illodin on July 15, 2014, 01:33:59 PM

Quote from: othe on July 15, 2014, 01:23:25 PM

Its all about solving the 51% issue and has some good recommandations on the topic, whereas anonymints proposal is easily cheatable and thus wont work (like the drk masternode payments are easily cheatable).

How?

Seriously?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7809053
Can you explain that thread then?

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc4-development-and-path-going-forward.1604/

Quote

With this launch, we introduced a new soft-fork method, which some users have affectionately dubbed the “spork”. As clients update, new features - Masternode payments, in this case - are implemented and available, though not strictly enforced by the network. After almost all users are updated, the fork can be remotely activated, which would enforce the new feature rules. If successful, the new feature(s) would be permanently activated and enforced. If unsuccessful, enforcement can be deactivated remotely for the whole network without the need for users to update their clients. In the latter case, a checkpoint would be added to put the whole network back on the same chain.

This allows us to test higher risk, innovative features in mainnet without having to hard fork the network and without the risk of a live rollback where all users must update.

Brilliantrocket

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Quote from: othe on July 15, 2014, 01:49:05 PM

Quote from: illodin on July 15, 2014, 01:33:59 PM

Quote from: othe on July 15, 2014, 01:23:25 PM

Its all about solving the 51% issue and has some good recommandations on the topic, whereas anonymints proposal is easily cheatable and thus wont work (like the drk masternode payments are easily cheatable).

How?

Seriously?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7809053
Can you explain that thread then?

That can be fixed instantly by turning enforcement on, but will not be until the new voting system is implemented in 2 weeks.

othe

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: illodin on July 15, 2014, 01:33:59 PM

Quote from: othe on July 15, 2014, 01:23:25 PM

Its all about solving the 51% issue and has some good recommandations on the topic, whereas anonymints proposal is easily cheatable and thus wont work (like the drk masternode payments are easily cheatable).

How?

Seriously?

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7809053
Can you explain that thread then?

Brilliantrocket

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Masternode payments cannot be cheated. If you use outdated versions or otherwise modify your MN's code, your votes will be rejected.

"
Each round, a winning Masternode is chosen to carry out Darksend transactions. This process is carried out by the individual nodes across the network independently using the masternode election algorithm. This algorithm chooses a winning node for Darksend, but there is also a runner up, third, forth, fifth place, etc.

Utilizing this code, we can make a deterministic list of the “top 10 masternodes” with the winning scores. These will be the same nodes accross the network and they will vote on who they believe should get paid for that round. The winning Masternode will be the one with the most votes (up to 10 votes) and the network will reject blocks not containing that payment entry."

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Its About Sharing on July 15, 2014, 12:27:21 PM

Worth repeating, thanks Darkota...

No it's not. Unlike you, I won't clutter this thread with the same old back and forth that OP already said should stop. Instead, read this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7816757

uvt9

sr. member

Activity: 300

Merit: 250

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 15, 2014, 01:07:36 PM

Quote from: uvt9 on July 15, 2014, 01:06:44 PM

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 15, 2014, 12:22:47 PM

Ok, it isn't something with immediate implications, but it will be acknowledged as a security flaw if Anonymint's proposal becomes a standard.

Even if that case could happen, it's still not a flaw. He was discussing about improving Bitcoin protocol and the subject obviously doesn't apply to CryptoNote protocol. Think about Bitcoin as Windows and CryptoNote as Linux. You can't say Linux is flawed just because you can't install Photoshop directly on it.

If you have a security standard, and something else cannot meet that standard, I would call that a flaw. It would be more like saying that operating system B is flawed if you can't determine whether it has malware on it, but with A you can.

It's not even called a standard (and currently there is no security standard for crypto currency). AnonyMint clearly said that his idea is for Bitcoin protocol only and might not be compatible with CryptoNote and Zerocash. You are the only one who is trying to reinterpret his words in different meaning and calling it a "flaw".

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: othe on July 15, 2014, 01:23:25 PM

Its all about solving the 51% issue and has some good recommandations on the topic, whereas anonymints proposal is easily cheatable and thus wont work (like the drk masternode payments are easily cheatable).

How?

othe

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 15, 2014, 01:07:36 PM

Quote from: uvt9 on July 15, 2014, 01:06:44 PM

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 15, 2014, 12:22:47 PM

Ok, it isn't something with immediate implications, but it will be acknowledged as a security flaw if Anonymint's proposal becomes a standard.

Even if that case could happen, it's still not a flaw. He was discussing about improving Bitcoin protocol and the subject obviously doesn't apply to CryptoNote protocol. Think about Bitcoin as Windows and CryptoNote as Linux. You can't say Linux is flawed just because you can't install Photoshop directly on it.

If you have a security standard, and something else cannot meet that standard, I would call that a flaw. It would be more like saying that operating system B is flawed if you can't determine whether it has malware on it, but with A you can.

Even tho i DOUBT you even want to learn something technical, read this link: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/281ftd/why_i_just_sold_50_of_my_bitcoins_ghashio/

Its all about solving the 51% issue and has some good recommandations on the topic, whereas anonymints proposal is easily cheatable and thus wont work (like the drk masternode payments are easily cheatable).

Brilliantrocket

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Quote from: Este Nuno on July 15, 2014, 01:16:22 PM

I don't really get it. You have CryptoNote on one hand with working anon tech with little to no criticism. And on the other hand you and DRK which looks to be a technological boondoggle singing a chorus of "we can make it work!".

I just bought some XMR and BBR and I can see no reason to think that I made the wrong choice. Or that DRK is a reasonable alternative at all when you have XMR here already.

Saying that CN anon tech is working, is like saying that carbon nanotube transistors are working. Factually accurate, but still a misrepresentation of the amount of work and time necessary to bring each to market.

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1002

amarha

I don't really get it. You have CryptoNote on one hand with working anon tech with little to no criticism. And on the other hand you and DRK which looks to be a technological boondoggle singing a chorus of "we can make it work!".

I just bought some XMR and BBR and I can see no reason to think that I made the wrong choice. Or that DRK is a reasonable alternative at all when you have XMR here already.

Brilliantrocket

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Quote from: uvt9 on July 15, 2014, 01:06:44 PM

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 15, 2014, 12:22:47 PM

Ok, it isn't something with immediate implications, but it will be acknowledged as a security flaw if Anonymint's proposal becomes a standard.

Even if that case could happen, it's still not a flaw. He was discussing about improving Bitcoin protocol and the subject obviously doesn't apply to CryptoNote protocol. Think about Bitcoin as Windows and CryptoNote as Linux. You can't say Linux is flawed just because you can't install Photoshop directly on it.

If you have a security standard, and something else cannot meet that standard, I would call that a flaw. It would be more like saying that operating system B is flawed if you can't determine whether it has malware on it, but with A you can.

uvt9

sr. member

Activity: 300

Merit: 250

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 15, 2014, 12:22:47 PM

Ok, it isn't something with immediate implications, but it will be acknowledged as a security flaw if Anonymint's proposal becomes a standard.

Even if that case could happen, it's still not a flaw. People on that thread was discussing about improving Bitcoin protocol and the subject obviously doesn't apply to CryptoNote protocol. Think about Bitcoin as Windows and CryptoNote as Linux. You can't say Linux is flawed just because you can't install Photoshop directly on it.

Brilliantrocket

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Quote from: drawingthesun on July 15, 2014, 12:39:52 PM

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 15, 2014, 12:34:57 PM

Interesting how all the Darkcoin flaws are either losers whining about the instamine (You'd NEVER buy a POS coin, right?). Or a criticism of coinjoin. Anonymint himself has stated that Darkcoin has solved Coinjoin's biggest problem, the potential for jamming transactions. Yes, he has also criticized the anonymity, but there have been some big changes since he reviewed Darkcoin. It seems like none of the things mentioned in that list are fundamentally unsolvable. Others will only be valid until a few months from now, like the closed source criticism.

Come on this is rubbish!

By "solving" coinjoin's biggest problem Darkcoin has introduced more problems. The nodes can track their own operation, if you own enough nodes you can easily graph the transaction path. If you have enough DDOS power you can also attack honest nodes driving more traffic to dishonest nodes.

I'm really not sure that the Masternode idea is helping here. Also it doesn't take much to see problems with Darkcoin, almost every part of Darkcoin is problematic.

The Masternodes are weak and easy to attack, the distribution is a premine, the developer is careless and willing to risk the entire network to look like he's keeping busy.

By running the transaction through enough nodes, even someone who owns half the nodes would not be able to reliably unmask transactions. This criticism is not valid for anyone except a government group, and you know damn well that CN is not immune to such entities either. The team is working on further solutions, as well.

A DOS solution has already been implemented (March wants its talking points back), if it ever becomes an issue, Evan will do further work. He's committed to full time work for 2 years. As far as the forks, the only people who were at any risk were the ones who deserved it, the pools that failed to update. They'll be put at risk again, and if they don't update, they won't be able to mine. Don't see the issue here.

Remember that this is all beta software, being designed by small teams. Microsoft has thousands of people working on a project, and still you see bugs in the release version! We both know that you know better than to raise this as an issue.

Anonymint's criticisms may not be gospel, but he is a genius when it comes to cryptography. Certainly well beyond any other (current

) member of this site.

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 165. (Read 387493 times)