Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 18. (Read 69785 times)

Wait, what does Dash do again? Oh yea, I have to rely on others to setup masternodes in order to even use the "anonymity" in the first place. I also have to trust that all the masternodes are not compromised since most of them are hosted on centralized servers online, as there's still a chance of deanonymizing a transaction. Yippee.

they sold their houses and gamble them on crypto? 

You can sign a message from the address(es) where you sent.

Or add a message/guid in the transaction.

Or the merchant could create unique receive address for each customer/transaction.

A few interesting posts overnight. Something from andytoshi caught my eye:


This is an interesting statement and really gets to the heart of the debate.

The mixing provided by masternodes, if working as intended, is a form of one-way encryption. The process does indeed 'confine and constrain' information; information about relationships between address balances. The critical questions are around the efficacy, efficiency, permenancy and vulnerability of this process.

Efficacy: I see no reasonable argument that shows the mixing process does not produce the required result. Address balances are effectively rotated through addresses resulting in no traceable association between two given addresses.

Efficiency: The mixing process can take a while and the user experience in the wallet is not perfect, so there is room for improvement here.

Permanency: If we assume that private keys are safe then the off-chain nature of the mixing provides a permanent 'encryption' of balance movement through the public blockchain.

Vulnerability: This, it seems, is the most critical point and the subject of intense debate on this thread. Almost the entire technical argument against DASH concerns percieved fragility and centralisation of the Masternode network. Yet still, no opponent has demonstrated how any realistic adversary could hope to compromise the network, or indeed define/quantify 'compromised'.

What I see is a trade-off between utility and vulnerability. The MN network provides a two-tier architecture enabling diverse services to be developed on top of a traditional PoW cryptocurrency. Today we have the mixing service & instant transactions. Future features may include two-factor authentication, decentralised web wallets and who knows what else. It's this utility and native feature set that elevates DASH and has the potential to drive adoption. If the platform that enables these features creates vulnerabilities, then the question really is whether these vulnerabilities are realistically exploitable, by whom and for what?

So in the trade-off between utility and vulnerability there is a tipping point which defines whether DASH is fit-for-purpose. I don't see any reason why DASH is at, or anywhere near, that tipping point.

Meanwhile my technical questions remain unanswered

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10924115

If you read what GreenAddress actually is, you will see they are not at all the same. It can never be used from personal wallets, as the recipient has to trust the previously published sending address not to double spend.

This is just one more misunderstanding on what Darkcoin/DASH is in addition to uniform denominations, change handling, and whether masternodes actually send and receive coins.

I don't know how good BitcoinFog's mixing is, or how big their anonymity set is. But the main difference is, that it requires trust. One day when their anonymous admin runs into financial problems and looks at the Fog's wallet and sees a couple of thousand bitcoins in there, well, I wouldn't want to be mixing on that day. And you'll need to keep track of your change, basically you can't spend a change anymore until it's mixed again. And you better not send multiple changes in one transaction to the Fog as it will tie the two changes and hence the two transactions you made together. It's very easy to do a mistake like that. DRK/DASH wallet on the other hand will take care of this.

Meh, I'm selfish. You guys can donate, and I'll get the benefits of those donations if XMR ends up succeeding. If I did donate, I'd only donate directly to Fluffypony, as he's the only one on the XMR team that I like

Didnt you see the Monero RichList?

http://moneroblocks.eu/richlist

It would be easier if XMR wasn't so gosh-darned anonymous

We have to have at least one, for diversity and all that.

There was a study on why doesn't selfish behavior pervade society if selfish behavior has the most benefits--they used bats as one study group. Bats share food with neighbor bats when they find a food source. The scientist fed certain bats, but did not let them share the food to see how the group would behave. The group reacted by not sharing food with the "selfish" bats. And while I feel sorry for the bats in the study because they were ostracized by the scientist's actions and not their own--i don't feel sorry for when it happens to humans. The larger your stake in Monero, the more it makes sense to give back towards the success of the project. Even Nash is on record that game theory is lacking when talking about human interactions. Probably being institutionalized gave him the insight that not all human actions are rational or can fit into the context of game theory.

Can I please see a citation, if this is information he chose to make public? The one summer undergraduate accounting class part of me is curious as to how it was calculated.

^ Priceless. Even XMR has got retards amongst its community.

Nah you aren't a Bat, just a full blown retard Darkcoiner.

I can still gain all the benefits, even if I choose not to share.

Is it true?

Look at my post history and confirm when I got involved with Darkcoin   I got my coins at a rate of around 5000 per BTC   And I believe in diversification.

Maybe Brilliantrocket has more than half of all the XMR?

Unless you are certain how much XMR he has, how can you guarantee it? Statements like these are used much too frequently without the evidence/knowledge to back them up imo. You would have appeared more educated had you simply stated that you own a lot of xx and are actively "bringing new investors in".