Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 19. (Read 69785 times)

Then donate some of the xmr to the devs or learn to code. Criticizing the devs is doing what? You think they're all beholden to your opinion? Like your a shareholder? They are volunteers! With lives! Opinions! And have every right to do what they want they aren't working on the project. Fluffy alone has donated over $300K in manpower hours to Monero. Have you donated a single hour?

Its confirmed. :p

Buddy, I have more XMR than you, I guran-fucking-tee it. And I'm actively bringing new investors in, so please stfu about concern trolling. It's true that I have Dash as well, but my only concern is to see the development of the best technology. I just think that devs should be coding, not arguing with idiots on a forum.

https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people --more devs than you can shake an angry troll stick at, and they're volunteers not paid by an instamine, but go on trying to sell your concern pericope like a two bit trial lawyer. Also, if they believe x-dark-dash is a fraud, they have every right, and I applaud them for it, to call it so. Your concern trolling is very appreciated--you obviously put a lot of time and effort into it.

I've learned a lot from David, fluffy, and smooth (+othe, eizh, sorry didn't know you were devs too!) from their time on the forums. I think they form a wonderful bridge from the engine to the community and have mature thoughts to contribute towards steering this ship.

Importantly, they inform so that the community can do so self-sustainably.

Wonder if Vertoe will contribute to XMR instead? Need some more devs who care more about building the coin than pointing out the flaws in the competition. For the life of me I can't understand it. They say that Dash is fundamentally flawed, yet they continue to spend their time arguing about it. Imagine if scientists spent more time arguing with crazy evolution skeptics than doing actual science? Nothing would ever get done.  You have core devs, whose time is of the utmost value, arguing with internet trolls. It's absurd.

Liquidity definition: The degree to which an asset or security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price; the availability of liquid assets to a market or company, liquid assets; cash, a high volume of activity in a market.

Please thoroughly read that definition, it's tiresome typing the same things to you. That 1 bitcoin(being so rare or around 100million satoshi's) would experience far more fluctuations in price than the 31billion Zeitcoins(Counting in the denominations, so multiply that 31bilion by 100million).

This thread is moving pretty quickly (ten pages of mudslinging in half as many hours!) so I'm not sure you'll see this, but there's an important misunderstanding here. You're right that the human beings aren't cryptographic (e.g. the development team, market participants, etc) --- though it's important to observe that this makes them very unsuited to cryptographic functionality. gmaxwell had an elegant description of cryptography as "technology by which we hope to confine and constrain the nature of information" despite information respecting no ownership, borders or morality. He described this as "inherently subtle and fragile", which it is, but this indifference to political and social pressure also make it efficient (human trust is expensive to build and maintain!) and robust against a lot of political and social pressures that human systems are not. This robustness is the cypherpunk motivation for bringing cryptography into everyday life: anything we have the technology to do cryptographically rather than socially ought to be, since social systems can change quickly and unjustly. Nowhere is this more true than finance, so cryptocurrency is a perfect environment for this kind of thing. So cryptocurrencies try to eliminate human decision points wherever possible, and where not they try to set things up so others can't override each others' decisions (hence the value implied by buzzwords like "decentralization" and "censorship resistance" and "public verifiability").

I'm not entirely clear on what masternodes do these days, but I infer that their actions affect users' privacy, i.e. they are "confining and constraining" information. This is a cryptographic function too. Human decisions may factor into their behaviour, but they are still performing a cryptographic function; human involvement does not change this, only changes the failure modes.

All this to say that basically the entirety of cryptocurrency really is cryptography. Even many of the human parts. The network transport is part of the cryptosystem: it needs to be designed to prevent modification of data in transport, authentication of data even when endpoints are anonymous and spoofable, etc. A wallet is part of the cryptosystem: it's responsible for creating verification keys ("scriptPubKeys" in Bitcoin, which are usually abbreviated to addresses) whose corresponding private keys are controlled by the correct parties to the correct extent, and for correctly and securely storing these keys. Wallets are decoupled from the main cryptocurrency cryptosystem, and in particular are not part of the hard part --- consensus code --- but they are certainly cryptographic and are subject to the same sort of subtle missteps as other cryptosystems. (For example, the oft-cited BIP32 "bug" where a party in possession of a public key and chaincode can derive the secret key from a non-hardened child secret key; it would not be hard to come up with a plausible-sounding system which "unintentionally" exposed secret data through this mechanism.)

I'll repeat my above statement: basically the entirety of cryptocurrency really is cryptography. This is important. It's why things are so subtle, why complexity is dangerous, and why changing even trivial-seeming things can have drastic and hard-to-analyze consequences. This is where "a lot of harmful garbage and dysfunctional software" comes from. It's the default for poorly-thought-out systems. And in cryptography, "poorly thought out" means anything less than expert cryptographers spending large amounts of time and effort designing things to be both correct and clearly correct. (Given how few experts there are in the cryptocurrency space, I could tell you that almost all of it is shit just by the pigeonhole principle .)

This is not a cheap standard to hold a system to even if its designers want to; and falsely claiming that something is not cryptographic is an easy way to excuse not wanting to. But such claims do not change reality.


This is simply false.

We ask that everyone stop using Darksend for the time being, until we’re able to push out a fix to an issue Aswan found. This issue comes from the way fees are paid in Darksend with the combination of the way the client tries to denominate the same amount each round. The result is the possibility to trace a transaction through Darksend.

To fix this issue, we will add a mixing stage to Darksend that only mixes fee’s and we’ll have the client mix random amounts each session.

Regards,

The Darkcoin Team

Possibility is alluding to the fact of de-anonymization. The anonymity was obviously broken if there was the "possibility of tracing a transaction through Darksend".

If I've got 1 gold bar and you've got 10,000 rotting fish, my 1 gold bar will be more liquid in the USD market (or any market) than your 10,000 rotting fish even though you've got the higher "coin supply".

You claimed it was de-anonymized. Show me where. You've shown me a quote saying it may have been possible, in October.

Show me where anonymity was broken, as you claimed.

Lol, you don't just admit you're wrong, when you know you clearly are, do you. Zeitcoin has a marketcap of 120k for all 31billion(Actually less, but lets round up), plus it has denominations just like Bitcoin. 1 Bitcoin is worth 241 USD right now. (Also if this is where you're going, I'm not factoring in USD>BTC and vice versa platforms here, just regular crypto-only exchanges)

So, you're still saying that 1 single Bitcoin is more liquid than the 31billion Zeitcoins?

Thats correct. As long as it was tradeable in fractions (which it is).

You've just proved yourself wrong right there. If what you're saying is true, then Bitcoin could have a total supply of 1 coin, yet still be "far more liquid an asset than Zeitcoin which has 31billion"

Nope.

Another example is: Coin A has a supply of 1million coins valued at $1 per coin(Marketcap of $1million). Coin B has a supply of 1millon coins valued at $1 per coin(Marketcap of $1million). However, Coin B always has 50% of it's coins off the markets at any given period of time, while Coin A doesn't. Which one is more liquid? Coin A is.

I've given you the definition of liquidity about 4 times now: The degree to which an asset or security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price; the availability of liquid assets to a market or company, liquid assets; cash, a high volume of activity in a market.

You're also making the assumption that masternodes increase the value of an asset, they may help in doing so, but are not the primary reason for the price increase. Demand is. Take out the demand and all that's left is a lack of liquidity, hell, even with the demand there's going to be a lack of liquidity.

No. It isn't what's implied.

I've given you both a numerical example and a theoretical one as to why coin supply has nothing to do with monetary liquidity. Bitcion has a total supply of 14 Million coins, yet is far more liquid an asset than Zeitcoin which has 31 billion.

It's true that masternodes give people more of a reason not to sell their holdings because they can effectively earn interest on them, but if that increases the value of the asset then it also increases it's liquidity which by one definition is a measure of how easily the asset can be converted to cash.

Another definition is how little a given trade moves the price (see example I gave you earlier).

love how XMR can troll all day here, Tok makes one mistake and 20 people gang up and froth at him.  Lovely community you got guys and nice XMR troll thread