Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 31. (Read 69801 times)

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.


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.

To be fair here, I'm pretty sure that information came directly from you, fluffy, and othe across a few different posts in the first place.

After doing reading, it made a lot of sense.

I think bitcoindark with their still not useable "Teleport" crap have invented that non-sense.

OK gotcha.

I wonder why people go on about the off-chain benefits....doesn't sound like any benefit at all in this case.

- Correct, the real problem DRK has that i don't need to own the masternodes, just the majority of coinjoins.


- It's not and was never intended to be, it's pseudonymous, on the other hand if you think its anonymous enough then there really is no reason for DRK to exist.

- 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.

- Thats untrue, banknotes get marked and they have serial numbers, If you get banknotes from a known bank robbery and they get marked they get confiscated and you lose them.

- And what does that "mixer" do? Nothing... Have fun "mixing" your 5 million stolen from a bank robbery cash bills this way, it works as slow as mixing with darksend, you won't get them mixed before you die...


- DRK doesn't create infungible money, it's the same as Darkwallet and a Mixer, you just get other dirty coins back....nothing is reinforced there, heck people aren't even forced to use darksend and no one will because it's a pain use.

- trololol. Then let's just use Bitcoin.

- No you argued because you apparently have a big stake of DRK and all you want is more money, in fiat terms.

I may quote yourself:


I wonder who doesn't understand the word money here.

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.

This whole debate is becoming a bit superfluous IMO because it's concerning itself with completely the wrong criteria.

Bitcoin itself is already anonymous by virtue of having eliminated counterparties (the banking system) from the monetary system. There is no legal, informational or other link between a bitcoin address and an actual person - it can only be 'inferred'.

The problem therefore isn't one of 'hiding' and encryption, it's one of maintaining a high level of monetary fungibility so that one unit of the currency is reasonably indistinguishable from another in terms of value.

There already is a historical precedent for this and it has nothing to do with secrecy, encryption or hidden transactions. It's simply a monetary medium known as 'cash', which for thousands of years has implemented optimal fungibility through successive mixing of multiple inputs into a single output and recycling that process iteratively.

What is a cash drawer in a high street shop ? - a mixer ! People turn up all day long, buy stuff with cash, incrementing the balance in the cash drawer on a piecemeal basis. Than when trading closes, the cash is deposited as a lump sum in the bank (as a single 'output').

This is the model that should be carried into cryptocurrencies because it optimises both anonymity and visibility which, contrary to what many argue, are complimentary properties not exclusive ones. Bitcoin's publicly viewable ledger was one of the great breakthroughs of Satoshi's model. What it was missing was the 'cash drawer' recycling element that characterised base monetary media for centuries, keeping them fungible and re-enforcing their anonymity with respect to connecting ownership to real world persons.

By encrypting and hiding everything, all we're doing is burying all those great features that make the mechanics of the cryptocurrency visible, accountable and publicly 'ownable'. So what if someone manages to trace back a single cash movement to its originating address ? That doesn't amount to 'de-anonymisation' in terms of connecting that address to a person because there is a whole chain of 'cash drawer' steps that precede even the detected address (and the one before that and....). Even if it did there are far easier ways to connect a real person to an address than wasting months of effort and computing power trying to discover which 'cash drawer' originally contained my pizza payment.

This is why I've consistently argued that it's not a question of which approach does the best job of hiding a transaction, it's a question of which one enhances all monetary properties - in this particular case, fungibility & privacy - in a way that most optimally compliments all other properties of digital money. In that respect, this 'hiding from the NSA' stuff is a complete distraction. If they want to know who you are and what you spend your money on there are far easier ways for them to do that than trawling blockchains. That's only one of hundreds of electronic footprints that people have and probably the best protected anyway, regardless of what technology it deploys.

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.

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.

Interesting points, thanks.

I'm not sure of the answer here, but I know people talk about DASH's 'off-chain mixing' and how this invalidates any future decryption of the blockchain.

Will do some more reading.

I thought the meetings were flies on the wall?

Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when the NSA researchers are talking about this thread in their weekly meeting.

I'm fairly certain that if being able to discover a view key from a public address is possible, then being able to decipher a private key from a public DRK address would also be possible.

If that's the case, then both would be just as susceptible to deanonymization as importing the private key from a DRK wallet would reveal all destination addresses even if using darksent.

Additionally, deciphering the private key from a DRK address would immediately give one access to the funds, whereas with Monero you'd also have to decipher a separate spend key. Not saying much here.

Either way, you'd also have a whole lot of other problems if "TLA can compromise these coins" in this way.

For example, double spending would likely be possible as well, along with a whole other slew of things that are much more widely used than any cryptocurrency would be compromised as well.

Additionally, the Monero blockchain is littered with stealth address, whereas the DRK blockchain is riddled with actual public addresses, so that's a whole other step in the discovery of the anon history.

So we're back to 'TLA/guv is an unassailable adversary'.

One point worth considering here for 'XMR vs DASH' is on-chain vs off-chain mixing. Assuming TLA can compromise these coins, with XMR they can unlock the entire blockchain and see all the private transactions, correct?

With DASH they have to compromise a large portion of the masternode network and observe transactions, with the masternode network being, to an extent, a moving target. Therefore it's reasonable to say that some transactions will never be compromised, e.g. if TLA pay no attention to DASH for the first few years all transactions during this period will never be revealed.

As the masternode network changes TLA plays whack-a-mole. With XMR there's a single, stationary mole.

Actually if you want the real dirt, elliptic curve seed values are all backdoored by the NSA. You should follow that down the rabbit hole.

Blocka, ol' buddy, ol' pal!

C'mon man! Can't we all just get along?

Bytecoin connection to Cicada 3301 is fake. Cicada 3301 has stated that anything not signed by them is not them. The Bytecoin stuff wasn't. End of story.

Cicada is a group that uses crytography to make puzzles. i know all about it, it has nothing to do with NSA or CIA or NBA or NFL. after i found out that dash had a instamine scam i spent the last hour checking up on monero. and guess what! it comes out clean. so thats 1 coin on my good list, time to search bitcoindark

wanna guess somethin else, a darknet admin on agora said that they would never use dash cause its a btc clone. monero prob has best bet, but idk if thats even a good thing! haha

Just reading more....Monero forked from Bytecoin which had hidden references to intel-agency recruitment group Cicada 3301 : http://www.coinssource.com/the-mysteries-and-puzzles-behind-the-cryptonote-technology/

more on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoNote#Bytecoin_and_Cicada

good luck using XMR on Darknet