Unveiling the truth over the major Monero scam - page 16.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: eduffield on September 15, 2015, 10:59:54 AM

We've made some massive progress on the DS side and the next version will support network wide anonymity, that doesn't obscure UTXO like cryptonote, is instantaneous, has no bload, has blinding and other identity protection built in. We won't require a name anymore for the service, because it's not a service, Dash will just be anonymous by default.

i can work with that... Grin

If it's true. Very few people take Evan at his word and that's not by "accident".

Yep who knows until it's finished. He could run into problems that can't be solved. Especially the no "bload" objective seems rather bold.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: smoothie on November 01, 2015, 05:06:26 PM

Privacy should be on by default and the user should consent to transparency of their own choosing. Not the other way around or any other combination.

That's apparently the plan for Evolution. I guess that stemmed naturally from the quorum system.

Quote from: eduffield on September 15, 2015, 10:59:54 AM

We've made some massive progress on the DS side and the next version will support network wide anonymity, that doesn't obscure UTXO like cryptonote, is instantaneous, has no bload, has blinding and other identity protection built in. We won't require a name anymore for the service, because it's not a service, Dash will just be anonymous by default.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: OrientA on November 01, 2015, 02:21:10 PM

Quote from: illodin on November 01, 2015, 07:44:17 AM

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

Can you also use Dash for transparent transactions? That is a very good feature of dash. Dash can be used both ways.

Problem there is because privacy is not enforced by default at the protocol level in Dash you can essentially black list addresses and remove fungibility of certain "coins".

Privacy should be on by default and the user should consent to transparency of their own choosing. Not the other way around or any other combination.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: generalizethis on November 01, 2015, 07:55:20 AM

...
So yeah there are other uses, but the "digital cash" that dash has branded itself as is a delusion wrapped inside of a hard-sell wrapped inside of a presumption of fact.

As is this whole Dash v Monero make believe pissing contest because the real aim here isn't to promote one over the other, its to pit one against the other with the aim of neither succeeding along with anything else with a hint of innovation, up to and including open and constructive discussion on Bitcoins development. You and your accomplices are Luddites which is quite ironic considering there's a high likelihood your group has a direct lineage with the group that redirected the followers of the mythical Ned Ludd from opponents of those in control of the means of production to opponents of the means of production its self.

You can throw all the rebuttals you please my way because frankly I don't give a damn, you're looking for individual targets and can't see what you're really fighting against is an idea. Pumping a shitcoin like Doge as an anchor to Dash on the markets is a prime example of that, you only think in terms of markets and the idea has seen the failings of markets and has cut them out of the loop. Now the idea has seen the failings of anonymous discussion and the value of trust and you'll be cut out of the loop all over again, you're a problem and you'll be out evolved.

A lot of bold statements there.

I personally seeing it as simply dash and its supporters (and DEV- Evan) not willing to call a spade a spade. Accept actual responsibility as Evan said he does (and not just say it) and back it up with actions.

For example the Instamine should be made public knowledge at ever Dash presentation, on the main page of the ANN thread, and the Dash forum. To only address it when someone makes it an issue of topic is obviously just hiding the facts until someone calls you on it.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on October 31, 2015, 10:39:10 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 08:44:55 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:37:10 PM

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Quote

In the near future, most wallets won't be using full nodes.

Every coin has the potential for thin clients with some (generally reasonable, though somewhat less than full node) degree of security, including Bitcoin and Monero.

Quote

After reading this thread, I have no doubt that one should stay as far away from Monero as one can.

I doubt that you even read the whole thread you would have seen that virtually everything if not everything in the OP was refuted as nonsense.

I lean heavily toward to what's penned in the OP. That's all I'm sayin' for now with the exception somebody's damn lucky that I'm fully sexually satisfied currently fucking a Filipino (expat) daily up the ass. HAHAHA

What exactly are you convinced of?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: illodin on November 01, 2015, 07:44:17 AM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 08:44:55 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:37:10 PM

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash hasfewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

The same exact thing can be said for Monero, and in that case the transactions/chain will be smaller, as explained in section 2.5 of the white paper.

We were discussing chain size. The only difference (in Dash's favor) comes from differences in usage, not differences in technology.

OrientA

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: illodin on November 01, 2015, 07:44:17 AM

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

Can you also use Dash for transparent transactions? That is a very good feature of dash. Dash can be used both ways.

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: generalizethis on November 01, 2015, 07:55:20 AM

...
So yeah there are other uses, but the "digital cash" that dash has branded itself as is a delusion wrapped inside of a hard-sell wrapped inside of a presumption of fact.

As is this whole Dash v Monero make believe pissing contest because the real aim here isn't to promote one over the other, its to pit one against the other with the aim of neither succeeding along with anything else with a hint of innovation, up to and including open and constructive discussion on Bitcoins development. You and your accomplices are Luddites which is quite ironic considering there's a high likelihood your group has a direct lineage with the group that redirected the followers of the mythical Ned Ludd from opponents of those in control of the means of production to opponents of the means of production its self.

You can throw all the rebuttals you please my way because frankly I don't give a damn, you're looking for individual targets and can't see what you're really fighting against is an idea. Pumping a shitcoin like Doge as an anchor to Dash on the markets is a prime example of that, you only think in terms of markets and the idea has seen the failings of markets and has cut them out of the loop. Now the idea has seen the failings of anonymous discussion and the value of trust and you'll be cut out of the loop all over again, you're a problem and you'll be out evolved.

There is no digital cash without fungibility and there is no fungibliity without privacy. So yeah, the technicalities matter. It's a technology and should be evaluated like one. Does it do what it purports to do and how well does it do it? Everything else is hype and noise IE wasting our time. So thanks for nothing.

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: illodin on November 01, 2015, 07:58:21 AM

Quote from: generalizethis on November 01, 2015, 07:55:20 AM

Quote from: illodin on November 01, 2015, 07:44:17 AM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 08:44:55 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:37:10 PM

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash hasfewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

The question is why does dash use the inferior privacy of darksend at all? But to answer your question, no digital cash (cash being the important distinction being made) will work without privacy because privacy must happen for a coin to be fungible (excluding quantum money which works by alerting the user through quantum interaction that their money has been "viewed" by someone other than the sender and the recipient). So if dash wants to claim to be digital cash, the first thing they should be doing is making privacy happen at the protocol level. If it can't do that (or isn't quantum money), then dash isn't cash.

No, that wasn't the question.

Was editing as you responded--reread.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: generalizethis on November 01, 2015, 07:55:20 AM

Quote from: illodin on November 01, 2015, 07:44:17 AM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 08:44:55 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:37:10 PM

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash hasfewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

The question is why does dash use the inferior privacy of darksend at all? But to answer your question, no digital cash (cash being the important distinction being made) will work without privacy because privacy must happen for a coin to be fungible (excluding quantum money which works by alerting the user through quantum interaction that their money has been "viewed" by someone other than the sender and the recipient). So if dash wants to claim to be digital cash, the first thing they should be doing is making privacy happen at the protocol level. If it can't do that (or isn't quantum money), then dash isn't cash.

No, that wasn't the question.

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: illodin on November 01, 2015, 07:44:17 AM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 08:44:55 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:37:10 PM

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash hasfewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

The question is why does dash use the inferior privacy of darksend at all? But to answer your question, no digital cash (cash being the important distinction being made) will work without privacy because privacy must happen for a coin to be fungible (excluding quantum money which works by alerting the user through quantum interaction that their money has been "viewed" by someone other than the sender and the recipient). So if dash wants to claim to be digital cash, the first thing they should be doing is making privacy happen at the protocol level. If it can't do that (or isn't quantum money), then dash isn't cash. So yeah there are other uses, but the "digital cash" that dash has branded itself as is a delusion wrapped inside of a hard-sell wrapped inside of a presumption of fact.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 08:44:55 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:37:10 PM

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash hasfewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1115

Quote from: Gleb Gamow on October 31, 2015, 10:39:10 PM

...somebody's damn lucky that I'm fully sexually satisfied currently fucking a Filipino (expat) daily up the ass. HAHAHA

Wat. I guess that lucky somebody isn't the Filipino expat?

Gleb Gamow

vip

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1145

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:53:07 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 08:44:55 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:37:10 PM

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Quote

In the near future, most wallets won't be using full nodes.

Every coin has the potential for thin clients with some (generally reasonable, though somewhat less than full node) degree of security, including Bitcoin and Monero.

Quote

After reading this thread, I have no doubt that one should stay as far away from Monero as one can.

I doubt that you even read the whole thread you would have seen that virtually everything if not everything in the OP was refuted as nonsense.

I lean heavily toward to what's penned in the OP. That's all I'm sayin' for now with the exception somebody's damn lucky that I'm fully sexually satisfied currently fucking a Filipino (expat) daily up the ass. HAHAHA

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 08:44:55 PM

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:37:10 PM

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Quote

In the near future, most wallets won't be using full nodes.

Every coin has the potential for thin clients with some (generally reasonable, though somewhat less than full node) degree of security, including Bitcoin and Monero.

Quote

After reading this thread, I have no doubt that one should stay as far away from Monero as one can.

I doubt that you even read the whole thread you would have seen that virtually everything if not everything in the OP was refuted as nonsense.

TanteStefana2

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1001

Quote from: smooth on October 31, 2015, 08:37:10 PM

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller. In the near future, most wallets won't be using full nodes. Yet, they will still have the security of their wallet's information due to the distributed way the information will be downloaded through the DAPI, served up by Masternodes quorums. Masternodes, being compensated through the system, can afford to run with terabytes of storage. Yet, the Masternode network is fully distributed throughout the world and there are Masternodes on every continent.

*If* the new version of Dash has masternode blinding, there will be no need for multiple mixing sessions. This will speed things up. There is a lot of room for improvement, but our team has constantly made great progress. After reading this thread, I have no doubt that one should stay as far away from Monero as one can. In fact, I think this will be the last I say on the matter. Say what ever FUD you like after me, I won't respond so enjoy.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 08:25:45 PM

Quote from: jwinterm on October 31, 2015, 07:20:11 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 07:09:36 PM

Quote from: jwinterm on October 31, 2015, 06:54:30 PM

Quote from: MasterMined710 on October 31, 2015, 06:35:47 PM

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No? Oh no, that's Dash isn't it? Does morono have anything? Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh? Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me! Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

Nice job completely avoiding the topic under discussion. Monero does have ring signatures and built in stealth addressing, neither of which DASH possesses. The blockchain is obfuscated, which is the point of ring signatures, however anyone can unveil their transactions by way of their view key if they choose to. IMO, privacy by default with the option to unveil transactions is a better architecture than attempting to tack on a convoluted coinjoin scheme (that oh by the way just happens to enrich large holders, i.e., instaminers) onto the bitcoin client, but to each their own.

Monero's privacy comes at a steep cost, block chain bloat. And it's the only thing it offers. It will never be able to keep full nodes running, for lack of incentive and it will always be super slow to load. I don't see any competition myself for Dash in Monero, and after the year+ of trolling from those people, I no longer feel obligated to be nice either.

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

TanteStefana2

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1001

Quote from: jwinterm on October 31, 2015, 07:20:11 PM

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 07:09:36 PM

Quote from: jwinterm on October 31, 2015, 06:54:30 PM

Quote from: MasterMined710 on October 31, 2015, 06:35:47 PM

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No? Oh no, that's Dash isn't it? Does morono have anything? Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh? Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me! Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

Nice job completely avoiding the topic under discussion. Monero does have ring signatures and built in stealth addressing, neither of which DASH possesses. The blockchain is obfuscated, which is the point of ring signatures, however anyone can unveil their transactions by way of their view key if they choose to. IMO, privacy by default with the option to unveil transactions is a better architecture than attempting to tack on a convoluted coinjoin scheme (that oh by the way just happens to enrich large holders, i.e., instaminers) onto the bitcoin client, but to each their own.

Monero's privacy comes at a steep cost, block chain bloat. And it's the only thing it offers. It will never be able to keep full nodes running, for lack of incentive and it will always be super slow to load. I don't see any competition myself for Dash in Monero, and after the year+ of trolling from those people, I no longer feel obligated to be nice either.

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 07:09:36 PM

Quote from: jwinterm on October 31, 2015, 06:54:30 PM

Quote from: MasterMined710 on October 31, 2015, 06:35:47 PM

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No? Oh no, that's Dash isn't it? Does morono have anything? Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh? Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me! Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

An obfuscated blockchain is the only way to a fungible coin outside of quantum money--dash and it's amazing team must have missed that memo.

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1115

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on October 31, 2015, 07:09:36 PM

Quote from: jwinterm on October 31, 2015, 06:54:30 PM

Quote from: MasterMined710 on October 31, 2015, 06:35:47 PM

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No? Oh no, that's Dash isn't it? Does morono have anything? Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh? Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me! Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

Nice job completely avoiding the topic under discussion. Monero does have ring signatures and built in stealth addressing, neither of which DASH possesses. The blockchain is obfuscated, which is the point of ring signatures, however anyone can unveil their transactions by way of their view key if they choose to. IMO, privacy by default with the option to unveil transactions is a better architecture than attempting to tack on a convoluted coinjoin scheme (that oh by the way just happens to enrich large holders, i.e., instaminers) onto the bitcoin client, but to each their own.

Topic: Unveiling the truth over the major Monero scam - page 16. (Read 69408 times)