Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 8. (Read 69785 times)

At least we can agree on that 

I think I finally DO get your points, but I may disagree, and perhaps its due to nuances in how we use the terms private, public, visible, invisible.

IMO, the monero blockchain is still public in the sense that it is still being distributed and validated by the network system. The public ledger is still in plain view, its just impossible to understand it without the proper keys.

And this second component of a financial system that your propose:
[2] - an aggregated, public facing one that provides integrity and accountability

Perhaps you are drawing parallels to the existing financial systems. IMO, these public facing components are just an attempt to create the illusion of integrity and accountability. Due to the inherrent nature of existing "soft" currencies, this presentation is required so people trust them.

Cryptocurrencies provide the first "hard" currency in which the integrity and accountability are inherent in the system. You can't fudge the numbers.

I like the idea of the "viewkey" from the perspective of personal privacy. But a financial system has 2 aspects:

[1] - disegregated private facing one.

[2] - an aggregated, public facing one that provides integrity and accountability

The viewkey opens a "peekhole" on a granular level for one person, but for it to have any value it has to be part of a greater whole who's existence is open and accountable. It has to have confidence and integrity which comes from demonstrating that it squares with the sum of its parts. The public aspect of any financial system is huge. Companies report balances, nations declare and spend budgets, wages are paid etc. (We can check Target2 to see how much money everyone owes the Germans   )

In the fiat money system, accountability is managed for us by the counterparty network known as the “banking system” plus armies of auditors who check that totals equal the sum of their parts. Without that aspect of it you's have no confidence and no value - you'd just have a very private account in an invisible, dead network.

What Satoshi did was to remove the counterparty layer and put the whole thing in public hands, thereby putting "us" in the role of auditors. That public, transparent aspect of the blockhain is absolutely a core principle that underpins its security, integrity and therefore value. In this model, privacy is replaced with anonymity.

I've got no objection to innovation and pursuing new ways to enhance personal privacy in crypto. But what Dash is attempting to do is an optimal approach - i.e. greatly enhance Bitcoin's anonymity without compromising the public ledger. That is an admirable objective that's difficult to acheive. Because it's difficult to achieve, it's easy to shoot holes in it over all kinds of low level technical implementation issues, but hey, what technology in the history of the internet wasn't like that. Http was leaky as a sieve. Add an "s" and it's unbreakable.

Likeways, the Cryptonote tech and persuit of totally "invisible" money is an admirable pursuit. But sell it for what it is not what it isn't. The material difference isn't nuances of cryptology but rather the priority you give to having a public ledger or not.

The contradiction that keeps hitting me in the face with Cryptonote is this: It's "selling point" is  ultra security and ultra privacy, whereas for me the one thing that Bitcoin brought as that supports integrity and security far more than any algo is public visibility.

IMO, if I wanted to corrupt a cryptocurrency, what are the two strategies I'd employ ?

[1] - remove the public ledger from view

[2] - give myself a backdoor to the encryption algo

I've never been a proponent of the second of those conspiracy theories because I generally think that if both the research papers and the code are in the public domain then it's fair game for public use and can be sufficiently scrutinised. But the first of those two - if that goes then no algo is going to secure the system IMO.

Don't you think mathematical proof is also one of the principle tenets of bitcoin ?

The motivation behind that post is that the Monero team have an implicit (though open) agenda which they have been attempting to play out for months without ever stating it plainly. That is to divest us of one of the principle tenets of Bitcoin and Satoshi’s vision and the one which will probably herald the biggest revolution in finance since ‘the Fed’ - the public ledger.

To acheive this, they’ve got to convince people of three things:

[1] - that the public ledger is of little or no benefit to them either collectively or individually and it is in fact “a threat”

[2] - that any technology attempting to enhance anonymity directly while preserving the concept of the public ledger is either flawed, a scam or unsecure

[3] - that “visibility” and “fungibility” are interchangeable monetary properties and therefore that money will retain its value even if “invisible”

IMO, the deception and slight of hand involved constitutes far more justification for the “s” word than the issues with Darkcoin’s launch that forms such a central element to their artillery. Hypothetical attack vectors on a technology which is directly addressing fungibility and anonymity without recourse to impacting on visibility would actually be useful if not made in such a sinister context.

Ever heard the phrase “show me the money” ? That derives from the fact that all else being equal, visible money is far more valuable than invisible money. So according to this agenda, not only would the system be divested of the public ledger, but also suffer an adverse impact on its monetary worth. You’d end up with something that’s private but worthless.

Finally, none of the subtleties of this debate are going to mean anything unless the whole phenomenon of Bitcoin and crypto as a whole gets something approaching mass adoption. In that regard, if you thought selling people the idea of virtual money thats visible was hard, good luck with selling them virtual money thats “invisible”  

IF "David Latapie" = "boy"
  THEN  "Nice to see a Monero core team player in action.  So adult.  So admirable"
  ELSE  "Ignore me, I'm not supposed to call girls out on their bullshit"  //see above
ENDIF

Added to the list: Darkcoin's Domination Posts

From:
http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

c. De-Centralized Virtual Currencies

            A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.

            A person that creates units of this convertible virtual currency and uses it to purchase real or virtual goods and services is a user of the convertible virtual currency and not subject to regulation as a money transmitter.

To note is that this document is a Guidance, not actual code or regulation. It is very helpful and descriptive and references the pertinent code, however.

VERY, interesting question. And one which those of us that are not judges in the U.S. judicial system (or jurors, should it go to that point) will not be making the decision on. We can speculate until we are blue in the face, and prosecutors, attorneys, LEO's, etc will of course be involved in the proceedings when and if they take place, but your pointing out that the U.S. does have codes, laws, and regulations regarding these types of things is very astute.

Considering that the D-Coin Foundation (whatever it is being called these days) is incorporated in Arizona, USA and E.D. is apparently a U.S, citizen, I would imagine that there is already a monitoring program in place. None of it has to be publicly announced. How many MN's are actually gov't-controlled?

... because once the code is activated with the consensus of the network it can be de activated without the consensus of the network. Therein lies the centralization.

The spork needs the consensus of the network (miners and MN operators MUST agree on the code) to be activated, how does it increase the degree of centralization?

It is called spork and it allows the holder of the keys (Evan?) to roll back code under spork without a hard fork. As more code is placed under spork the degree of centralization increases since coin features under spork can be taken out without a hard fork by the holder of the keys. One can see from the code, https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/blob/master/src/spork.h that instant X and the masternode payments are under spork. Now here is an interesting question: What proportion of the code in a Decentralized Virtual Currency has to be under spork in order to turn it into a Centralized Virtual Currency, according to FinCEN http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html?

Hello Debora

I also read through your post and appreciate your points which are clearly made in good faith so I'll respond in kind.

Without going through it point by point, I understand that you think that any form of service oriented functional diversity in a cryptocurrency network amounts to "centralisation" by the definition you cite, and is therefore "bad".


What you've done here is start with your conclusion (centralisation) and worked back to the hypothesis. If you do that with almost any aspect of modern information systems you’ll get a “result”.

Lets be specific. A single Dash wallet may use several, randomly selected network peers (running exactly the same daemon) to provide it with a ‘service’. In the specific context that that one node depends on those other nodes to deliver the service, then there is some interdependency which you are free to interpret as you see fit. If you call it “centralisation” then you must at the same time dismiss any kind of service oriented functional diversity in the network as such. I’d see that as the “functional” aspect of the debate.

As far as the ‘structural’ aspect goes (the network composition), it’s academic. The network is in no way, shape or form centralised because no recourse to a central authority is required to operate a deamon in a service capacity (with ‘masternode=1’ in its config) and their function is reproducable as many times as you like. Nor can they be characterised as centralised by their hosting profile. Regardless of the hosting service, nodes remain functionally independent and secured by coin collateral. You can’t “take over” a masternode without having access to the private key that collateralises it. Even Vertoe himself endorsed this view:



https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10344491

What he alluded to as “centralised” was the fact that that the project has a lead dev who is probably irreplaceable. Well I won’t argue with that - at least in terms of his ideas - but I’m happy to accept it and take the risk for now as long as he looks both ways when he’s crossing the road.


Fair enough. I’m happy to accept that there’s something distinct there, but all I’m aware of is viewkeys and a database to hold the blockchain bloat. The problem here - at least for an investor - is that Cryptonote is a tiny market thats getting ever more crowded and my ‘off-the-shelf” remark refers to the fact that all the players subscribe to a common approach. For example here comes Bytcoin with a spanking new GUI wallet, the lack of which XMR holders have lamented for the best part of a year, but the anon-tech is stock.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10939927


There is a much bigger point at stake here than what your alluding to.

A financial system is inherently a public asset. It is at once an economic continuum and a collection of private interests that have to be protected. The revolution of Bitcoin was to bring it into the open while anonymising its participants which it has done with incredible success (to see that, try tracing any of the heists that have taken place). People love the ecosystem of blockchain analysis tools, transparency, sense of participation and simultaneous preservation of their financial anonymity. It is the “holy grail” of money and it isn’t going away now that it’s “out there”.

What we don’t need IMO is to throw that entire revolution down a cryptographic black hole and send ourselves back to the dark ages - specially in the name of “disempowering the “elite”. Make no mistake, the “elite” will find it far easier to usurp a system where nobody can see anything than one who’s mechanics can be observed by everyone, that’s in the ‘ownership’ of everyone and that’s statistically accountable to everyone.

What bitcoin is missing is the ‘cash drawer’ metaphor that optimises its fungibility and protects anonymity at the same time. You don’t make an electronic monetary media more fungible by making it “invisible”. To be fungible, cash has to be visible otherwise what’s the point ? A viewkey that only lets you see a single address is ok for that one person, but you can’t run a financial system on that basis. If it's decentralised and free of counterparties (a banking system) then the economy as a whole has to be able to see it and audit it.

I’ve heard the arguments about cryptography vs Dash’s mixing algos and - although I accept that cryptography can do a better job of ”hiding” a transaction -  they don’t convince me as to their practical merits because; A) the practical difference in detectability is so marginal and B) they always compare 1 single pass of cryptographic ‘protection’ with a single pass of mixing which is totally unrealistic and always works in the Cryptonote’s favour. The reality is that in an open system with pre-emptive mixing the entire coin supply is being continually anonymised in the background. This IMO does justice to the twin objectives that Bitcoin had of an open, publicly accountable and owned financial system, combined with optimal preservation of its participant’s privacy.

That is what I meant by “legacy compliant”. The ability to take advantage of mobile wallet tech, commercial API’s and reporting tools are a handy bonus.


Again - I don't doubt that they are all interested in crypto. I just don't see anyone who's a full time dev turning out core new features month after month. I see people who are either full time marketing or may "dip into the code" now and again. I don't know that to be categorically the case - I'm just saying what it looks like so happy to be corrected, but maintaining a code base is a very different skill to developing original work.

When I first bought my monero on the old cryptonote exchange I used a crappy old command line wallet to download it. That was the first “hint” I had that this project wasn’t ’very customer oriented’ and lacked developmental capacity. When I came back 9 months later I still had to use that thing and, despite what the websites say, getting simplewallet to run on a Mac under Terminal is murder - even if your a coder. What I was expecting was something like this: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10939927

That roadmap at least alludes to some basic, user-oriented principles and adoption-oriented priorities (difficult to deliver on) as opposed to a load of downloaded academic quotes, graphics and theories (easy to deliver on).


I’m passionate about most of the tech in crypto - even cryptonote beleive it or not. What prompted me to contribute in the ‘tribal warfare’ of late was that I’d had enough of the Monero core team crawling over every thread that discussed Dash for the last 3 months and smothering any constructive discussion with a stream of emotive terms such as “broken”, “scam” and “fail” while incessantly maligning a perfectly good dev for being “incompetent” and even “fraudulent”. It’s been a campaign of defamation which has bordered on a witch hunt at times and is odious to watch.

Another reason the wars and mud slinging is unnecessary is because, as I’ve described above, it’s an apples and pears product comparison like Concorde fans berating 747 fans for being too slow. The real comparison gets totally lost (which may be their intention) and that is:

[1] - an open, transparent financial system that’s accountable to both the individual and the collective economy VS a closed one who’s only observable facet is a single account by a single individual

[2] - functional diversification of cryptocurrency networks into service oriented architectures VS mono functional, high redundancy ones

You pays your money and takes your choice. I don’t mind which one you pick, but if someone tries to convince me that the choice is between a “broken” and “working” architecture when the reality is much more profound, then I can only assume they’re trying to disguise the poverty of their own offering.

decentralization fail

No different than the Banksters.

FAILCOIN!

Dude. Did you watch National Lampoon's Animal House just prior to posting that comment?

https://youtu.be/ROxvT8KKdFw?t=1m4s

Evan has some kind of kill switch too

I think vertoe saying that it 'reaches deep into the code base' means that its more than just organizational.

You need to take the analogy further than that. If the MNs are the FireChat users, what are normal nodes? The argument that I've seen made over and over is that MNs use the same code as normal nodes, but now you're saying that MNs are somehow a network on their own? It doesn't match up.

To me (non techie) it seems as if the MNs are the (decentralized) firechat users of the analogy.
Also, Vertoe  did not say the MN network was centralized, but the fact that Evan is currently the only dev and that he has the final word on everything.
I do not think he is critical of the MN network as such.

I understand. When I write clearly and understandably you feel the need to diminish what I wrote by insulting me. Are you insulting me just because I'm female and you think I'm soft? Do you think you can get away with attacks like that because I won't fight back? Shame on you.

It is an indictment of the Dash system as a whole because it is not just liberties taken with trolls, it is stated on the Dash website. The about page, https://www.dashpay.io/about/what-is-dash/, says "No central authorities to trust because of full decentralization, even for the anonymization process" when that isn't true. Dash sets out a definition of it that is false. It is up to us, former and current Dash holders, to decide whether this false definition is 'accidental' like the instamine or evidence of an outright scam.


The Wikipedia page keeps saying that components in a decentralized system act on local information. This is what makes so much sense to me. Think of it like the FireChat app that was used in protests, http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26285-hong-kong-protesters-use-a-mesh-network-to-organise.html, have you read about that? Each phone talks to other nearby phones, exchanging 'local information' only. If a protester is 1000 feet from another one then the message has to go through this chain. Here's a picture I found describing it.



If component 9 wants to talk to component 1 it has to go 9 to 7 to 6 to 1, or it can go 9 to 4 to 3 to 2 to 1. Even if you start taking components out it will still find a way! When you have MasterNodes influencing that path or trying to improve the performance of the path the MasterNodes become the central control. The reason that protestors don't just setup wifi networks is that they're easy to monitor or to take down.

I also think it's best if you don't try argue this point seeing as how vertoe agrees that it is centralized. When your own core developer says this, and many clever people agree, you can't argue that is false based on bias or what you describe as 'faulty logic'. You have to argue it based on its merits and you haven't done that. All you've done is insult me and my intelligence.