Topic: THE RISE AND RISE OF MONERO - page 2. (Read 35415 times)

That wasn't the the central point. The central point was that encryption is appropriately applied to either personal records or contractually defined money where ownership is both nominated and distinct from possession. If, on the other hand, you encrypt an un-nominated bearer token, the encryption is redundant. All you're doing is obfuscating critical blockchain properties and adding a new layer riddled with toxic exploits. In Bitcoin, transactions can only be de-anonymised off-chain. In Monero, they can still be de-anonymised off-chain despite its encryption.


Agreed. That's why its blockchain balances are transparent.

If something doesn't square in one place, it won't square somewhere else and a global awareness of the blockchain state can quickly come to a consensus over what's happening. When you've got a thick layer of obfuscating nonsense stuck between the blockchain and its users (keyholders or non-keyholders) all you have is confusion and - ultimately - nothing.

I knew your non-sequitur arguments were going to end up here

Your argument against "time bombed obfuscation" is exactly the same as the argument that tells people not to encrypt anything, that way it will not be cracked one day.  Use http, not https, because it might get cracked.  Don't use encrypted passwords, they will get cracked.  But in the same vein, don't use digital signatures, they will be cracked too.  And then, you cannot use it to prove your ownership of coins, because others can do that too.

In other words, your arguments against using cryptography, because one day it may get cracked, are valid for ALL cryptography, including using encrypted communication, encrypted data, and, of course, crypto currencies, including bitcoin.

So the argument that cryptography shouldn't be used, because it is not safe (a bug, a powerful attacker, advances in crypto analysis, an error of principle....) also invalidates the value of bitcoin.   If you think that, say, 6 years from now, all bitcoin addresses can be cracked and their digital signatures obtained, then bitcoin should not be used as its monetary belief is based upon the digital signatures being safe.  If you think that just any sophisticated hacker can get into just any computer to steal secret keys, then bitcoin will not be usable either.    So the argument that cryptography will be cracked and should not be used, is an argument that makes bitcoin worthless too, and you shouldn't any form of crypto currency.

With that problem resolved, we accept that cryptography works (or we get out of crypto currencies).  The chance of the cryptography of ring signatures being broken, is of the same order as the chance of digital signatures being broken: it is more or less similar cryptography.  So if one can deanonymize the ring signatures, that comes down being able to deduce digital signatures if one knows bitcoin addresses too.  If bugs can happen, they can happen in any piece of code, so in bitcoin's code too.

Once we accept that ring signatures are just as safe as bitcoin signatures, there's nothing that makes that transparent block chains are more "certain" than digitally ring-signed block chains.  In both cases, you accept that the signature proves cryptographically the correctness of the underlying claim.  In the case of a bitcoin signature, you accept that the signature was produced by *the* owner of the unspent transaction output address secret key.  In the case of a ring signature, you accept that the signature was produced by an owner of an unspent transaction output address.  The ring signature cannot be produced correctly if the unspend transaction output was, in fact, spend (the rest of the block chain would signal that), in exactly the same way as you verify explicitly in the bitcoin block chain that this unspent output was, well, unspent.  The ring signature doesn't work if it was spent.  So you know it wasn't spent.  The only thing you don't know is WHICH ONE it was.  But that shouldn't matter.  The only thing you need to know is that AN unspent output was used, and that this very signature is going to signal now that this output is not going to be able to make another ring signature.  Exactly as with bitcoin.

Now, if you think that the cryptography is not working, then you shouldn't believe either, that the digital signatures of bitcoin work.  Why would you believe digital signatures of bitcoin, and not ring signatures of monero ?  And the cryptography is such, if you accept it, that only one single previous unspent output can produce the right ring signature, and by doing so, will signal that this output cannot be re-used for another ring signature.  That's all that is needed.   It is because Satoshi didn't know enough cryptography that he showed the explicit outputs and inputs.  But the only thing that he needed, was the proof that an output was spent only once.  Ring signatures prove this in the same way that digital signatures prove ownership of the secret key.

So, in summary:
- if you start from the idea that cryptography cannot be correctly implemented, will always contain essential bugs, and/or will always end up being cracked, then you shouldn't, ever, use cryptography, not for monero, nor for bitcoin, nor for https nor for passwords.
- if you start from the idea that no electronic device will ever be safe, then: same conclusions.

If you think that one can use bitcoin's code, cryptography, and secret keys, then there's no reason not to accept the cryptographic proofs of no double spend by ring signatures or the proofs of possession by secret key by ring signatures.  That's the only thing a block chain is used for: proving the absence of double spends and prove the right to spend using digital signatures with secret keys.

In other words, in as much as you accept cryptography, the monetary functions of cryptography on the monero block chain are the same as those on the bitcoin block chain (proving "right to spend" and proving no double spend).  And in as much as you think that cryptography is a failure, then you shouldn't use nor monero, nor bitcoin.

it may possibly be. i don't expect much, its current price is good enough but if it doubles, the better.
if it becomes like bitcoin like more than 1k, its going to be a huge upset for those who expect eth to be the top. they are expect it to be though because is a platform.

Because public transparency is what supports their value, not time-bombed clumsy layers of obfuscation.

I hope the Rise and Rise of Monero go on for years as I have bought some when I felt that it has all the strength of going to the top.
It is the 4th most favorite altcoin to buy from the people only behind Etc, Litecoin and dash so I hope that the price of monero gradually increase and become the future Bitcoin.

Because you think your bitcoin private keys are safe then ?

I don't think I've stated or implied that ever.

I've always said that Bitcoin is an unbacked asset and that that's its value basis - same as precious metals, diamonds, whatever.

The point about backed vs unbacked is that in a so called bearer token or "bearer instrument" there is not a distinct definition of ownership and possession. Assets which are "backed" therefore specifically trade ownership and are consequently subject to privacy/security priorities where obfuscation is appropriate since they only manifest in a record-keeping context.

The "IOU" tokens you trade on an exchange are such backed (contractual money). The blockchain tokens are not.

(Anyway. Now is not exactly the best time in history to be entrusting one's life's savings to a layer of encryption ).

https://twitter.com/hashtag/vault7

Your (eternal) error is to think that monetary assets HAVE TO be backed by something.  They don't have to.  A monetary asset is a monetary asset when there's a collective belief in its acceptance against value.  How that belief came to be, how it is sustained, and whether it is "legit" doesn't really matter, the only thing that matters is that the belief exists in the mind of the person you want to give the asset to, in order to obtain goods/services.  That's all.  If I have doggie poop, but my neighbour is believing that others will accept doggie poop for goods and services, then I'm able to obtain goods and services from him against doggie poop I provide, and hence, doggie poop is, at that moment, a monetary asset.

The belief in its acceptance against value is the single, only, sole thing that defines a monetary asset.

Now, there are different methods to keep that belief going, to get it going and so on, but they are just tools, and there's no need for them to exist, if the belief can be maintained in any other way.

ONE way to get the belief going in a monetary asset, is that it is somehow redeemable against something that is recognized as valuable.  That can be another monetary asset of which the belief system is more firmly established, it can be some or other commodity of which the value is established because there's a users' market for it, or it can be an enforceable promise of delivering value by a debtor, in as much as one believes that the debtor can really be forced to deliver.  This is the idea of "backing" a monetary asset: to have it derive its value from something else that is valuable and which you can get "for sure" with the monetary asset.

But it is not necessary.

Of course, one thing that kills all belief, is if everybody can make arbitrary amounts of the monetary asset.  If the difficulty of creating one-self the monetary asset is lower than the difficulty of providing value to obtain the asset in a trade, of course this is not going to work. 

I wish people would ditch this term "pseudo anonymity". It's totally meaningless.

Something is either named or it isn't. The fact that you can have off-chain anecdotal information about the parties to a particular trade doesn't make the money that was used for that trade any less "anonymous".

There are types of monterary media - e.g. debt based money - which derive their very existence from a contractual basis. For example, if you sign a mortgage agreement the bank will monetise that agreement for you so that you can exchange it for a house. That type of contractual money is nominated and the associated encryption of its transactions has more to do with security than privacy. i.e. it's to make sure that the right person is able to perform transactions and not all and sundry. You don't have much privacy because the bank sees everything and members of the public staff the bank.

In cryptocurrencies, however, a system of public/private keys is used so security isn't an issue. Authenticity, however is because we no longer have a trusted third party to back the money - which is why blockchains are transparent but private keys are...."private".

Gold nuggets are anonymous (not named). Barrels of oil are anonymous. Lumps of coal are anonymous. But if we stand in a circle and pass a lump of coal around, the fact I saw who had it before me doesn't make the coal any less anonymous.

So there is no "pseudo-anonymity". There is simply off-chain anecdotal knowledge of certain transactions, which is part of life and a good thing. Something that applies to every collateralising, base monetary token whether physical or electronic. Encryption is not something that adds any value to such a token. It's a tunnel for hiding stuff, not a monetary property.

I have been a little out of the loop in the world of alts recently.
Why did Dash explode and Monero not? I know that the price of Monero has been rising too, but the Dash/XMR ratio is higher than it was.

Did someone start to accept Dash, or is it just speculuation (PnD)?

Indeed.  Like the freedom to question God's and the King's authority were considered bad.  Freedom not to be religious while the others have to prey and obey the rules of the high priest.

But also to have the freedom to exchange an apple for an orange, without having to give apples to the state and their parasites.

See, where I live, if I were to exchange fully legally an apple for an orange, things happen like this:

You have an orange, I have an apple.  We both have also 1 Euro, and we consider that the market price of an apple, and an orange, is 1 Euro.

I buy your orange, and I pay you one Euro.  On that one Euro, you have to pay 20% of VAT.  So you obtain 0.8 Euro in your business.  To get that 0.8 Euro out of your business, to buy my apple, you have to pay 23% of social security contributions, and 30% of income tax (if you are part of the upper middle class).  That means that you get in the end, 0.43 Euro.

Now, you buy my apple for 1 Euro.  I do the same.  So I end up holding 0.43 Euro.

On our exchange of 1 apple for 1 orange (worth exchanged: 1 Euro against 1 Euro), we paid together 1.14 Euro to the state.  Each time one exchanges an economic value of A, one has to provide the state with 1.14 times A.   Roads are not that expensive.  States are.  Because they are generators of "con jobs".

Being able to exchange an orange for an apple is what I call economic freedom.


And I told you you were wrong.  Because you could have said the same about telephone, television and other initial state-monopolies on economic goods, like roads, houses, space rockets, satellites and so on.

What was that crap ? 

Freedom to buy Fentanyl or pistols with the serial number scraped off ?
Freedom to evade paying taxes while the rest of us foot the bill ?

I told you before i better not catch you driving on my paved roads then.

Your never ending horrendous fail-analogies STILL don't work bud.
No matter how many times you come out swingin' stickin' up for ole Monero i keep putting you on your ass.

I guess you came here to break the law and topple the worlds governments though huh ?
Hmm weird i came to support a digital currency.
Who am i to judge? ..i guess we all have our priorities. 

its already more than $12, it use to stay at $0.50 for almost a year but wen't up last year.  i therefore conclude Monero can be as hell of a coin if we all just get to be conscious with privacy which people will really be in the future due to identity thief. I once work with a group of transcribers who transcribes court depositions, didn't you guys know that they record all the Social Security numbers of individuals that mentions it?  

No, economic freedom.  Like freedom of speech.

And yes, economic freedom is "really bad" to many people, like freedom of speech is really bad to many people (and even more so when religion holds its sway).

"Where we are going we don't need governments Marty"

Nope, Monero is all about moving upward and falling down is not an option.

Don't you guys mean the Rise and FALL of Monero?

You did ?
What in the news saying stuff about arrests of criminals ?
Anyone i talked to on the street over the years say they heard of it and it's criminal shit.
Bitcoins reputation is bad.. REALLY BAD !
I know because 99.99% of people of all types who had no idea what it really is told me to my face.

Apparently Monero is going to the moon though so forgive me people.. crack and guns is the future i guess.. my bad. 

I'm wondering if Mr Satoshi has thought that bitcoin should not goes fully anonymous in order to deal with government.
Yes, people want a cryptocurrency that has fully anonymous feature, but it is a double edge sword as it can't develop further without penetrate government regulations. Bitcoin could be an alternative currency (of fiat money worldwide) but monero only reach an alternative cryptocurrency.

You can trace transfers made on the bitcoin blockchain, on Monero you cant. Thats the difference. You can read on the multiple busts of DNM users because of bitcoin.