Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?
Can you (or Tok) point to a part of a cryptocurrency which isn't cryptography?
Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 29. (Read 69785 times)
Can you (or Tok) point to a part of a cryptocurrency which isn't cryptography?
Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when the NSA researchers are talking about this thread in their weekly meeting.
Lol yea right. Monero might be on the radar of someone in the deep state. But they are not going to be talking about this thread in a meeting. Thats silly.
Agreed, This thread is nothing but fluff. Those meetings are light years beyond this dribble.
In reality, the only worth this thread has is to give a chuckle while having a morning coffee.
I guess I forgot the smiley.
"those boys really need to get the tinfoil hats on", or "lol they're thinking they can hide anything from us lol" take your pick.
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.
Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.
so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please
Hmm? I hold/sell darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there were things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in(Use of external masternodes to provide "anonymity") and couldn't get past(The scam-like instamine), compared to other cryptocurrencies.
Before you dumped in October at 0.005 were you aware that a single DRK coin was divisible by 100,000,000?
Did I dump, or did I not buy back in and recently sold at .019, waiting to buy back in when it drops further for another pump? The difference is that I now value Dash as nothing more than short-term trading.
The denominations are almost irrelevant, hardly anyone in Bitcoin even uses a satoshi or bits outside of daytrading altcoins. You don't even use anything less than 1 Dash, so no point in even bringing it up.
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.
Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.
so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please
Hmm? I hold darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there are some things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in, compared to other cryptocurrencies.
sure, you made a lot of posts saying that already. why do you feel the need to keep saying it?
Because of what you originally said...I'm saying firsthand that it isn't true and how when I was a Dash/DRK supporter, that was downright toxic trying to figure out ways to justify things that I see now couldn't be justified.
That is called cognitive dissonance.
Quote
Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?
genuine question:
you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?
Aristotle's definitions of money:
1.) It must be durable. Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time.
2.) It must be portable. Money hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size.
3.) It must be divisible. Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be 'fungible'. Dictionary.com describes fungible as:
"(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."
4.) It must have intrinsic value. This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself.
In essence, the less you can differentiate one coin from another, the more fungible.
ergo there are no degrees of fungibility. it's a boolean concept. so asking if something is 'more fungible' is nonsensical.
This is a black and white fallacy. Of course there are degrees of fungibility. For example suppose you are facing the problems bitcoin is facing now with btc-e. You could have an alternative crypto where the cost of discovering whether coins are stolen is 1 dollar, or 10, or 100, or 1000 or a million. Or any number you might imagine inbetween any of those numbers. For different given costs we might imagine that fungibility concerns arise more or less often. Even gold is not perfectly fungible, you can do an analysis of the atoms and make determinations about what parts of the world it was sourced from, maybe some could be associated with criminality, like maybe someone wouldnt want gold that came out of a rain forest because strip mining takes place there. Sure you could mix a ton of different gold from different places togather, but maybe someone would only be interested in gold that had no content from that region what so ever. Dollar bills can be marked in subtle ways. For example a bank might make tiny changes to some of their dollars and keep them in permanent storage and then if a robber takes the bills they could be traced. So many possible scenarios can be imagined.
The truth is no good will ever be perfectly fungible, ever.
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.
Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.
so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please
Hmm? I hold/sell darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there were things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in(Use of external masternodes to provide "anonymity") and couldn't get past(The scam-like instamine), compared to other cryptocurrencies.
Before you dumped in October at 0.005 were you aware that a single DRK coin was divisible by 100,000,000?
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, ."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
So cryptography isn't a significant part of cryptography? Yet , as you just stated, it's a significant part (essential's pretty significant by most estimations): "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already"
Do things not require essential parts now?
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.
Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.
so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please
Hmm? I hold darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there are some things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in, compared to other cryptocurrencies.
sure, you made a lot of posts saying that already. why do you feel the need to keep saying it?
Because of what you originally said...I'm saying firsthand that it isn't true and how when I was a Dash/DRK supporter, that was downright toxic trying to figure out ways to justify things that I see now couldn't be justified.
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.
Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.
so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please
Hmm? I hold darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there are some things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in, compared to other cryptocurrencies.
sure, you made a lot of posts saying that already. why do you feel the need to keep saying it?
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.
Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.
so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please
Hmm? I hold/sell darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there were things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in(Use of external masternodes to provide "anonymity") and couldn't get past(The scam-like instamine), compared to other cryptocurrencies.
Quote
Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?
genuine question:
you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?
Aristotle's definitions of money:
1.) It must be durable. Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time.
2.) It must be portable. Money hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size.
3.) It must be divisible. Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be 'fungible'. Dictionary.com describes fungible as:
"(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."
4.) It must have intrinsic value. This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself.
In essence, the less you can differentiate one coin from another, the more fungible.
ergo there are no degrees of fungibility. it's a boolean concept. so asking if something is 'more fungible' is nonsensical.
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.
Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.
so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.
Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so. "https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_bitcoin_works" - There are several cryptographic technologies that make up the essence of Bitcoin.
Quote from: othe
Sorry,
too of topitc, monero doesnt have this issue, but you can discuss it with Bitcoiners, BTC-E for example who already block accounts.
Are there levels of fungibility though? Isn't it a binary condition?
Going back to my example for DRK above, the funds moving from DirtyWallet > CleanWallet shows fungibility. In XMR the mechanism is different, but we have the same result.
Quote
Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?
genuine question:
you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?
Aristotle's definitions of money:
1.) It must be durable. Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time.
2.) It must be portable. Money hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size.
3.) It must be divisible. Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be 'fungible'. Dictionary.com describes fungible as:
"(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."
4.) It must have intrinsic value. This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself.
In essence, the less you can differentiate one coin from another, the more fungible.
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies. He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point? You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?
seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto. the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!
this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin
Quote
Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?
genuine question:
you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?
Sorry,
too of topitc, monero doesnt have this issue, but you can discuss it with Bitcoiners, BTC-E for example who already block accounts.
Quote
Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?
genuine question:
you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here?
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Incredible. The height of too muchery.
ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function.
Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."
Thank you for making my point.
Jump to: