Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 14. (Read 69785 times)

All the ones pointed out by everyone who has pointed them out.

If I did actually redundantly reiterate the many flaws here by pointing them all out AGAIN, you dashers would just say "nugh-ugh!"

And we would start yet another revolution around the circle this thread has been going in from the beginning.

So to you guys, a "cold wallet" is one that is "cold" when you want it to be and "hot" when you want it to be. Lukewarm wallet? Tepid wallet?


EDIT: OK, I get it. Even a "cold" wallet has to be brought "online" at some point, in order to transfer funds.  So, it is a rather ambiguous term.

Actually, I commented on it myself upthread. A large amount of transparency reduces the anonymity set and thus reduces fungibility. Coins must be cryptographically identical to be fungible. Otherwise you will eventually run into issues where coins without some degree of taint could be considered suspicious. Here's the quote:


Next:


You are asking questions that (you know) nobody has an answer to. "Assuming the NSA has enough resources to bring down drk/dash, how much money/resources would someone else need?" Nobody knows, which is why you should stick with the best freakin tech available (ie. not dash).

Also, a lot of us (perhaps not you) are interested in monetary privacy for the specific reason that we don't want NSA-level organizations spying on everything we do. Your "anyone other than NSA" question is pointless to those of us in that category, because they are exactly the type of adversaries we're concerned about. Sure, all crypto projects are vulnerable at this point, but some have a much more "optimistic" future than others.

This should also answer your "fit-for-purpose" question. You still haven't defined exactly what "fit-for-purpose" means, but the answer is unquantifiable regardless. If you're willing to trust an inferior solution that you think is "good enough" (while being full aware of all the other shady practices surrounding this project), then there's really nothing more we can do to convince you otherwise.

My "credentials" are sufficient to know "the code has been reviewed once" isn't the standard for anything except failures like Darkcoin.

'Mathematically proven' security is an important part of fintech.  That's why Bitcoin exists.  You must be new.

*CLICK*


Yep, I figured.  You are so noob to the topics here you think 'mathematically proven' means 'perfect.'

*PLONK*

If you compromize the server running the daemon and get access to the MN private key  you still won't be able to touch the 1k deposit.
MN priv keys have nothing to do with addresses private keys.
What huge failures in basic security are you referring to?

Ah so it's "fintech security" now not "fintech". Nice little mod there.

I'd love to know your fintech credentials...

Masternode for anonymity is a bad idea, that's why Drk re-branded itself as Dash and continued to add "additional services" because it makes not sense from a purely anonymous standpoint.

Masternode is the equivalent of the "miner" but instead to provide "anonymity". It gets compensated for doing this "work" just like a miner get rewarded to do its work.

But that was before the invention of better anonymous technology such as those used in Monero. In Monero, you get anonymity for free*, basically baked into the protocol. But with Drk, you have to pay Masternodes for such "services" and you get an inferior version.

That's like still riding a horse when we have invented the car. Why would you do it?

That's why Drk needs to re-brand beyond the "anonymous" label because it's charging people to do inferior work.


Second point is the comparison between the Miner and the Masternode.

The miner does work to secure the blockchain but the work that has already been done cannot be used to corrupt the blockchain, meaning that in order to change history, new work has to be done.

But with the Masternode, the work that has been done is providing anonymity can in fact be used to unwind that very same anonymity. It's almost like a "Proof Of Stake equivalent" but in the anonymous dimension, where some staking in the past can somehow be used in the future but in this case providing anonymity in the past can be used to unwind in the future. This itself may not be a bad thing but what make it really bad is that it's a third party, so where you rely on other miners to secure the blockchain but this work cannot be undone, with Masternode, you rely on other nodes to provide anonymity but the work can be undone.

I think the definition of 'cold storage' is somewhat ambiguous, but in general refers to storing keys offline except when it's necessary to use them online, which in the case of masternodes is when you need to start the node - typically following an upgrade.

The standard for fintech security is 'mathematically proven,' not "the code has been reviewed once."

"The code has been reviewed once."

^^That's your problem right there.^^

You should make that the cult's new motto:

DASH - The code has been reviewed once!

It'll make a fitting epitaph as well:

You obviously don't know what a cold wallet is.

A cold wallet is one in which the private keys are NOT stored on a machine with ANY access to or from ANY other machine at all.

So, it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to "start (a node) remotely from (a) cold wallet."

It is huge failures in basic security concepts that make the D-coin akin to a mirage, and almost like a Trojan Horse, in my opinion.

So if all DASH is is a Bitcoin tumbler, can it really be marketed as an anonymous cryptocurrency?

how do you prove that a complex system is 'mathematically sound'?  E.g. where is the mathematical proof that Bitcoin user's will mine and make transactions and act honestly for the best interest of the system, without which Bitcoin 'wouldn't work'?  The closest that current Math can come is game theory - but that's not a proof.

But the point is that the basic coin is the same as BTC. The idea is you have some services on top that improve on what you can get from trusted third-parties with BTC. These services run on 2,400 servers in a random, trustless fashion - instead of a handful of servers owned by one anoymous dude who can steal your coins.

Forgetting any first-mover advantages or whatever....if this is an improvement over standard BTC then why not use it?

Rebranding is gr8!

I suggest Monero becomes MASH.

Additional services at the very core of DASH, at the very core of its marketing and its purpose in life.  I look at them as core services and not additional services.  All central to the DASH architectural model.

Hahaha, nope, it ain't.

The standard for real-world fintech is 'works' and 'makes money'. At least if you're talking about 'fintech' as in 'finance technology' used in 'finance companies' by 'finance professionals' like what i am.


OK dude, let's keep it civilised....good luck with your mission

So you're claiming that if A requires trust, and B requires trust, then A = B.

One more time, Just go read the wiki page, Green addresses is not the same as InstantX.

The standard for real-world fintech is 'mathematically proven.'  The fact you try to equate 'mathematically proven' with 'perfect' shows how little you understand the topic.

You are obviously drinking deeply of the Darkcoin Kool-Aid.  We can all see it.  Hence the "stuff about cults."

"The code has been reviewed once?"

Once?  Really?  Did it get four stars?  

GTFO.  This is crypto, not a new fucking gastropub on Yelp.

but everything that makes it a cryptocurrency is proven - it's a fork of bitcoin core.

the additional services provided by masternodes are just that; additional services....like what you can get with BTC from trusted third parties, but instead native to the coin and trustless.

You have to trust masternode owners to uphold the value of your coins, because a lot of the value comes from owners' dependency upon financial privacy. It is totally contrary to the philosophy of the blockchain, so you trust absolutely no one but everyone for that. And value=/=price mind you