Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 13. (Read 69755 times)

Quick, attack the attacker!

Discuss the attacker's personality and biography!  Change the topic away from Even's scrapped promise to implement ring signatures!

Perhaps. Depends. Just because decisions are made slower or even not at all doesn't always mean they are better. World is not perfect. Luck is always a factor.

You're slightly odd character I must say. I can't put my finger on it, but you often seem to ask questions I don't quite understand. It's like you're referring to something I haven't said. Is it the language barrier? Or were you just dropped on your head one time too many as a child?

Being at the mercy of the "big moves" made "quite swiftly" by one individual is not always a good thing, in my opinion, when talking about a Free & Open Source Software project that involves units of value.

The community-driven approach is superior, even if it moves more slowly. Of course, you can't please all the people all of the time, so some sort of quasi-democratic system coordinated by a somewhat small team is usually the best compromise.  

1) Dash's code causes inevitable centralization and is not as fungible as Ring Signatures, it's as simple as that
2) It's likely that you're trying to use Reverse Psychology(Aka trolling) by acting "nice"(Pretty easy to see through when one actually reads your posts thoroughly), because others have constantly corrected you on what you've said, yet on every new page you bring up the same incorrect statements/questions in an attempt to manipulate/push Dash to the forefront.
3) Dash's entire architecture has been "decimated"/torn to pieces code wise, it's external masternode system brings in centralization and other attack vectors since they are hosted on centralized servers online and unwisely provide it's most important features through those external masternodes(Also, Bitcoin already does this, no point in even using Dash)
4) Again, you do the same, you're extremely hypocritical. Please reread this thread or even have a friend do it for you, maybe then you'd see just how many times you've been corrected.

And to add further

5) The entire Dash/Darkcoin cryptocurrecy project has been recently deemed a centralized joke by it's former developer vertoe, that speaks volumes
6) Dash/Darkcoin had a dishonest/scam instamine that makes Auroracoin's premine look like the holy grail.

etc.

Me neither. Try not to quote me out of context. I didn't say the issues were "unresolvable." I said they "are unresolvable short of DASH abandoning the bitcoin codebase and adopting a more opaque block chain."

I highly doubt that will ever happen, as evan considered it once and went another direction (probably because he'd have to rebuild everything from scratch). He certainly won't dive down that rabbit hole now that he has instantX and other features already in place.

Just like Evan said he'd be implementing Ring Signatures back in May-June of 2014, then it got totally scrapped?

Would it be best to maybe set up a bounty for independent reviews by a reputable cryptographer/coder for both Monero and Dash? The reviews would be alligned with Satoshi Nakamoto's original "vision" for cryptocurrencies, so the major factors of the review would be; The code itself and the pro's and con's of each(Along with which is more "anonymous", etc), the decentralization aspect in each coin or lack of, and of course the ethics of each coin(Does the coin have a honest, open history? Did it allign to Satoshi's vision of the core design being "set in stone", does it have a open, fair dev team? etc

Those are the things that make a cryptocurrency valuable. The ethics behind it(Good dev team, no dishonesty, transparency etc), the actual code and features of the coin, and how much it stays on course of being decentralized.

Obviously in my view the winner is clear, but a 3rd party doing this, Reputable third party, would be pleasant.

I'm not sure about that.



Might happen, who knows. Evan is known for making big moves quite swiftly.

My point was that these issues are unresolvable short of DASH abandoning the bitcoin codebase and adopting a more opaque block chain.

Is that quote from Peter Todd? I'm pretty sure this issue has already been addressed/resolved in MRL-004 (but devs should correct me or verify).

Development is still going on. If DASH is still alive 2 years from now it won't be the same as it is today.

Hi, can you please?

Let me rephrase: Due to the nature of a transparent blockchain, there will always be associations with addresses, even if your concerned association is eliminated. People won't mix because they don't think they need to, or maybe they aren't aware of some illicit trade 80 transactions up-chain. Because of this, we will still see increasing use of blockchain analysis and increasing discrimination against transactors that leads to fungibility issues. The only way to eliminate this concern is through an entirely opaque block chain.


Okay. Then in my opinion, yes, it's probably fit for purpose right now. But as demand for blockchain analysis services increases, major fungibility issues will start to pop up. Of course this won't be provable until it actually happens.

"The problem with Monero's ring signatures in this situation is an exchange can notice that one of the pubkeys in your ring signature comes from a "stolen" coin and tell you to resubmit the tx with that pubkey left out of the signature."

No, it doesn't, that's just you trying to sound clever.


yeah, and I think Monero is pretty cool y'know...


OK dude, nice going. I'm going to call it a night, got a big few days work on some 'fintech' IRL.  

Toodle-pip.

The "or" operator you used means you consider them functionally equivalent.

You were trying to frame 'mathematically proven' as a mere abstract academic concern, dithered upon solely by Ivory Tower nerds, with no applicability to hard-nosed fintech affairs.

But 'mathematically proven' crypto is Bitcoin's (and Monero's) raison d'être.

Crypto isn't a 'hurr-durr good enough if "the code has been reviewed once" and it makes me money' thing.  If you could see over your huge bag of DigitalTrash, that would be obvious.

yep that's pretty much it....you have to bring the DASH wallet online to start the node, but otherwise it's 'cold'. Hopefully there will be a feature in the future where you can sign the 'start-node' command on an offline host and then start on an online host that doesn't contain the private keys, like how you can sign transactions offline in BTC wallets such as Armory.

But there are no coins, just balances on addresses. The darksend process removes any association between two given addresses. That's where the fungibility comes from and that's the question I asked. Where is the 'taint' you talk about?



OK that's a fair response. So it's down to an opinion on who your adversaries really are and what the future holds. If you think you can beat the NSA with Monero in the long game then fair enough.



For me, fit-for-purpose would mean working, useful services (instant transactions, privacy, 2FA etc) which are secure against any realistic attack (i.e. not guv/TLA).

Nice try, but if you look back, you'll see that I wrote 'perfect or mathematically proven'.