Topic: The Reality of Masternode Centralization - page 5. (Read 7919 times)

More like I know from experience that you are desperate to find something wrong with Dash.  In the last 3 months you have been jumping round a dozen different threads with "Dash is a scam because XYZ" and now you are trying to say a p2p network topology essentially the same as Bitcoin is centralized so excuse me if I don't pay too much attention.

That is a number I read on the Monero thread at some point and in my opinion is a conservative estimate.  I don't actually know what the number is because Fluffy refuses to share that information with anyone, but I am guessing it is actually the majority of users judging by how many people complain about the client wallet on the XMR thread, how many times I see people get recommended to just use MyMonero.com, and how new users looking to download the wallet get presented with this:

You're right, if you don't care that your coin is or isn't very anonymous, then why should anyone else care? Sorry you can't be bothered with such details.

Just stop responding to BlockaFett, the guy uses false #'s and wild speculations in every post he makes, which makes him either a troll or a very dumb man.

Edit: BlockaFett is 100% a troll, his level of stupidity cannot possibly be real

Where are you getting this absurd 50% from? 

Kind of laughable to talk about Monero 'anonymity' when you have 50% of users typing Monero transactions into your core-devs website on his closed-source server wired up with Google Analytics,  Generalize.  And sorry I didn't read how you think you can compromise Masternodes, i know from experience what your analysis is like and life is too short

Read again. I showed how masternodes could be compromised by using gleaned information from the hosting company, not by compromising the servers themselves.

If you compromise a masternode, you can trace part of the mixing. And the more masternodes you compromise the more you can trace. The rest of your argument is the spin you are accusing me of. Even if LEA owned all of the Monero nodes they wouldn't be able to trace a transaction any better than if they were watching the blockchain--if you don't get why this is better anonymity, I feel sorry for you.

So what ? They can probably get that just by reading bitcointalk.

It's not the machine that hosts the masternode that matters strategically, it's the anonymous address that hosts its collateral. Blockchain daemons can disappear and pop-up anywhere, hosters can have open access to masternodes for all anyone cares - it's decentralised remember ?

The "Evil NSA" doesn't need to hack into any hosting company's virtualised servers to get access to a masternode daemon, they can just download one from here and run it themselves.

P.S. Notice something about that page by the way ? It contains the official Dash client, complete with hash's so you can conclusively verify your download is not(a hacked-to-peices wallet that's showing you a JPEG of a phony balance from a blockchain that has no support for public consensus to endorse its veracity or otherwise) 

Thats because in crypto, to any self respecting developer, the meer idea of "third party wallets" is synonymous with third party "please-help-yourself-to-my-money" tech, so an official, native, clean, verified, GUI client is usually the first order of business, not the last.


Sorry, but in crypto (unlike fiat) preventing people from seeing and verifying the anonymous addresses at each end of a transaction is not anonymity - it's monetary clownery.

Nice subject title though - "The reality of masternode centralisation". That sure took some creativity. Your next assignment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(public_relations)

Doesn't really matter as nobody else than the dash fan group cares about it. Too much shit surrounding it, only being defended by a huge number of insiders.

A bit desperate this one is it not ?

Blockchain daemons can be run by anyone, anywhere, anytime. For that matter, half of them can be run in the foyer at Langley HQ for all the difference it makes to the network's behavioural logic. Thats the whole point of a decentralised network.

Don't worry, if TPTB truly feel the need to de-anonymise one of your addresses, they'll have easier ways of doing it than waiting for one of your transactions to be handled by some random masternode, attempting to find out where in the world it and its participating partners for that transaction are, commandeering those virtual servers only to discover that they can't detect your transaction originating address anyway. They'll probably just knock on your door instead.

(On the other hand, since they "own" cryptonote tech and all known jiggery pokery, scam logic, corrupt transactional behaviour and heists are totally hidden from public view and therefore void of public accountability, I'm sure they won’t mistake which one has the “low hanging fruit”).

P.S. Masternodes are secured by a collateral populated coin address, not hosted servers.

P.P.S. Mind your definitions.  

Centralised:


Decentralised:

Yeah, great job, bravo.

Can't wait that to happen, as that would currently mean each masternode earning $6,500/month in rewards. People might then afford moving their masternodes away from Amazon.

BlockaFett guy is like, please dont do it, please let me get rich with this scam

1. My point is that hosting companies are privacy breaches waiting to happen for masternodes, and most people don't follow best practices in this regard, so why would they in other ways? Are you in the "they got this wrong, but they'll get that right--because it validates my opinion" business?

2. My stated concern (listed at the beginning an end of the post) is not that peoples funds are at risk, but their privacy and security.

Interesting, OP. Thanks for the factual information, and not resorting to biased, opinionated bullshit that comes out of the posts of trolls like BlockaFett.

Hey that's a good point.

Someone should test it out though.

It should be easy enough and I'm gonna draw on my past dash dumping experiences on cryptsy.

See, I noticed a funny thing. If I saw a meaty buy order for 500ish dash that I wanted to drop a stack into, I started by transferring a load to craptsy.

Only magically, the buy order disappeared or moved way down in the ten minutesor so it takes to show up.

Every time. Were talking about over ten times bc I got bored and wanted to do it for luls.  Of because I have a tendency toward the number ten for the convenience of this post.

Obviously I could just move it in small amounts as I later found out, but it still begs the question: is cryptsy manipulating the market, or is someone not trading based on blockchain tracking data?

I found the second situation more likely, which is another screwy story all together.

Anyways point here is - when I move largish amts of monero to polo, this doesn't happen like it did at cryptsy. Free to dump at market value if you wanted.

So why isn't that the case? Is it a conspiracy to get me to write this post, or should you put up some actual money and run it through mymonero and then send it to polo to see if the buy orders move in line with when you move large amounts to the exchange?

As long as people host their masternodes properly with encrypted wallets with backups, I can't see anything that could cause any issues. If a hosting company were to refuse hosting masternodes for whatever magical reason, nobody would lose anything and there are plenty of them around so I wouldn't call it centralized. I mean there are much fewer pools than masternode hosting services so for the time being I think we're fine.

Both of my posts stated why I disagree with the OP.  For the third time:

"I think it's obviously an idiotic conclusion to say wallets hosted around the world in different countries running as masternodes are centralized"

and.....

"Centralized means centralized, with a central point, e.g. MyMonero.com...not user's wallets running in different countries, I thought this was obvious"

But I see you side-step my point......

Anyone who reads the XMR thread knows that most users can't get the wallet to work and get recommended to use MyMonero and it is safe to assume most people use it.

Something is extremely wrong with a coin that is over 1 year old that still has an essentially "crippled" official wallet where most people have to use a centralized payment website instead .. a site that gives just the owner visiblility on distribution / transfers that no one else can see - on a coin that the marketing claims is "untraceable". An *extremely* strange choice of vehicle for such a coin, no?

Coupled with 2 facts: Fluffypony has a *history* of doing this, and secondly from investigating Ryan Kennedy I know that people who make a big effort to get 'in the middle' of a coin like he did with Doge, and Fluffy tried with Vertcoin and now succeeded with Monero, are often scamming (and often intelligent / good with people / controlling perceptions at the same time).

Did you stop to consider, how involved is Fluffy in the actual XMR market?  If he is a large investor / trader, he has positioned himself quite nicely to be ahead of the market and also be the voice of Monero to guide things how he wants.

Then add in some other facts like how Monero volume is just through Poloniex with no effort to get onto other exchanges, and they have setup XMR with it's own market and made it the landing page.  And Polo is the only entity apart from MyMonero.com that has info on XMR distribution / movements that they keep to themselves too.....nice single point to control at too.

I am not saying this is certainly the case. I am just looking at it myself and saying hmm....structurally, if Fluffy / his buddies were scammers, they are positioned nicely to take advantage....

Above is off topic, and not saying with a Dash investor hat on...this is stuff you should think about (assuming you aren't a Monero dev which I am guessing a lot of these acccounts are)