Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 30. (Read 69785 times)
G2M is correct. If you're able to do two-way mapping of hash functions, then everybody is collectively screwed independent of XMR v. DRK or on-chain v. off-chain.
OK gotcha.
I wonder why people go on about the off-chain benefits....doesn't sound like any benefit at all in this case.
G2M is not correct, as he's probably not aware that Darksend doesn't reuse addresses.
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Money has never needed 'cryptography' or any kind of meta-layer obfuscating technology to implement a fundamental monetary property (such as fungibility). Any monetary medium that works will have self-generating fungibility - like the cash drawer or gold's low melting point.
If I melt down 10 gold coins to make a gold bar and then use that in a transaction, I'm not "hiding" the fact that I'm making the transaction. The fungibility does not come from any form of encryption, but rather from the fact that gold coins could be combined from 10 distinct "inputs" into one indistinct "output".
It's an inherent part of cryptocurrencies that that is possible - which is why they make an almost perfect monetary medium. Darkcoin / Dash levers that characteristic. I'm not saying that a cryptographic approach like cryptonote isn't interesting or potentially useful in many cases, but I'm saying it's not necessarily the optimal solution to botcoin's fungibility problem from a monetary point of view.
In this case, money is being transacted across a communication medium thousands of years in the making. In doing so, it's transmitted through an input terminal (computer, phone, CC, etc..) by means of digitally constructed software on hardware that's designed to interpret our thoughts and perform actions with the click of a button. Anyways, after clicking that button, it's transmitted through an internet relayed through a moderately unique IP address that's recorded through your ISP, and then generally some more software and hardware interaction along the medium, until it gets to it's point of use where it's again generally met with a terminal (be it a POS terminal, another phone, etc..). Sure, you can make the analogy that it's like taking cash out of your wallet, but in this case it has to go though all of that, and it's enforced by a cryptographically-secured universally available blockchain file.
So saying "it's just like digging gold out of the ground and handing it to the guy at the corner store and putting it into a bank" doesn't make it so.
These things we're dealing with, they're not 'money'. They're what we define to be money. They're cryptocurrencies, that are indeed cryptographically secured, from the cryptographically secured PoW to prevent double spending and network havoc, to the elliptic curve designed to both send someone money and receive change back. Cryptography is the very essence of what we're dealing with here, it's the root of every single thing on this board, even DRK I promise you.
Money does need cryptography, how do you think you do online banking without everyone stealing it?
When it's not "obscured or 'hidden' " then it loses that very powerful descriptor of being fungible. Take for fact that certain bitcoins have no value on coinbase, or btce - it's because there is no 'obscured or hidden'. Not in the sense that wrong doing must be covered up - but in the sense that we all must maintain a totally fungible transaction medium, despite that. We can bear the cost of the inefficiency ourselves, because the necessity to transact is paramount to catching criminals just as we have been doing for years. It's just worth more than that.
I get what you were saying about mixing them, but there's a whole lot of inbetween that you just can't argue by analogy, and the point made above about the TLA's really does lend to the idea that whatever 'mixing' is happening with masternodes is done so in a manner that will be traceable if the private key is compromised. So the argument that a view key can be compromised in the same being an actual edge over XMR just doesn't hold water when the two are compared.
Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.
I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?
it's a common myth in XMR circles that crytpographic proof means the system is secure or am i wrong?
(before you start with the insults / hubris to hide your intellectual inferiority complex, this is a trick question)
impossible to answer. there may be digital currencies in the future that don't use cryptographiy. so how to answer, is that a trick question?
what about my question?
Again, you don't need to answer for the future, just the present: Do you need cryptography to make a digital currency fungible to the degree that coins are fungible? Fungible to the point that one is as good as another and cannot be discriminated against in a transaction?
*your question doesn't pertain to what I am or was talking about--and you know 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. So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already.
Again, you don't need to answer for the future, just the present: Do you need cryptography to make a digital currency fungible to the degree that coins are fungible? Fungible to the point that one is as good as another and cannot be discriminated against in a transaction?
*your question doesn't pertain to what I am or was talking about--and you know it.
*your question doesn't pertain to what I am or was talking about--and you know it.
Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.
I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?
it's a common myth in XMR circles that crytpographic proof means the system is secure or am i wrong?
(before you start with the insults / hubris to hide your intellectual inferiority complex, this is a trick question)
Do you need cryptography to make a digital currency fungible to the degree that coins are fungible? Fungible to the point that one is as good as another and cannot be discriminated against in a transaction?
impossible to answer. there may be digital currencies in the future that don't use cryptographiy. so how to answer, is that a trick question?
what about my question?
Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.
I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?
it's a common myth in XMR circles that crytpographic proof means the system is secure or am i wrong?
(before you start with the insults / hubris to hide your intellectual inferiority complex, this is a trick question)
Do you need cryptography to make a digital currency fungible to the degree that coins are fungible? Fungible to the point that one is as good as another and cannot be discriminated against in a transaction?
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Money has never needed 'cryptography' or any kind of meta-layer obfuscating technology to implement a fundamental monetary property (such as fungibility). Any monetary medium that works will have self-generating fungibility - like the cash drawer or gold's low melting point.
If I melt down 10 gold coins to make a gold bar and then use that in a transaction, I'm not "hiding" the fact that I'm making the transaction. The fungibility does not come from any form of encryption, but rather from the fact that gold coins could be combined from 10 distinct "inputs" into one indistinct "output".
It's an inherent part of cryptocurrencies that that is possible - which is why they make an almost perfect monetary medium. Darkcoin / Dash levers that property without changing the fundamental characteristics of the blockchain. I'm not saying that a cryptographic approach like cryptonote isn't interesting or potentially useful in many cases, but I'm saying it's not necessarily the optimal solution to bitcoin's fungibility problem from a monetary point of view.
Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.
I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?
it's a common myth in XMR circles that crytpographic proof means the system is secure or am i wrong?
(before you start with the insults / hubris to hide your intellectual inferiority complex, this is a trick question)
Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.
I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?
Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"
Quote
I suppose it's a glass half full / half empty argument in the end.
Its more a brain half full / half empty issue.
Here's another myth he scotches that people on this thread like to pound away on - the idea that architectural 'centralisation' equates to political centralisation. That distinction is never made by those who bang on about masternodes being 'centralised' (which they are not in the least).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zgkmQ-jQJHk#t=238
I really wish some of the arguments made against Dash in this thread were more convincing because for anyone rotating out of Dash into a Cryptonote, they'd be able to acquire at least 5 times the relative money supply holding than what they currently have. It isn't as if there's not an incentive.
I suppose it's a glass half full / half empty argument in the end.
It's not a question of masternodes vs no masternodes - most cryptos run some kind of 'full node' that's essential to the running of a healthy network. It's about a dual mode, service oriented technology that consistently delivers solutions to difficult problems where a mono-mode network needs a sledghammer to crack a nut.
Quote
Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters
Hahahaha fuck my life dude, nearly spit beer over my keyboard.
Toknormal, if you please.
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zgkmQ-jQJHk#t=302
So crypto stands for what?
Quote
- Of course it is; Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue, DRK doesn't make it more fungible, you mix dirty coins with other dirty coins the same as a BTC mixer or darkwallet, after a while most coins will be tainted and you have the same problems as BTC or even worse.
That's a very interesting statement.
There are no dirty coins, right? Just inputs and outputs on dirty addresses? The fungibility in DRK comes from the mixing process, e.g.
- DirtyWallet has unspent inputs on address A.
- Inputs are spent via mixing with darksend rounds.
- Now DirtyWallet has unspent inputs on change addresses B,C,D.
- These are then spent via outputs to CleanWallet.
Due to the mixing process and the impossibility of re-assembling a complete transaction chain, there is no provable association in the blockchain between DirtyWallet's original inputs and the new unspent inputs in CleanWallet.
Funged?
heck people aren't even forced to use darksend
Well I see that as the advantage actually. Nobody was "forced" to melt down their gold everytime they performed a transaction, but it was the fact that they optionally could that made it master of money.
Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue
Why ? At what level is the fungibility issue "defeated" in your opinion ? When its no longer useable ? When the entire basis of crypto that makes it accountable, popular and accessible has disappeared ? Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters. It works on a system of digital signatures. An approach to enhancing fungibility that's consistent with that paradigm is therefore going have obvious merit. By burying the whole system in cryptography your creating something that bitcoin isn't - an encrypted messaging system - a new paradigm whose practical differences in terms of day to day use are far greater than improvements in fungibility it purports to solve. If you really believe in it you should argue it on that basis rather than trying to eek out an n'th degree anonymity advantage on a 'nothing else matters' basis.
I just wanted to quote this in case you deleted it
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_bitcoin_works
- There are several cryptographic technologies that make up the essence of Bitcoin.
Toknormal, if you please.
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zgkmQ-jQJHk#t=302
heck people aren't even forced to use darksend
Well I see that as the advantage actually. Nobody was "forced" to melt down their gold everytime they performed a transaction, but it was the fact that they optionally could that made it master of money.
Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue
Why ? At what level is the fungibility issue "defeated" in your opinion ? When its no longer useable ? When the entire basis of crypto that makes it accountable, popular and accessible has disappeared ? Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters. It works on a system of digital signatures. An approach to enhancing fungibility that's consistent with that paradigm is therefore going have obvious merit. By burying the whole system in cryptography your creating something that bitcoin isn't - an encrypted messaging system - a new paradigm whose practical differences in terms of day to day use are far greater than improvements in fungibility it purports to solve. If you really believe in it you should argue it on that basis rather than trying to eek out an n'th degree anonymity advantage on a 'nothing else matters' basis.
I just wanted to quote this in case you deleted it
What a gem.
I'd like to know what the crypto in cryptocurrency stands for?
Toknormal, if you please.
heck people aren't even forced to use darksend
Well I see that as the advantage actually. Nobody was "forced" to melt down their gold everytime they performed a transaction, but it was the fact that they optionally could that made it master of money.
Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue
Why ? At what level is the fungibility issue "defeated" in your opinion ? When its no longer useable ? When the entire basis of crypto that makes it accountable, popular and accessible has disappeared ? Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters. It works on a system of digital signatures. An approach to enhancing fungibility that's consistent with that paradigm is therefore going have obvious merit. By burying the whole system in cryptography your creating something that bitcoin isn't - an encrypted messaging system - a new paradigm whose practical differences in terms of day to day use are far greater than improvements in fungibility it purports to solve. If you really believe in it you should argue it on that basis rather than trying to eek out an n'th degree anonymity advantage on a 'nothing else matters' basis.
I just wanted to quote this in case you deleted it
Jump to: