Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1250. (Read 4670643 times)

Its very reassuring to know this was already looked into, I really like this project.

Isn't this a huge contradiction?

Why would XMR p2pool end up better than BTC p2pool? Serious question.

We never said it will just be like Bitcoin.
I think we already stated multiple times that anonymity won't be the only point of Monero, but its a must have.

Mining decentralisation is one of the things that will be worked on for sure.



If you want opinions from neutral people who have no hedge in monero, maybe read the post from gmaxwell (nullc): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7765455
Or Andytoshis post on stackexchange: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/29471/is-there-any-true-anonymous-cryptocurrencies

And that bugs me. I know that Monero stands mostly for that, and only for that. It equals Bitcoin in each and every aspect when you just look back onto Bitcoin's timeline. Bitcoin once wanted to be mined on desktops by literally everybody and their wifes, reaching out onto the internet and these myriads of participating online people.
Was anonymous internet money, once upon a time.

What is left of that now? Recently even the Bitcoin hashrate and difficulty declined, people asking if a big mining cartel was shut down (Butterflylabs was supposed to run a huuuge collocation, funded from customer's moneh  ). Mining is centralised, there are some big cartels and perhaps a slightly bigger number of mining pools. P2pool practically never gained ground (how about XMR p2pool ?). If you tell people you just bought ASICS they do give you pityfull looks.

This coin is not changing the approach so how could it change the game?

Totally exspecting Monero to be what Bitcoin is today in some years. And I dont mean that it will reach somewhat 300$ a coin, which it may or may not reach in value. Instead pointing out that Monero will "just be like Bitcoin" and somehow I doubt that will be enough for the holy grail (it isn't "golden" you infidel  ) of crypto, the "mass adoption". If we are honest with ourselfes, goals, targets than it isn't merely about value, it is all about adoption.

osensei already quoted my response - you can read the discussion on that thread for more details as to why it's pointless. We will sort out Tor connectivity for MyMonero, but an SSL cert is a waste of effort.

Hilariously, Blockchain.info are only *now* turning on HSTS and similar, which should have been on from the get-go.

To quote Mary Queen of Scots, "Yes--CLLUGHGH"

Wish there was an emoticon that rolled along the screen and smiled .................

This is getting away from being a talk about Monero and becoming a talk about how the various coins stack-up, but it would be nice to see a forum dedicated to fleshing out the advantages and disadvantages to each coin without it turning into an investor he-said/she-said. And before anyone says, "Why don't you create it?" I don't have the credentials to make it work. You'd have to be very high on the bitcointalk totem pole to make it work and not have it burst into a shouting match between investors.

And yes, anonymity, I see your point on that different coins for different goals.

Let's say the ultimate anonymity was found and it had proofs that were 10 MB each and the network could handle one transaction per minute, that would be the winner for you?

Or someone forked Monero and the only change they made was increase some encryption parameter or mixing depth so it would be slightly "more anonymous" you'd favor that over Monero?

 

I was hoping using "coin(s)" hedged me from any naming of coins and being accused of attacking another project. My argument doesn't dismiss that two or more coins could be anonymous, nor that a coin can be more anonymous, but that there should be a public outing of coins that are not anonymous, and if one or more coins have superior anonymity features, that knowledge should be public. My guess is that anyone who wants to use a privacy coin doesn't want to have to test the coins themselves, but have this publicly tested the same way car manufacturers test sports cars: on a race track in front of a crowd with the best performing team winning. Now the last statement is a desire statement from a hypothetical dark operator who doesn't want to go to jail and should not be read as a proposal--I'm just trying to point out that the people who want anonymity have more riding on this than an investment.

I tend not to beat around the bush, so sorry if my original statement came across as confrontational and not inline with the spirit of forum.

This is an ongoing process. Can you point me to a current discussion that takes into all the coins and their varying approaches on a day or week-to-week basis? I know where Monero stands, but other coins have changed their approaches, and like some other people, anonymity is the golden grail for me--so the most anonymous wins if two or more coins aren't equally anonymous.

Then you can reactivate

ya

consider updating this:
some minimum helps to lower mining dust (miners will not like owning dust, anyways) but TX fees are on volume, meanwhiles.

hi guys;

I'm the co owner of poolto.be; it seems like nobody's mining on our pool except us; and we're having a huge server bill to pay; + our fees are ridiculous (last time our sys admin checked we had like 10 xmr in fees total)

A bit of hashrate would help us a lot; because we won't be able to keep paying that big hetzner box for nothing forever.

So please help before our pool dies!

thanks a bunch!

That assumes (based on nothing as far as I can tell) an either-or structure to the question where one coin must "real anonymous" and one must be "fake anonymus".

Monero uses on-chain mixing and with stealth addresses and relies on cryptography. Darkcoin is off-chain mixing and relies on semi-trusted nodes to coordinate the mixing process (and soon for other features such as instant transactions). As such they each have a different set of different potential vulnerabilities. Against some hypothesized types of attacks one or the other or both or neither may be susceptible.

They both seem to be sincere efforts in terms of technology. That doesn't necessarily make them equal in terms of competence or quality or security or prospects for success but I don't see the need to use loaded words like "just claiming" in the discussion.

Several reasonable and competent cryptographic professionals have done so.  If you are unfamiliar with their opinions, and the merits thereof, you probably should not be an investor.

If you're a darknet operator, this isn't a dick measuring contest, it's the difference between jail time and freedom. It'd be nice to hear from non-investors on the matter and have a legitimate discussion on which coin(s) is anonymous and which one(s) is just claiming to be anonymous--neutral territory, of course.

Almost a year more?
Too long to hold.

I'll quote the first comment (sorted by "best") which explains it all and which just happens to be from fluffypony:

It was as stupid of an argument as the arguments brought up against the masternode network. I guess I probably should have framed it in sarcasm tags. This isn't a dick measuring contest. Each coin does their own job at anonymity. Whether you want offchain or onchain, take your pick.

It's so simple: just read the source code (it's an open book to everyone), learn the basics of cryptography (books available everywhere), and convince yourself that the source base is proper and does its anticipated job - to the best of my knowledge several people already did so.