Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 28. (Read 69755 times)

And here comes more of the same kitchen sink argumentation. Pick one, argue it, and then move onto the next. Also, you didn't answer Toshi's or my own question. So here's Toshi's again:

just diversion, again.

Monero devs said 7 months ago the GUI was a priority.  March 2015 they still haven't done it (apart from the donations screen) so they just go and 'memory hole' the wikipedia entry that shows they couldn't be bother to do it (and now everyone is saying 'hey we never needed a GUI it's such a small point'.  That's called broken promise and illustrates my point that Monero is basically a marketing scam with a load of well-intentioned nerds believing literally anything that comes from the parapet about XMR is some holy investment that doesn't involve greed and everyone else is stupid - doesn't wash with me mate

Darkcoin foundation is threatening to kill people - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/warning-dont-ever-talk-badly-about-darkcoin-dash-the-darkcoin-foundation-1006273

How are we still talking to these low lifes?

Somebody just deleted their post

There's a search function you know
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6812066

As I told Toknormal, you're also impying that anything by 3rd parties shows some type of incompetance? So Bitcoin's entire infrastructure shows it's incompetance? Do you realize that these things are supposed to be open-sourced, decentralized? Oh no, because Dash/DRK was closed-source for most of it's lifetime, has a scam/dishonest instamine that's partly covered up(It's not on the wikipedia page), has a guy named Masternode and Otoh who directly manipulate the prices worst than anything I've seen before in Crypto, has masternodes that ultimately centralize the network and provide an irrelevant "feature" that Bitcoin already superbly provides(Coinjoin), has a developer that changed the name from Darkcoin to Dash without a vote or anything democratic, and who also owns a "spork switch" which further centralized Dash/DRK.

Shall I name more? As I said before, those things among others, is why I left Dash/DRK as a "supporter" and never looked back. It's simply a centralized, dishonest scam "pump and dump".

Could you share a few thoughts on what you think about the tech behind Monero?

yup.  all 'third party'.  I already quizzed 'smooth' on it.

if XMR users want to use a mouse, 'just go get a wallet from someone else'.

Looks to me like another example of how charlatan XMR devs can't be bothered to even meet their own timescales.  Instead they are busy trolling, asking for donations (or not knowing where past donations went), editing Wikipedia to cover up their non-delivery.   oh and preaching how cryptographic proof implies system security and blurb on how XMR "isn't about the money" to the faithful while some group is manipulating the price on poloniex every day.  And trying to cover up the fact they cut and paste a sh*t load of NSA tech from multiple sources. apart from that, XMR is all great

(guys seriously, i know you love XMR and this whole thread is setup to show that, but doesn't this all show you that something is dodgy here, really?)

Darkcoin's Darksend is not cryptography. Source: Monero fan camp.



So Darksend is actually cryptography after all, thanks for confirmation.

Either way I'm thankful and learned a thing or two

Monero people are teaching 15 year old fools here, People like you shouldnt post here

I'm sure you know that there are 5 wallets/accounts or GUI's(and web wallet) for Monero, but trolls gotta troll I suppose...

https://getmonero.org/getting-started/choose

actually Monero devs have been working on the GUI, just the important parts:



Also back in September they said GUI release was a 'Primary goal', as stated on Wikipedia.  That's only 7 months late then.

(Weirdly, this was removed on Wikipedia earlier today, now it's a 'secondary goal' apparently, hey hoe.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoNote#Monero_.28XMR.29

Another concept I had the fortune of learning from Moneroans is Cunningham's Law

No,
from rationalwiki.org;

DASH - Where reading comprehension doesn't matter.

is that from the Monero handbook

^^The tactic, I learned, is called "Gish galloping", but perhaps labeling such behavior as "tactic" is giving the trolls too much credit.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

Online banking uses SSL -  a transport technology, not a monetary medium. It's an encrypted messaging system which 'carries' the message to be decrypted at the other end.

Digital signatures and hashing on the other hand do not carry the message along with it. They simply generate a hash that uniquely identifies that message which is very different from encrypting it. I realise that the word 'encryption' and 'cryptology' is pretty nebulous and that people use it loosely to cover both technologies but I was using it in the stricter sense to make the point that Dash's approach to fungibility is consistent with Bitcoin's.

That doesn't mean that other approaches aren't viable, but constantly bashing it for not using a cryptographic based method is kind of meaningless unless your prepared to dismiss the rest of its design goals as well - which is conserving the Bitcoin blockchain characteristics, compatibility, etc etc. Thats a whole different argument with its own merits. Obviously if your prepared to reset the goalposts from top to bottom in order to suit the single priority of obfuscation then you might have an advantage in that department.


You seem to confuse trading volume with liquidity. In that discussion we were talking about liquidity and I made the point that liquidity was a question of amount of monetary value available - not the number of coins. It therefore corresponds directly to marketcap and I pointed out to you that in that respect Dash had roughly 5 times that of Monero currently. Trading volume (which you keep bringing up in these debates) is a different thing, that's just how much of the currency was traded in a given 24hour period normalised against a common currency (usually Bitcoin).


Every link that I've ever come across when attempting to download an OS/X wallet ends up at either bitmonerod or simplewallet or both of them paired. I bought my first Monero on the old cryptonote exchange back last Summer and so am not unfamiliar with it. Feel free to show me what I'm missing but for a project that prides itself in security it sure seems to not care much about the biggest security hole of them all - the wallet. Apparently it's "not enough of a priority" and has been left to 3rd parties to sort out. If thats the case then good luck in hitting on one that hasn't got 10 back doors in it. To me, this is what a wallet download page should look like - clear, unambiguous, comes from the project and the only single page on the entire web that's endorsed as genuine:

https://www.dashpay.io/downloads/

It would seem that you actually do not understand what cryptography is in the modern sense.

A fundamental nature of information is that it wants to be freely copied everywhere to everyone. That any bit is equal and indistinguishable from any other bit of the same value and that any bit is eventually known to all who care.  Cryptography is all that technology by which we hope to confine and constrain the nature of information, to put up fences and direct it to our exclusive purposes, against all attacks and in defiance of the seemingly (and perhaps actually) impossible.  Digital signatures are cryptography by any modern definition and utilize the same tools and techniques (for example, a DSA signature is a linear equation encrypted with an additively homorphic encryption), and suffer from most of the same challenges as the message encryption systems to which you seem to be incorrectly defining cryptography as equivalent.  Moreover, the use of digital signatures isn't the only (or even most relevant) aspect of cryptography in cryptocurrencies-- e.g. the prevention of double spending of otherwise perfectly copyable and indistinguishable information in a decentralized system is a cryptographic problem which we address using cryptographic tools, and-- like all other practical cryptography-- achieve far less than perfect confidence in our solution. As are more modest ends like interacting with strangers but not being subject to resource exhaustion from them.

Far more so than other sub-fields of engineering, cryptographic systems are doing something which is fundamentally at odds with nature and share an incredible fragility and subtly as a result (and perhaps all are failures, we have no proof otherwise).

A failure to understand and respect these considerations has resulted in a lot of harmful garbage and dysfunctional software.