Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 43. (Read 69755 times)
No cop out--Evan burned the trust bridge, so I have no inclination (nor should I) to give his figures the benefit of the doubt.
As far as metadata is concerned, I'm assuming many mn's will not be using best practices and will leak information unbeknownst to the operator, which could set-up scenarios where they are surreptitiously being observed?
well we covered all that earlier....for the sake of argument, let's go binary and say a masternode is either compromised or it isn't, then consider the numbers in the table. You need to compromise 100% of the network to reliably trace all transactions. This is obviously the most extreme case. A more useful question would be 'where do things start to get interesting'. Well, if we had 1 billion transactions per day, you'd need about 75% of the network compromised to trace just one of those transactions each day. Make of that what you will.
Quote
I don't think anyone would argue with cryptonote coins offering the best anonymity set at the moment, the question becomes,"is dark's as advertised or good enough?" The as advertised is a hard sell given the already well discussed insta/accidental mine and the re-names that look like the "under new management" sign at the local dive.
Yep fair enough, as I said I think we've covered the instamine topic
Quote
As an investor, you would have to prove to me that your numbers are correct that indeed your management was forthright and had the investor's best interest in mind with every decision, and that you are offering the best product for the service desired. If you want to act like a company, this is what would be expected by most rational investors.
OK well if that's your criteria for investment then fair enough. I disagree with your statement about 'rational investors' though....I know many professional investors, with varied styles and varying attitudes to risk. It's not a one-size-fits-all game, and you can peddle the 'DRK is crooked' argument until you're blue in the face but people are still investing in it. People invest in Enron and Haliburton.
Call DRK a scam, a cult, whatever...the market does not lie.
People investing in Enron or Haliburton, doesn't do anything for my confidence --well, it does, but certainly not in a good way. It seems like everyone involved in your project is focused on profits, but not on any redeemable goal.
Nice graph but with CRAVE using adrenaline , drk masternodes , dual key stealth addresses and much much more , things look very intresting. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-crave-1st-pos-masternodes-dark-assets-i2p-market-embrace-the-dark-997356
This is "XMR vs DRK" not "Come spam coins"
Quote
I think you'll understand my distrust of figures and graphs coming from Evan, or based from his initial calculations, so I'll wait for a trusted source to verify.
Sure I can understand that. The code will be open-source so we can look forward to a healthy dissection
In the meantime there's no harm in debating the figures....let's assume they're true, for the sake of argument. What then?
That's the thing, I won't.
Which I would call a giant cop-out
Nice graph but with CRAVE using adrenaline , drk masternodes , dual key stealth addresses and much much more , things look very intresting. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-crave-1st-pos-masternodes-dark-assets-i2p-market-embrace-the-dark-997356
Quote
I think you'll understand my distrust of figures and graphs coming from Evan, or based from his initial calculations, so I'll wait for a trusted source to verify.
Sure I can understand that. The code will be open-source so we can look forward to a healthy dissection
In the meantime there's no harm in debating the figures....let's assume they're true, for the sake of argument. What then?
That's the thing, I won't.
Quote
I think you'll understand my distrust of figures and graphs coming from Evan, or based from his initial calculations, so I'll wait for a trusted source to verify.
Sure I can understand that. The code will be open-source so we can look forward to a healthy dissection
In the meantime there's no harm in debating the figures....let's assume they're true, for the sake of argument. What then?
As far as metadata is concerned, I'm assuming many mn's will not be using best practices and will leak information unbeknownst to the operator, which could set-up scenarios where they are surreptitiously being observed?
well we covered all that earlier....for the sake of argument, let's go binary and say a masternode is either compromised or it isn't, then consider the numbers in the table. You need to compromise 100% of the network to reliably trace all transactions. This is obviously the most extreme case. A more useful question would be 'where do things start to get interesting'. Well, if we had 1 billion transactions per day, you'd need about 75% of the network compromised to trace just one of those transactions each day. Make of that what you will.
Quote
I don't think anyone would argue with cryptonote coins offering the best anonymity set at the moment, the question becomes,"is dark's as advertised or good enough?" The as advertised is a hard sell given the already well discussed insta/accidental mine and the re-names that look like the "under new management" sign at the local dive.
Yep fair enough, as I said I think we've covered the instamine topic
Quote
As an investor, you would have to prove to me that your numbers are correct that indeed your management was forthright and had the investor's best interest in mind with every decision, and that you are offering the best product for the service desired. If you want to act like a company, this is what would be expected by most rational investors.
OK well if that's your criteria for investment then fair enough. I disagree with your statement about 'rational investors' though....I know many professional investors, with varied styles and varying attitudes to risk. It's not a one-size-fits-all game, and you can peddle the 'DRK is crooked' argument until you're blue in the face but people are still investing in it. People invest in Enron and Haliburton.
Call DRK a scam, a cult, whatever...the market does not lie.
OK I plotted the curve: (edit: this is for 4 rounds of darksend)
Here are the numbers of nodes behind the graph - sorry, Excel only renders percentages to 30 decimal places so I'll do 2 tables, one with percentages and one with numbers.
1.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
2.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
3.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
4.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
5.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
6.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
7.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
8.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
9.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
10.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
11.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
12.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
13.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
14.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
15.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
16.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
17.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
18.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
19.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
20.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
21.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
22.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
23.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
24.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
25.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
26.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
27.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
28.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
29.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
30.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
31.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
32.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
33.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
34.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
35.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
36.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
37.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
38.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
39.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
40.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000001%
41.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000011%
42.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000072%
43.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000476%
44.00% 0.000000000000000000000000002994%
45.00% 0.000000000000000000000000018072%
46.00% 0.000000000000000000000000104864%
47.00% 0.000000000000000000000000585907%
48.00% 0.000000000000000000000003157177%
49.00% 0.000000000000000000000016431848%
50.00% 0.000000000000000000000082718061%
51.00% 0.000000000000000000000403286875%
52.00% 0.000000000000000000001906634691%
53.00% 0.000000000000000000008751239469%
54.00% 0.000000000000000000039039188890%
55.00% 0.000000000000000000169439694425%
56.00% 0.000000000000000000716212935450%
57.00% 0.000000000000000002951130766537%
58.00% 0.000000000000000011864228024849%
59.00% 0.000000000000000046575865222660%
60.00% 0.000000000000000178689910246017%
61.00% 0.000000000000000670481502485578%
62.00% 0.000000000000002462267086575060%
63.00% 0.000000000000008856129455897360%
64.00% 0.000000000000031217485503159900%
65.00% 0.000000000000107911699285832000%
66.00% 0.000000000000366028450492200000%
67.00% 0.000000000001218945296953730000%
68.00% 0.000000000003987613122381620000%
69.00% 0.000000000012821158200314400000%
70.00% 0.000000000040536215597144200000%
71.00% 0.000000000126086299122345000000%
72.00% 0.000000000386011029987512000000%
73.00% 0.000000001163667244198870000000%
74.00% 0.000000003455712297483980000000%
75.00% 0.000000010113490511326700000000%
76.00% 0.000000029180140755877400000000%
77.00% 0.000000083034392727673100000000%
78.00% 0.000000233113924181152000000000%
79.00% 0.000000645903002286135000000000%
80.00% 0.000001766847064778400000000000%
81.00% 0.000004773110738113080000000000%
82.00% 0.000012738203734425700000000000%
83.00% 0.000033592891719906800000000000%
84.00% 0.000087567486675137000000000000%
85.00% 0.000225690904542536000000000000%
86.00% 0.000575275792642648000000000000%
87.00% 0.001450575070699360000000000000%
88.00% 0.003619209906631740000000000000%
89.00% 0.008937180547945420000000000000%
90.00% 0.021847450052839300000000000000%
91.00% 0.052882427867883300000000000000%
92.00% 0.126772830665687000000000000000%
93.00% 0.301048095645893000000000000000%
94.00% 0.708318015672206000000000000000%
95.00% 1.651537438501360000000000000000%
96.00% 3.816793317353630000000000000000%
97.00% 8.744575691882720000000000000000%
98.00% 19.864885008204100000000000000000%
99.00% 44.752321376381000000000000000000%
100.00% 100.000000000000000000000000000000%
1.00% 1E-160
2.00% 1.2089E-136
3.00% 1.4781E-122
4.00% 1.4615E-112
5.00% 8.2718E-105
6.00% 1.7869E-98
7.00% 4.05362E-93
8.00% 1.76685E-88
9.00% 2.18475E-84
10.00% 1E-80
11.00% 2.0484E-77
12.00% 2.16023E-74
13.00% 1.30457E-71
14.00% 4.90053E-69
15.00% 1.22265E-66
16.00% 2.13599E-64
17.00% 2.72844E-62
18.00% 2.64119E-60
19.00% 1.99659E-58
20.00% 1.20893E-56
21.00% 5.99161E-55
22.00% 2.47636E-53
23.00% 8.67415E-52
24.00% 2.61156E-50
25.00% 6.84228E-49
26.00% 1.57713E-47
27.00% 3.22925E-46
28.00% 5.92437E-45
29.00% 9.81386E-44
30.00% 1.47809E-42
31.00% 2.03674E-41
32.00% 2.58225E-40
33.00% 3.02772E-39
34.00% 3.29848E-38
35.00% 3.35308E-37
36.00% 3.19301E-36
37.00% 2.8585E-35
38.00% 2.41372E-34
39.00% 1.92827E-33
40.00% 1.4615E-32
41.00% 1.05368E-31
42.00% 7.24341E-31
43.00% 4.75857E-30
44.00% 2.99374E-29
45.00% 1.80718E-28
46.00% 1.04864E-27
47.00% 5.85907E-27
48.00% 3.15718E-26
49.00% 1.64318E-25
50.00% 8.27181E-25
51.00% 4.03287E-24
52.00% 1.90663E-23
53.00% 8.75124E-23
54.00% 3.90392E-22
55.00% 1.6944E-21
56.00% 7.16213E-21
57.00% 2.95113E-20
58.00% 1.18642E-19
59.00% 4.65759E-19
60.00% 1.7869E-18
61.00% 6.70482E-18
62.00% 2.46227E-17
63.00% 8.85613E-17
64.00% 3.12175E-16
65.00% 1.07912E-15
66.00% 3.66028E-15
67.00% 1.21895E-14
68.00% 3.98761E-14
69.00% 1.28212E-13
70.00% 4.05362E-13
71.00% 1.26086E-12
72.00% 3.86011E-12
73.00% 1.16367E-11
74.00% 3.45571E-11
75.00% 1.01135E-10
76.00% 2.91801E-10
77.00% 8.30344E-10
78.00% 2.33114E-09
79.00% 6.45903E-09
80.00% 1.76685E-08
81.00% 4.77311E-08
82.00% 1.27382E-07
83.00% 3.35929E-07
84.00% 8.75675E-07
85.00% 2.25691E-06
86.00% 5.75276E-06
87.00% 1.45058E-05
88.00% 3.61921E-05
89.00% 8.93718E-05
90.00% 0.000218475
91.00% 0.000528824
92.00% 0.001267728
93.00% 0.003010481
94.00% 0.00708318
95.00% 0.016515374
96.00% 0.038167933
97.00% 0.087445757
98.00% 0.19864885
99.00% 0.447523214
100.00% 1
Here are the numbers of nodes behind the graph - sorry, Excel only renders percentages to 30 decimal places
so I'll do 2 tables, one with percentages and one with numbers.1.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
2.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
3.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
4.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
5.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
6.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
7.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
8.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
9.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
10.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
11.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
12.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
13.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
14.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
15.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
16.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
17.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
18.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
19.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
20.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
21.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
22.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
23.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
24.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
25.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
26.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
27.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
28.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
29.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
30.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
31.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
32.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
33.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
34.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
35.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
36.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
37.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
38.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
39.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000000%
40.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000001%
41.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000011%
42.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000072%
43.00% 0.000000000000000000000000000476%
44.00% 0.000000000000000000000000002994%
45.00% 0.000000000000000000000000018072%
46.00% 0.000000000000000000000000104864%
47.00% 0.000000000000000000000000585907%
48.00% 0.000000000000000000000003157177%
49.00% 0.000000000000000000000016431848%
50.00% 0.000000000000000000000082718061%
51.00% 0.000000000000000000000403286875%
52.00% 0.000000000000000000001906634691%
53.00% 0.000000000000000000008751239469%
54.00% 0.000000000000000000039039188890%
55.00% 0.000000000000000000169439694425%
56.00% 0.000000000000000000716212935450%
57.00% 0.000000000000000002951130766537%
58.00% 0.000000000000000011864228024849%
59.00% 0.000000000000000046575865222660%
60.00% 0.000000000000000178689910246017%
61.00% 0.000000000000000670481502485578%
62.00% 0.000000000000002462267086575060%
63.00% 0.000000000000008856129455897360%
64.00% 0.000000000000031217485503159900%
65.00% 0.000000000000107911699285832000%
66.00% 0.000000000000366028450492200000%
67.00% 0.000000000001218945296953730000%
68.00% 0.000000000003987613122381620000%
69.00% 0.000000000012821158200314400000%
70.00% 0.000000000040536215597144200000%
71.00% 0.000000000126086299122345000000%
72.00% 0.000000000386011029987512000000%
73.00% 0.000000001163667244198870000000%
74.00% 0.000000003455712297483980000000%
75.00% 0.000000010113490511326700000000%
76.00% 0.000000029180140755877400000000%
77.00% 0.000000083034392727673100000000%
78.00% 0.000000233113924181152000000000%
79.00% 0.000000645903002286135000000000%
80.00% 0.000001766847064778400000000000%
81.00% 0.000004773110738113080000000000%
82.00% 0.000012738203734425700000000000%
83.00% 0.000033592891719906800000000000%
84.00% 0.000087567486675137000000000000%
85.00% 0.000225690904542536000000000000%
86.00% 0.000575275792642648000000000000%
87.00% 0.001450575070699360000000000000%
88.00% 0.003619209906631740000000000000%
89.00% 0.008937180547945420000000000000%
90.00% 0.021847450052839300000000000000%
91.00% 0.052882427867883300000000000000%
92.00% 0.126772830665687000000000000000%
93.00% 0.301048095645893000000000000000%
94.00% 0.708318015672206000000000000000%
95.00% 1.651537438501360000000000000000%
96.00% 3.816793317353630000000000000000%
97.00% 8.744575691882720000000000000000%
98.00% 19.864885008204100000000000000000%
99.00% 44.752321376381000000000000000000%
100.00% 100.000000000000000000000000000000%
1.00% 1E-160
2.00% 1.2089E-136
3.00% 1.4781E-122
4.00% 1.4615E-112
5.00% 8.2718E-105
6.00% 1.7869E-98
7.00% 4.05362E-93
8.00% 1.76685E-88
9.00% 2.18475E-84
10.00% 1E-80
11.00% 2.0484E-77
12.00% 2.16023E-74
13.00% 1.30457E-71
14.00% 4.90053E-69
15.00% 1.22265E-66
16.00% 2.13599E-64
17.00% 2.72844E-62
18.00% 2.64119E-60
19.00% 1.99659E-58
20.00% 1.20893E-56
21.00% 5.99161E-55
22.00% 2.47636E-53
23.00% 8.67415E-52
24.00% 2.61156E-50
25.00% 6.84228E-49
26.00% 1.57713E-47
27.00% 3.22925E-46
28.00% 5.92437E-45
29.00% 9.81386E-44
30.00% 1.47809E-42
31.00% 2.03674E-41
32.00% 2.58225E-40
33.00% 3.02772E-39
34.00% 3.29848E-38
35.00% 3.35308E-37
36.00% 3.19301E-36
37.00% 2.8585E-35
38.00% 2.41372E-34
39.00% 1.92827E-33
40.00% 1.4615E-32
41.00% 1.05368E-31
42.00% 7.24341E-31
43.00% 4.75857E-30
44.00% 2.99374E-29
45.00% 1.80718E-28
46.00% 1.04864E-27
47.00% 5.85907E-27
48.00% 3.15718E-26
49.00% 1.64318E-25
50.00% 8.27181E-25
51.00% 4.03287E-24
52.00% 1.90663E-23
53.00% 8.75124E-23
54.00% 3.90392E-22
55.00% 1.6944E-21
56.00% 7.16213E-21
57.00% 2.95113E-20
58.00% 1.18642E-19
59.00% 4.65759E-19
60.00% 1.7869E-18
61.00% 6.70482E-18
62.00% 2.46227E-17
63.00% 8.85613E-17
64.00% 3.12175E-16
65.00% 1.07912E-15
66.00% 3.66028E-15
67.00% 1.21895E-14
68.00% 3.98761E-14
69.00% 1.28212E-13
70.00% 4.05362E-13
71.00% 1.26086E-12
72.00% 3.86011E-12
73.00% 1.16367E-11
74.00% 3.45571E-11
75.00% 1.01135E-10
76.00% 2.91801E-10
77.00% 8.30344E-10
78.00% 2.33114E-09
79.00% 6.45903E-09
80.00% 1.76685E-08
81.00% 4.77311E-08
82.00% 1.27382E-07
83.00% 3.35929E-07
84.00% 8.75675E-07
85.00% 2.25691E-06
86.00% 5.75276E-06
87.00% 1.45058E-05
88.00% 3.61921E-05
89.00% 8.93718E-05
90.00% 0.000218475
91.00% 0.000528824
92.00% 0.001267728
93.00% 0.003010481
94.00% 0.00708318
95.00% 0.016515374
96.00% 0.038167933
97.00% 0.087445757
98.00% 0.19864885
99.00% 0.447523214
100.00% 1
As far as metadata is concerned, I'm assuming many mn's will not be using best practices and will leak information unbeknownst to the operator, which could set-up scenarios where they are surreptitiously being observed?
I don't think anyone would argue with cryptonote coins offering the best anonymity set at the moment, the question becomes,"is dark's as advertised or good enough?" The as advertised is a hard sell given the already well discussed insta/accidental mine and the re-names that look like the "under new management" sign at the local dive.
As an investor, you would have to prove to me that your numbers are correct, that indeed your management was forthright and had the investor's best interest in mind with every decision, and that you are offering the best product for the service desired. If you want to act like a company, this is what would be expected by most rational investors.
I don't think anyone would argue with cryptonote coins offering the best anonymity set at the moment, the question becomes,"is dark's as advertised or good enough?" The as advertised is a hard sell given the already well discussed insta/accidental mine and the re-names that look like the "under new management" sign at the local dive.
As an investor, you would have to prove to me that your numbers are correct, that indeed your management was forthright and had the investor's best interest in mind with every decision, and that you are offering the best product for the service desired. If you want to act like a company, this is what would be expected by most rational investors.
he had a habit of making unprofessional tweets and posts using the official accounts and got a lot of shit from the community. Speaking before thinking. Not suitable for handling PR, and I guess that's where the friction between them started (could be obviously something else, but that's how it looked to me).
What does "unprofessional" mean?
Considering technical critique is in the toxic DARSH community unwelcome and met with cries of 'FUD' and 'Quick, attack-the-attacker' we can't trust your judgement on or characterization of the tweets and posts.
Primary sources, please!
I don't GAS about DARSH, but the drama over there is priceless. Not since the Paycoiners at Hashtalk has there been a crowd more enthusiastic about and participating in growing their scam sufficient to get-rich-quick.
He was talking about selling coins and was fudding some other coin for example in the official twitter. Both of those are simply unacceptable, as the community here will nitpick and go to extraordinary lengths when drawing conclusions, as you might have noticed that DRK/DASH is the main target when criticizing actual and made up issues.
Quote
How many masternodes would have to be in possession for anonymity to be broken with a fair degree of success?
Here are my numbers from last night. Apologies, I should have included them again for easy reference:
Probability of following Darksend through
- 4 non-blinded rounds with 10 masternodes* is (10/2300)^4 == 3.5734577849564574e-10
- 4 blinded rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)**4 == 1.1528508353537067e-189
Each round uses 20 random masternodes of 2300, so you must control 20 of 2300 four times in a row. It's super secure
The formula therefore gives the following probabilities with increasing numbers of compromised masternodes:
- 3 rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)^3 == 1.9784716837512123e-142
- 4 rounds with 1000 masternodes is ((1000/2300.0)^20)^4 == 1.1528508353537028e-29
- 4 rounds with 2000 masternodes is ((2000/2300)^20)^4 == 1.39371e-05
Quote
Does this number increase or decrease with nodes attacking other nodes?
It increases as expected, I might plot a graph to show the curve....standby for that.
Quote
Does metadata collection improve the chances of breaking anonymity? To what measure?
Not sure, don't think so but I will look into this. What exactly did you have in mind?
Quote
Do masternodes add any security to the network? If not, why are they present?
They perform services, such as off-chain mixing and instant transactions. With regards to security, they increase the attack surface certainly and we are exploring whether that is negligible.
Quote
Do ring signatures offer greater security?
I think they provide greater anonymity, i.e. the crypto is unbreakable today, and if it were broken later I believe the on-chain transactions are obfuscated in such a way that they still couldn't be traced. Darksend takes a different approach, which critics say is less elegant. I guess it comes down to real-world utility and whether any security issues are negligible.
Well it's disappointing to get up this morning and find the thread only talking about 'instamine'. I realise that DASH opponents see good reason to keep this going, but I also think it's a topic that's been done to absolute death with every possible angle having been explored on these forums.
Endless re-iteration is not a characteristic of reasonable debate. In a formal debate both sides generally have a set time to state their case on a topic, after which it would be closed and those witnessing the debate would be left to make up their minds.
Both sides have had endless opportunity to state their 'Instamine' case, so at least in this thread we should close the topic and keep things moving with fresh or unexplored aspects of DASH vs XMR.
A topic that hasn't been fully explored is Masternode security. This is very much 'up in the air', and last night I posted some numbers about the probability of tracing Darksend transactions with Masternode Blinding in place. Perhaps we could discuss that, since these numbers were so critical to the technical arguments against Masternodes/Darksend during the earlier technical debate in this thread.
Endless re-iteration is not a characteristic of reasonable debate. In a formal debate both sides generally have a set time to state their case on a topic, after which it would be closed and those witnessing the debate would be left to make up their minds.
Both sides have had endless opportunity to state their 'Instamine' case, so at least in this thread we should close the topic and keep things moving with fresh or unexplored aspects of DASH vs XMR.
A topic that hasn't been fully explored is Masternode security. This is very much 'up in the air', and last night I posted some numbers about the probability of tracing Darksend transactions with Masternode Blinding in place. Perhaps we could discuss that, since these numbers were so critical to the technical arguments against Masternodes/Darksend during the earlier technical debate in this thread.
How many masternodes would have to be in possession for anonymity to be broken with a fair degree of success? Does this number increase or decrease with nodes attacking other nodes? Does metadata collection improve the chances of breaking anonymity? To what measure? Do masternodes add any security to the network? If not, why are they present? Do ring signatures offer greater security?
OK, since Masternode blinding has been a major bone of contention in this thread, I did some hunting for posts about the subject.
Here's what Evan posted recently:
Probability of following Darksend through
- 4 non-blinded rounds with 10 masternodes* is (10/2300)^4 == 3.5734577849564574e-10
- 4 blinded rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)**4 == 1.1528508353537067e-189
Each round uses 20 random masternodes of 2300, so you must control 20 of 2300 four times in a row. It's super secure
The formula therefore gives the following probabilities with increasing numbers of compromised masternodes:
- 3 rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)^3 == 1.9784716837512123e-142
- 4 rounds with 1000 masternodes is ((1000/2300.0)^20)^4 == 1.1528508353537028e-29
- 4 rounds with 2000 masternodes is ((2000/2300)^20)^4 == 1.39371e-05
[...]
And this infographic:
Even if you take the super-extreme example of comprimising 2,000 masternodes (over 85% of the network) there is still only a .00139% chance of tracing an individual transaction.
Here's what Evan posted recently:
Quote
Probability of following Darksend through
- 4 non-blinded rounds with 10 masternodes* is (10/2300)^4 == 3.5734577849564574e-10
- 4 blinded rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)**4 == 1.1528508353537067e-189
Each round uses 20 random masternodes of 2300, so you must control 20 of 2300 four times in a row. It's super secure
The formula therefore gives the following probabilities with increasing numbers of compromised masternodes:
- 3 rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)^3 == 1.9784716837512123e-142
- 4 rounds with 1000 masternodes is ((1000/2300.0)^20)^4 == 1.1528508353537028e-29
- 4 rounds with 2000 masternodes is ((2000/2300)^20)^4 == 1.39371e-05
[...]
And this infographic:
Even if you take the super-extreme example of comprimising 2,000 masternodes (over 85% of the network) there is still only a .00139% chance of tracing an individual transaction.
Nice infographic, but doesn't answer all (or even most) of my questions.
Well it's disappointing to get up this morning and find the thread only talking about 'instamine'. I realise that DASH opponents see good reason to keep this going, but I also think it's a topic that's been done to absolute death with every possible angle having been explored on these forums.
Endless re-iteration is not a characteristic of reasonable debate. In a formal debate both sides generally have a set time to state their case on a topic, after which it would be closed and those witnessing the debate would be left to make up their minds.
Both sides have had endless opportunity to state their 'Instamine' case, so at least in this thread we should close the topic and keep things moving with fresh or unexplored aspects of DASH vs XMR.
A topic that hasn't been fully explored is Masternode security. This is very much 'up in the air', and last night I posted some numbers about the probability of tracing Darksend transactions with Masternode Blinding in place. Perhaps we could discuss that, since these numbers were so critical to the technical arguments against Masternodes/Darksend during the earlier technical debate in this thread.
Endless re-iteration is not a characteristic of reasonable debate. In a formal debate both sides generally have a set time to state their case on a topic, after which it would be closed and those witnessing the debate would be left to make up their minds.
Both sides have had endless opportunity to state their 'Instamine' case, so at least in this thread we should close the topic and keep things moving with fresh or unexplored aspects of DASH vs XMR.
A topic that hasn't been fully explored is Masternode security. This is very much 'up in the air', and last night I posted some numbers about the probability of tracing Darksend transactions with Masternode Blinding in place. Perhaps we could discuss that, since these numbers were so critical to the technical arguments against Masternodes/Darksend during the earlier technical debate in this thread.
How many masternodes would have to be in possession for anonymity to be broken with a fair degree of success? Does this number increase or decrease with nodes attacking other nodes? Does metadata collection improve the chances of breaking anonymity? To what measure? Do masternodes add any security to the network? If not, why are they present? Do ring signatures offer greater security?
OK, since Masternode blinding has been a major bone of contention in this thread, I did some hunting for posts about the subject.
Here's what Evan posted recently:
Probability of following Darksend through
- 4 non-blinded rounds with 10 masternodes* is (10/2300)^4 == 3.5734577849564574e-10
- 4 blinded rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)**4 == 1.1528508353537067e-189
Each round uses 20 random masternodes of 2300, so you must control 20 of 2300 four times in a row. It's super secure
The formula therefore gives the following probabilities with increasing numbers of compromised masternodes:
- 3 rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)^3 == 1.9784716837512123e-142
- 4 rounds with 1000 masternodes is ((1000/2300.0)^20)^4 == 1.1528508353537028e-29
- 4 rounds with 2000 masternodes is ((2000/2300)^20)^4 == 1.39371e-05
[...]
And this infographic:
Even if you take the super-extreme example of comprimising 2,000 masternodes (over 85% of the network) there is still only a .00139% chance of tracing an individual transaction.
Here's what Evan posted recently:
Quote
Probability of following Darksend through
- 4 non-blinded rounds with 10 masternodes* is (10/2300)^4 == 3.5734577849564574e-10
- 4 blinded rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)**4 == 1.1528508353537067e-189
Each round uses 20 random masternodes of 2300, so you must control 20 of 2300 four times in a row. It's super secure
The formula therefore gives the following probabilities with increasing numbers of compromised masternodes:
- 3 rounds with 10 masternodes is ((10/2300.0)^20)^3 == 1.9784716837512123e-142
- 4 rounds with 1000 masternodes is ((1000/2300.0)^20)^4 == 1.1528508353537028e-29
- 4 rounds with 2000 masternodes is ((2000/2300)^20)^4 == 1.39371e-05
[...]
And this infographic:
Even if you take the super-extreme example of comprimising 2,000 masternodes (over 85% of the network) there is still only a .00139% chance of tracing an individual transaction.
Well it's disappointing to get up this morning and find the thread only talking about 'instamine'. I realise that DASH opponents see good reason to keep this going, but I also think it's a topic that's been done to absolute death with every possible angle having been explored on these forums.
Endless re-iteration is not a characteristic of reasonable debate. In a formal debate both sides generally have a set time to state their case on a topic, after which it would be closed and those witnessing the debate would be left to make up their minds.
Both sides have had endless opportunity to state their 'Instamine' case, so at least in this thread we should close the topic and keep things moving with fresh or unexplored aspects of DASH vs XMR.
A topic that hasn't been fully explored is Masternode security. This is very much 'up in the air', and last night I posted some numbers about the probability of tracing Darksend transactions with Masternode Blinding in place. Perhaps we could discuss that, since these numbers were so critical to the technical arguments against Masternodes/Darksend during the earlier technical debate in this thread.
Endless re-iteration is not a characteristic of reasonable debate. In a formal debate both sides generally have a set time to state their case on a topic, after which it would be closed and those witnessing the debate would be left to make up their minds.
Both sides have had endless opportunity to state their 'Instamine' case, so at least in this thread we should close the topic and keep things moving with fresh or unexplored aspects of DASH vs XMR.
A topic that hasn't been fully explored is Masternode security. This is very much 'up in the air', and last night I posted some numbers about the probability of tracing Darksend transactions with Masternode Blinding in place. Perhaps we could discuss that, since these numbers were so critical to the technical arguments against Masternodes/Darksend during the earlier technical debate in this thread.
How many masternodes would have to be in possession for anonymity to be broken with a fair degree of success? Does this number increase or decrease with nodes attacking other nodes? Does metadata collection improve the chances of breaking anonymity? To what measure? Do masternodes add any security to the network? If not, why are they present? Do ring signatures offer greater security?
Well it's disappointing to get up this morning and find the thread only talking about 'instamine'. I realise that DASH opponents see good reason to keep this going, but I also think it's a topic that's been done to absolute death with every possible angle having been explored on these forums.
Endless re-iteration is not a characteristic of reasonable debate. In a formal debate both sides generally have a set time to state their case on a topic, after which it would be closed and those witnessing the debate would be left to make up their minds.
Both sides have had endless opportunity to state their 'Instamine' case, so at least in this thread we should close the topic and keep things moving with fresh or unexplored aspects of DASH vs XMR.
A topic that hasn't been fully explored is Masternode security. This is very much 'up in the air', and last night I posted some numbers about the probability of tracing Darksend transactions with Masternode Blinding in place. Perhaps we could discuss that, since these numbers were so critical to the technical arguments against Masternodes/Darksend during the earlier technical debate in this thread.
Endless re-iteration is not a characteristic of reasonable debate. In a formal debate both sides generally have a set time to state their case on a topic, after which it would be closed and those witnessing the debate would be left to make up their minds.
Both sides have had endless opportunity to state their 'Instamine' case, so at least in this thread we should close the topic and keep things moving with fresh or unexplored aspects of DASH vs XMR.
A topic that hasn't been fully explored is Masternode security. This is very much 'up in the air', and last night I posted some numbers about the probability of tracing Darksend transactions with Masternode Blinding in place. Perhaps we could discuss that, since these numbers were so critical to the technical arguments against Masternodes/Darksend during the earlier technical debate in this thread.
only benefitted those within the first 40 hours of launch is a scam.
What about something that primarily benefited people within the first 8 hours (1.5 million coins) or the first one hour (570k coins)
All of that happened after the developer told everyone to come back in a few days after he did more testing and fixed bugs because he "definitely" wasn't going to launch within a few hours, a few hours before he launched.
Which means BTW given the current tally of 5,231,624, 10.8% of the current supply was mined within the first hour.
I just lost love how Blockafett says it's like rewarding a CEO and the CEO calls it an accident, but neither calls it a reason to relaunch and set the record straight--
only benefitted those within the first 40 hours of launch is a scam.
What about something that primarily benefited people within the first 8 hours (1.5 million coins) or the first one hour (570k coins)
All of that happened after the developer told everyone to come back in a few days after he did more testing and fixed bugs because he "definitely" wasn't going to launch within a few hours, a few hours before he launched.
Which means BTW given the current tally of 5,231,624, 10.8% of the current supply was mined within the first hour.
IMO having a instamine(Where blockreward/coinsupply changes) or premine(coins mined before release) in a cryptocurrency is intolerable.. These are not companies, they're cryptocurrencies, or at least supposed to be(A lot arent acting like it). Premines/Instamines shouldnt be allowed in a "currency", a stock sure, but currency no.
Sure the currencies aren't companies, but they are designed and developed by dev teams, the good ones of which are closer to companies in how they work. You need a leader and they need to be incentivized. Smart money will look at everything in context and make a call, does it have value and can they deliver. Instamine in this case is a really weak point to attack on in context and market shows that i think. Anyway, if its not for you, your choice
Nope. I just called a friend about 10 minutes ago to ask her opinion. I stated the facts with no biasness in my voice, and she said she would not touch Dash with a 10 foot pole(She knows of Bitcoin, but not of "altcoins"), reiterating the point that a instamine that basically only benefitted those within the first 40 hours of launch is a scam.
Only to current Dash fanboys in the altcoin section, does the instamine "not matter", because mostly everyone here is looking to make a quick buck in pumps and dumps. Out in the real world, something as scammy as that wont fly. Satoshi made Bitcoin to get away from the entire centralization/unfairness concept. Dash doing away with Satoshi's vision by having had such a dishonest instamine take place is just taking steps backward instead of forward.
Jump to: