Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 15. (Read 69785 times)

I have to interject here.  Something touting itself as an anonymous crypto currency cannot be fit for purpose if it has not been proven mathematically sound.  I believe in this situation the onus is reversed.  It is up to DASH to prove the cryptographic functions, mathematics and logic behind its anonymity and privacy are sound and not the other way around.

There is just too much at stake for people who will use it.  There are financial, reputational, legal (criminal code) and regulatory risks for consumers using this technology should the anonymity be broken.

What DASH is doing is not hyper-complex. The code has been reviewed once by K Atlas, is open source and will no doubt be subject to further review. At no point have I said DASH is perfect or 'mathematically proven' - it's about real-world utility and whether it's fit for purpose.


Well, in the comments posted from him on this thread he was saying there are better approaches, but doesn't say it's broken. I can see he doesn't like DASH though....fair enough.



Sure, but I don't really see where the trust is. Masternode owners is all anyone says, but there's no clear demonstration of _why_ they are trusted.



I could take you a lot more seriously if you dropped all this BS, but I guess you gotta do what you gotta do...

The nodes create a 2-tier architecture allowing additional services to be deployed on top of the standard PoW currency. Whether this is unnecessary depends on your point of view about the features and their utility.

From the perspective of running a masternode, it's just the regular wallet/daemon running on a host with a static IP and collateral of 1000 DASH, normally stored off the node in a cold wallet. There is a key in the config file that identifies the node so you can start it remotely from the cold wallet.

The DASH wallet/daemon is forked off bitcoin core with a load of additional code written by the DASH devs. From a networking standpoint everything sits behind TCP/9999 so this is typically the only port listening to the internet.

Presently the masternodes provide privacy functions (Darksend) and instant transactions (InstantX), with more features in the pipeline (e.g two-factor auth).

Whitepaper here:

https://www.dashpay.io/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DarkcoinWhitepaper.pdf

InstantX white paper here:

https://www.dashpay.io/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/InstantTX.pdf

Review by Kristov Atlas here:

http://blog.anonymousbitcoinbook.com/2014/09/darksend-paper-version-2/

Masternodes are by default assumed to be flawed until mathematically proven otherwise.

You've already been shown the maths proving Cryptonote/Monero is secure and private.

There exists no equivalent research for Masternodes, much less the rest of Darkcoin's hodge-podge of borrowed and rebranded crypto tricks.

You refuse to listen when gmaxwell, the inventor of CoinJoin, says Evan's homespun version is flawed.

Trusted 3rd parties are security holes.  That is why Bitcoin exists.  If you still don't get it, you never will.


There are two kinds of cult enforcers.  The first kind are the physical bullies.  They keep most of the cultists in line with plain old fear.

The second kind are the High Priests, who enforce cult ideology as the Chosen One's lieutenants.  They stamp out any doubts which arise, and brainwash new members.

You are of the latter type.  So congratulations, have this:




May your dumpsters of Digital Trash buy you many islands and yachts!   

Can you explain how a masternode works in a more detailed way? I'm curious to see how all the moving parts work in coordination--on just a cursory look, it seems like an added complication (unnecessarily so) to a cryptocurrency.

OK just one last time, for the record:

- Nobody has answered the question about DRK fungibility

- Nobody has answered the question about Masternodes being 'compromised' by anyone other than NSA

- Nobody has responded to Illodin regarding what an attacker would actually get if they compromised a masternode

- Nobody has demonstrated how DASH is not fit-for-purpose


No, it's not just the anonymity tech. Critics are saying that Masternodes are flawed but nobody can say why. Masternodes provide Privacy, InstantX and more features to come. This is what makes DASH different - if they're broken then show me and anyone else who's interested in these coins why they're broken.

What I'm trying to accomplish, by this point, is to show that the critics of DASH are persistently failing to follow through their claims with anything conclusive. I'm more than happy to be 'pwned' by any of you on this and will then dump my DASH holdings. Go for it!


don't be sad for me, I'm old enough to look after myself  

Majamina, all of your questions have been answered many times. It is clear that nothing we say can possibly convince you that DASH is not "fit for purpose" (whatever that means). Nothing will ever be proven to your satisfaction, no matter how many red flags we point out.

At this point, the quality of the anonymity tech should be the least of your concerns. However, that is all you're interested in talking about. You've already agreed DASH's privacy is inferior to Monero's... so what exactly are you really trying to accomplish?

This thread has been quite an eye-opener for me, as I've learned there's been a hell of a lot more going on with DASH than just a shady premine and inferior tech. It makes me sad, Majamina, that you are so determined to go down with this ship.

Huh? You replied that Green Addresses required a level of trust, to which I replied that Dash's entire masternode system requires a level of trust, get it? It's not even the NSA, it's much more simpler than that. Masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, the hosting providers of such servers technically "own the masternode". Dash's entire masternode system is centralized. Even your former lead developer admitted it...Don't let investments clog your reasoning.

Hi BlockaFett,

I'm not sure what you mean by "math hasn't got to the stage where it can describe complex systems". I have a math degree and several published papers in mathematics and I can't for the life of me square this claim with actual work in the field. Mathematics, though the power of clever abstractions, is able to describe extremely complex systems with inhuman precision and correctness. The breakdown in modeling real systems comes from the fact that real systems have many independent moving parts which we are unable to measure precisely and which are  infeasible to compute with anyway. So the problem is not complexity per se, nor is it somehow a failure of mathematics that things are this way. The breakdown in modeling software is that there often is no much-simpler description of a software program than the program itself (which can span many millions of bits). Oh -- and we can define "simpler description" precisely and actually prove that this is true for almost all programs.

"Chaotic systems" can be modeled as stochastic processes, and this field is much better developed than I think you realize. And anyway this is about situations where there is no physical way to obtain complete information, not about systems which are humanly defined and whose components are purely mathematical in nature anyway. It sounds like you're trying to justify the standard altcoin practice of responding to criticism by piling on so much complexity that experts won't bother looking at it anymore. But there is no mathematical or scientific result or practice that justifies this. It's just charlatanism.

Next, cryptography's purpose is not "to obscure information for the purpose of un-obscuring it later". If you define "obscure" as "computationally indistinguishable from the encryption of a random element" I suppose it might be the purpose of encryption, but that is a much stronger definition of obscure than is usually meant by the word. Lots of cryptography is designed specifically to remove information: zero-knowledge proofs, ring signatures, preimage-resistant hash functions and pseudorandom functions are some examples (and there are many others ... this is just the longest list I could form without slowing typing to think). So this notion that cryptography is inappropriate for these kind of applications is just not true. In fact the only way to do these things without cryptography is to physically control the flow of information, which is at odds with trust-minimization and public verifiability, not to mention really difficult in a world where people routinely communicate over long distances.

I hope this helps clarify some things.

Andrew

Go team! Thank you generalizethis, I think this is already sufficient for my curiosity. Of course things go deeper than this e.g. refactoring and testing but here are some numbers anyway:

Average valuation of a man hour: $75/hr at around 1.25 lines of code per hour—about $60 per line.

Don't you mean "what Evan?"

whateva

^^^ That is only the actual coding. Development has many other aspects that are time consuming. Especially when starting from someone else's code.

It's not a misapplication; Bitcoin is claiming to be a public blockchain, and drk is claiming to be private.

"trying to get me to believe that depending on humans for security is a "good thing" is not going to work. The less a system depends on humans the better, and that seems doubly true for a system that is entrusted with your well-being (finances, privacy, security)."

masternodes 'depend on humans for security' in the same way that bitcoin fullnodes 'depend on humans for security' dude.  It's a misapplication of the concept of trustless operation. 

Blockafett, trying to get me to believe that depending on humans for security is a "good thing" is not going to work. The less a system depends on humans the better, and that seems doubly true for a system that is entrusted with your well-being (finances, privacy, security).

*

Here you go, Vokain, this was the post I remembered (not Fluffy's man hours   ) it was the db total: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?
topic=583449.msg10556465#msg10556465

The project total here is (taken from Fluffypony's estimate):

"35 weeks of development (245 days) since Monero was inherited by the Core Team
594 separate commits
11 contributors
10 221 modified lines
12 706 new lines
32 lines removed

Combining the two together, there were 22 927 lines of code over the first 8 months, which is 18 342 hours of work, so $1 375 620 worth of effort."

--OMF--Organic-memory fail. I should have used the AFAIK safety word. I did send Fluffy a pm asking about his personal total, but he probably thinks I'm a tax informant now, so I don't know if he'll give me that total. But this should at least answer how devs calculate these figures.

404 error :/

just my opinion but on this idea that masternodes rely on a human element and humans can't be trusted so they are insecure, personally i don't think so because:

human trust fails on individual/small cases - so if human trust governed say transactions, they wouldn't work.

but a *network* of humans is a very different thing same as a network of ants or network of neurons in your brain.  first it's a chaotic system, second the security is a statistical result and governed by more chaotic predicitions like game theory, not a binary one where a single human is either trustworthy or not in an algorithm.

so its misunderstanding at a systems level to say masternodes require human trust - like if I buy BTC i am relying on human trust because miners / fullnodes are run by humans.  chaotic systems are governed by actors and their incentives

anyway...

About the structure from the masternodes, there is a white paper here: http://www.dashpay.io/downloads/DarkcoinWhitepaper.pdf

IDK the minutia because i try not to get into detail level on everything. but i can try to explain the concept if u want (others can do it better though i'm sure)

Can anyone even explain a masternode? I mean technically, not a outline, but a detailed explanation of all the moving parts?


I assume human elements will always fail (greed, corruption, stupidity, good intentions) as they do in real life, so if the mastenode system depends on humans obeying best practices to function securely, it follows reason that they will be broken. But if the masternode system does not depend on humans following best use practices for security, then the system should theoretically work--so can I get an thorough explanation?

Don't go, I still have coffee and need the laughs.