XMR vs DRK - page 21. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Joshuar

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

eidoo wallet

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:25:01 PM

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:17:49 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:10:19 PM

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you? You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me. And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

From this article https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140726142214-262891-pricing-0-day-exploits-in-the-face-of-0-day-defenses

'Typical pricing for a relevant 0-day is $40,000 - $250,000 according to Frei'

Even if you need a few different 0-day exploits for Windows and Linux and maybe a Mac one you are still going to end up spending a lot less. MasterNode operators can't make themselves impervious to a 0-day exploit, as it is unknown by definition.

I saw a post on this thread by fluffy pony that explained the minimum that MasterNode operators would need to do to maintain security, and I agree with him. I think that it is difficult to keep the MasterNode network secure and if it is attacked then it isn't going to be able to withstand it.

i dont think fluffy is really qualified to comment on masternodes to be honest but just my opinion.

if you are genuinley interested in investing in DASH and worried about masternode security, just consider that right now there is ~$12m DASH running masternodes around the world, if its so easy to take them Fluffy and troops are saying, then why hasn't 1 DRK been taken from one yet.

Again, back in 2014 there were cases of masternodes being compromised by attackers, so yes more than 1dash/drk(More than 1,000 actually) has been compromised/stolen so far.

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:10:19 PM

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:03:12 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:31:14 PM

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes. Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes. Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can. There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you? You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance--these numbers are disputable.

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes (which have an incentive to attack each other to 1000) today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days (if you believe everything I type as gospel) if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries (3 holding over 70%) with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me. And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most,(I believe but cannot prove which is why cryptocurrencies shouldn't depend on humans for security, because many do not use best practices and it's dumb to assume most people are--even when it's in their best interest--hence why systems that depend on more on protocols than humans are inherently stronger than those that do not).

FTFY

This idiocy of insisting that people use best practices (because it is in their interest--lol; they have time to manage and time is money and doing things right takes time, but whatever...where was I...) fails to acknowledge game theory or reality. Monero is changing the minimum mix-in because too many people were using low mix-ins and lowering the anonymity of the network--they found this themselves and found a solution, Evan should do the same with masternodes.

BlockaFett

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 255

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:17:49 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:10:19 PM

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you? You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me. And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

From this article https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140726142214-262891-pricing-0-day-exploits-in-the-face-of-0-day-defenses

'Typical pricing for a relevant 0-day is $40,000 - $250,000 according to Frei'

Even if you need a few different 0-day exploits for Windows and Linux and maybe a Mac one you are still going to end up spending a lot less. MasterNode operators can't make themselves impervious to a 0-day exploit, as it is unknown by definition.

I saw a post on this thread by fluffy pony that explained the minimum that MasterNode operators would need to do to maintain security, and I agree with him. I think that it is difficult to keep the MasterNode network secure and if it is attacked then it isn't going to be able to withstand it.

i dont think fluffy is really qualified to comment on masternodes to be honest but just my opinion.

if you are genuinley interested in investing in DASH and worried about masternode security, just consider that right now there is ~$12m DASH running masternodes around the world, if its so easy to take them Fluffy and troops are saying, then why hasn't 1 DRK been taken from one yet.

DeboraMeeks

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:13:31 PM

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable. In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR?

)

You just indicated that there was a chance with MasterNodes? I don't think you can compare 'small but measurable chance' with '0 chance'.

Historical information is only unrecoverable if the MasterNodes don't keep logs, and we have no way to confirm they don't keep logs.

I'm into Bitcoin. I started diversifying a bit, and now I'm pulling back into Bitcoin. This thread is just about me explaining what I have realised about Dash that has led me to pulling my investment out. I do acknowledge that Monero seems nice and elegant, and doesn't have problems that Darkcoin has, but it seems premature for me to diversify out of Bitcoin once I've pulled my Dash investment back into Bitcoin. I'll evaluate this again in 6-12 months time.

Joshuar

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

eidoo wallet

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:16:14 PM

Quote from: Joshuar on March 29, 2015, 06:14:20 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:13:31 PM

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:09:40 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:51:30 PM

we covered this already too didn't we?

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right? Huh

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable. In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR?

)

Again not true, just hours after Dash was open sourced, an amateur coder found an exploit in darksend. Ring Signatures has been around for over a decade.

....a good example of how Dash devs are open to finding and fixing problems quickly. When I raised concerns about origins of CryptoNote with links to NSA and Cicada in Bytecoin, the response was 'that was ages ago, anything would have been found by now' whilst the devs are trolling on forums all day....which one would you trust your $ with?

Quite the opposite. Dash/DRK had it's code reviewed when it was closed source, yet a amateur coder was able to find a flaw in Darksends coding that allowed for deanonymization, just hours after it was open sourced.

Saying that cryptonote is somehow connected to the NSA is the same as saying Bitcoin is somehow connected to the NSA and that Satoshi Nakamoto was a government entity. Those are conspiracy theories that anyone can come up with, and has no bearings in fact. Using them makes you look like a troll. The same and more could be said for Dash, as someone(a newbie account) came and said that Dash was compromised by the government back in 2014.

Joshuar

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

eidoo wallet

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:14:33 PM

Quote from: Joshuar on March 29, 2015, 06:12:38 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:10:19 PM

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:03:12 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:31:14 PM

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes. Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes. Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can. There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you? You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me. And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

Not true. There are hot and cold wallets, with the option to store the 1,000 Dash/DRK in either. Taking over masternodes could potentially give you 1k coins or not, it depends on if the owner placed the coins in the hot or cold wallets, so you can't say either or in this situation.

no one uses hot wallet anymore. If you had $5000 in a file on a VPS, would you?

You can't say that, those are just assumptions. I could say the exact opposite, that all masternode wallets have the 1,000 Dash on them directly, and that hardly anyone uses the cold wallets.

DeboraMeeks

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:10:19 PM

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you? You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me. And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

From this article https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140726142214-262891-pricing-0-day-exploits-in-the-face-of-0-day-defenses

'Typical pricing for a relevant 0-day is $40,000 - $250,000 according to Frei'

Even if you need a few different 0-day exploits for Windows and Linux and maybe a Mac one you are still going to end up spending a lot less. MasterNode operators can't make themselves impervious to a 0-day exploit, as it is unknown by definition.

I saw a post on this thread by fluffy pony that explained the minimum that MasterNode operators would need to do to maintain security, and I agree with him. I think that it is difficult to keep the MasterNode network secure and if it is attacked then it isn't going to be able to withstand it.

BlockaFett

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 255

Quote from: Joshuar on March 29, 2015, 06:14:20 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:13:31 PM

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:09:40 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:51:30 PM

we covered this already too didn't we?

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right? Huh

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable. In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR?

)

Again not true, just hours after Dash was open sourced, an amateur coder found an exploit in darksend. Ring Signatures has been around for over a decade.

....a good example of how Dash devs are open to finding and fixing problems quickly. When I raised concerns about origins of CryptoNote with links to NSA and Cicada in Bytecoin, the response was 'that was ages ago, anything would have been found by now' whilst the devs are trolling on forums all day....which one would you trust your $ with?

BlockaFett

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 255

Quote from: Joshuar on March 29, 2015, 06:12:38 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:10:19 PM

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:03:12 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:31:14 PM

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes. Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes. Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can. There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you? You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me. And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

Not true. There are hot and cold wallets, with the option to store the 1,000 Dash/DRK in either. Taking over masternodes could potentially give you 1k coins or not, it depends on if the owner placed the coins in the hot or cold wallets, so you can't say either or in this situation.

no one uses hot wallet anymore. If you had $5000 in a file on a VPS, would you?

Joshuar

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

eidoo wallet

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:13:31 PM

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:09:40 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:51:30 PM

we covered this already too didn't we?

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right? Huh

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable. In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR?

)

Again not true, just hours after Dash was open sourced, an amateur coder found an exploit in darksend. Ring Signatures has been around for over a decade. Also having the viewkey gives you nothing, all you would see is the amount of moneroj in the wallet, there would be no way of telling who sent you moneroj or who you sent moneroj to, so that "attack" would only work for Dash and not Monero.

BlockaFett

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 255

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:09:40 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:51:30 PM

we covered this already too didn't we?

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right? Huh

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable. In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR?

)

Joshuar

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

eidoo wallet

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 06:10:19 PM

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:03:12 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:31:14 PM

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes. Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes. Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can. There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you? You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me. And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

Not true. There are hot and cold wallets, with the option to store the 1,000 Dash/DRK in either. Taking over masternodes could potentially give you 1k coins or not, it depends on if the owner placed the coins in the hot or cold wallets, so you can't say either or in this situation.

BlockaFett

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 255

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:03:12 PM

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:31:14 PM

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes. Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes. Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can. There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you? You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me. And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

DeboraMeeks

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:51:30 PM

we covered this already too didn't we?

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right? Huh

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Quote from: majamina on March 29, 2015, 06:02:33 PM

Quote

Here's how I see one scenario, you want to destroy a network? Taking out even a few Masternodes based on say, evidence of "facilitating illegal trade" (technically because all trade runs through Masternodes), might incite a system-wide panic amongst all masternode owners, quickly compromising network security, perhaps enough to reduce the amount of Masternodes to a more attainable amount to fully compromise. Monero nodes are a few steps away from this vulnerability because compromising nodes don't compromise anonymity because the anonymity is not dependent on third party mixers, probably even in the case of double-spend attack thresholds (idk), so attacks will be more individualized.

Yeah interesting scenario. We're into regulatory territory here though, and if guv starts shutting down MNs for "facilitating illegal trade" then they're going to be going after any anon coin surely, so in the context of DRK vs XMR this is moot, right?

I understand I didn't directly address (sry, been on a 4.7" phone!) your point that at unlimited capabilities this is moot, but i'd just rather not be the low-hanging fruit (esp. since there's a possible 1000DASH prize for taking out each masternode), is all, given TPTB's limited capabilities.

I also agree with you that Dash could break into the market first, and better (it has), but with say life-savings amounts and given a self-sustaining economy despite possibly smaller market cap, I'd personally pick the protocol with better security.

toknormal

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1188

Quote from: DeboraMeeks on March 29, 2015, 06:03:12 PM

Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own

LoL !

Thats cos in bitcoin you can see everything just by looking at the blockchain Wink

majamina

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: Anon136 on March 29, 2015, 06:02:15 PM

Quote from: majamina on March 29, 2015, 05:50:43 PM

right I should get some sleep, it's getting late.

I'll just quote a snippet from my earlier post again....come on XMR guys, persuade me to jump ship

Quote from: majamina on March 29, 2015, 04:01:43 PM

So come on opponents, now's your chance to really press the advantage and convince me/others that DASH is fatally flawed.

I only hope we have persuaded you to hedge.

I do have a small XMR position, I wouldn't call it a hedge though....more like an ornamental cactus.

DeboraMeeks

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 500

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 29, 2015, 05:31:14 PM

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes. Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes. Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can. There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

toknormal

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1188

Quote from: Joshuar on March 29, 2015, 05:54:07 PM

Hey, all I said was it's more dangerous to host a masternode than a regular node, for fear of centralization, getting compromised by gov or other authority, having large amounts of nodes shut down by an attacker which would "end" the anonymity, etc

Have a listen to this commentary where he makes the distinction between "politically decentralised" and "architecturally decentralised". Two completely different things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zgkmQ-jQJHk#t=255

It doesn't matter where you host the node - it's how it performs its role within the network's function that defines it 'decentralised'.

Furthermore, you don't 'take over' masternodes by gaining access to the machines they run on. In a decentralised network, the whole damn world has access to them - you don't need to be Amazon or even the NSA. In Dash, it's access to the money supply that you need to take control (the same as with any other crypto) because that's what collateralises those nodes.

majamina

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote

Here's how I see one scenario, you want to destroy a network? Taking out even a few Masternodes based on say, evidence of "facilitating illegal trade" (technically because all trade runs through Masternodes), might incite a system-wide panic amongst all masternode owners, quickly compromising network security, perhaps enough to reduce the amount of Masternodes to a more attainable amount to fully compromise. Monero nodes are a few steps away from this vulnerability because compromising nodes don't compromise anonymity because the anonymity is not dependent on third party mixers, probably even in the case of double-spend attack thresholds (idk), so attacks will be more individualized.

Yeah interesting scenario. We're into regulatory territory here though, and if guv starts shutting down MNs for "facilitating illegal trade" then they'll be going after any anon coin surely, so in the context of DRK vs XMR this is moot, right?

Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 21. (Read 69785 times)