Topic: XMR vs DRK - page 9. (Read 69785 times)
Your sense of humor is twisted and your sense of logic is illogical.
I concur.
Can you explain to me how influencing performance is exercising control?
Can you explain to us how influencing performance could NOT be exercising control?
If a bookie pays off a player or players on a team in order to influence their performance so as to not beat the "spread," it is definitely seen as exercising control.
See Chicago "Black" Sox
Say it ain't so, Joe!
Your sense of humor is twisted and your sense of logic is illogical.
I concur.
Can you explain to me how influencing performance is exercising control?
So I did some research on decentralization. My starting point was Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_system. That page has a very good description right at the beginning that I want to paste for you. 'A centralised system is one in which a central controller exercises control over the lower-level components of the system directly or through the use of a power hierarchy (such as instructing a middle level component to instruct a lower level component).' Doesn't that sound like MasterNodes?
I know your answer is going to be that MasterNodes don't 'exercise control' but they do. You've just said that they are going to influence performance, which is exercising control. And we definitely know that they act on behalf of Dash users when they are mixing. By that definition the Dash network is 'centralized' and I don't think it's right to argue it any other way.
I know your answer is going to be that MasterNodes don't 'exercise control' but they do. You've just said that they are going to influence performance, which is exercising control. And we definitely know that they act on behalf of Dash users when they are mixing. By that definition the Dash network is 'centralized' and I don't think it's right to argue it any other way.
You logic is so faulty it's laughable.
Your sense of humor is twisted and your sense of logic is illogical.
So I did some research on decentralization. My starting point was Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_system. That page has a very good description right at the beginning that I want to paste for you. 'A centralised system is one in which a central controller exercises control over the lower-level components of the system directly or through the use of a power hierarchy (such as instructing a middle level component to instruct a lower level component).' Doesn't that sound like MasterNodes?
I know your answer is going to be that MasterNodes don't 'exercise control' but they do. You've just said that they are going to influence performance, which is exercising control. And we definitely know that they act on behalf of Dash users when they are mixing. By that definition the Dash network is 'centralized' and I don't think it's right to argue it any other way.
I know your answer is going to be that MasterNodes don't 'exercise control' but they do. You've just said that they are going to influence performance, which is exercising control. And we definitely know that they act on behalf of Dash users when they are mixing. By that definition the Dash network is 'centralized' and I don't think it's right to argue it any other way.
You logic is so faulty it's laughable.
toknormal I read through your post, and I have spent some time thinking about how to make my post sound intelligent by using big words and mis-representing facts.
My god, I leave for a few days and the "analysis" gets weaker than before.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we can understand concepts without asking Siri, or took a few liberties with trolls—we did. [winks at Dean Wormer] But you can't hold a whole system responsible for the behavior of a few, sick perverted masternodes. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole crypto system? And if the whole crypto system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our programming languages in general? I put it to you, Debora: isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do what you you want to DASH, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
A consequence of "more" redundant systems is an increase in probability of component errors, and in Dark's case having more components only increases probability of overall system failure.
When you plug up one hole the juice just squirts out another. You will always need more eye patches (see components).
darkcoin/DASH is trying to be the Microsoft of cryptos.
edit: centralized, full of holes and bullies
Sony owns a compact wi-fi device named "Dash"
Amazon owns a "Dash" button
Kim Kardashian owns a brand called "Dash"
There's a laundry detergent named "Dash"
There's a API browser called "Dash"
There's a online tutorial website called "Dash"
There's a driving app on Google Play called "Dash"
There's a diet plan named "Dash"
There's a office in Harvard named "Dash"
There's a yearly national puzzle hunt named "Dash"
There's a robotics company called "Dash"
There's a radio called "Dash"
The housing community at Swarthmore college is called "Dash"
There's a wireless headphones called "Dash"
Then there's a stereo system/boombox also called "Dash"
There's a online food market called "Dash"
Then there's a second online nutrition food market called "Dash"
There's a bicycle shop named "Dash"
There's a online job management software system called "DASH"
There's a bus transport system in Hartford called "Dash"
There's a digital press agency called "Dash"
There's a payment app for restaurants called "Dash"
There's an advisory firm called "Dash"
There's software for cars and mobile phones named "Dash"
and a shit ton more.
That eddufield developer guy of dash/darkcoin guy should of really just stuck with the name Darkcoin lmfao.
expect another dictator made name change guys.
Amazon owns a "Dash" button
Kim Kardashian owns a brand called "Dash"
There's a laundry detergent named "Dash"
There's a API browser called "Dash"
There's a online tutorial website called "Dash"
There's a driving app on Google Play called "Dash"
There's a diet plan named "Dash"
There's a office in Harvard named "Dash"
There's a yearly national puzzle hunt named "Dash"
There's a robotics company called "Dash"
There's a radio called "Dash"
The housing community at Swarthmore college is called "Dash"
There's a wireless headphones called "Dash"
Then there's a stereo system/boombox also called "Dash"
There's a online food market called "Dash"
Then there's a second online nutrition food market called "Dash"
There's a bicycle shop named "Dash"
There's a online job management software system called "DASH"
There's a bus transport system in Hartford called "Dash"
There's a digital press agency called "Dash"
There's a payment app for restaurants called "Dash"
There's an advisory firm called "Dash"
There's software for cars and mobile phones named "Dash"
and a shit ton more.
That eddufield developer guy of dash/darkcoin guy should of really just stuck with the name Darkcoin lmfao.
expect another dictator made name change guys.
i think you forgot one -> -
Sony owns a compact wi-fi device named "Dash"
Amazon owns a "Dash" button
Kim Kardashian owns a brand called "Dash"
There's a laundry detergent named "Dash"
There's a API browser called "Dash"
There's a online tutorial website called "Dash"
There's a driving app on Google Play called "Dash"
There's a diet plan named "Dash"
There's a office in Harvard named "Dash"
There's a yearly national puzzle hunt named "Dash"
There's a robotics company called "Dash"
There's a radio called "Dash"
The housing community at Swarthmore college is called "Dash"
There's a wireless headphones called "Dash"
Then there's a stereo system/boombox also called "Dash"
There's a online food market called "Dash"
Then there's a second online nutrition food market called "Dash"
There's a bicycle shop named "Dash"
There's a online job management software system called "DASH"
There's a bus transport system in Hartford called "Dash"
There's a digital press agency called "Dash"
There's a payment app for restaurants called "Dash"
There's an advisory firm called "Dash"
There's software for cars and mobile phones named "Dash"
and a shit ton more.
That eddufield developer guy of dash/darkcoin guy should of really just stuck with the name Darkcoin lmfao.
expect another dictator made name change guys.
Amazon owns a "Dash" button
Kim Kardashian owns a brand called "Dash"
There's a laundry detergent named "Dash"
There's a API browser called "Dash"
There's a online tutorial website called "Dash"
There's a driving app on Google Play called "Dash"
There's a diet plan named "Dash"
There's a office in Harvard named "Dash"
There's a yearly national puzzle hunt named "Dash"
There's a robotics company called "Dash"
There's a radio called "Dash"
The housing community at Swarthmore college is called "Dash"
There's a wireless headphones called "Dash"
Then there's a stereo system/boombox also called "Dash"
There's a online food market called "Dash"
Then there's a second online nutrition food market called "Dash"
There's a bicycle shop named "Dash"
There's a online job management software system called "DASH"
There's a bus transport system in Hartford called "Dash"
There's a digital press agency called "Dash"
There's a payment app for restaurants called "Dash"
There's an advisory firm called "Dash"
There's software for cars and mobile phones named "Dash"
and a shit ton more.
That eddufield developer guy of dash/darkcoin guy should of really just stuck with the name Darkcoin lmfao.
expect another dictator made name change guys.
toknormal I read through your post, and I have spent some time thinking about it and researching it. I find it worrying that you write with such precision but your writings are filled with such inaccuracies and inccorrect statements. I'm sure investors look up to you which is why this is even more worrying.
You do the cryptography in Monero a disservice when you describe it as off-the-shelf. Ring signatures are not new cryptography but the application in Monero is definitely innovative.
I also haven't seen anything formal from Evan about "network quality control and performance", have you?
In my research I have also found a section on the Monero website that seems to describe a lot more than just 'technology for hiding transactions'. Have you seen that page? It's this one https://getmonero.org/design-goals/
If I had to guess I'd say 99% of the merchants out there use Bitpay or Coinbase or one of the others for interacting with Bitcoin, so I am not sure this is much of a problem, if at all.
I also think it's very cheeky of you to make a statement like this as if attributing the API compatability or the Dash GUI wallet to Evan's hard work. You and I both know that he hasn't worked on any of that from scratch. Maybe we can give him credit for minor changes to the Bitcoin GUI.
See above.
Now you're just lying, toknormal, and that's doing harm to the whole Dash community. Why would you lie on something so obviously wrong?
Dash has nobody competent besides Evan now that vertoe has left!
I used the People Behind Monero page on the Monero website, https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people, and I researched all the people there. They are mostly people who have been in the cryptocurrency community for years. They've been on Bitcointalk since 2011-2013, except for NoodleDoodle and eizh that have only been on Bitcointalk since the beginning of 2014. On that page they also list 8 other developers who have contributed and they link to their github pages.
If you click on github contributors page link on that page it lists 25 contributors. Most of those contributors have contributed only to Monero. What I mean is if you look at the Dash github page, https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/graphs/contributors, the top 5 contributors are working on Bitcoin not on Dash, they don't even care about Dash. If you look on the Monero page there's only amjuares that worked on Bytecoin BCN and everyone else is a Monero developer. Even vertoe worked on Monero!
You are passionate about Dash but it is easy to see that Monero has quite a number of developers. I don't think it's good to compare Dash to Monero on that.
So I did some research on decentralization. My starting point was Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_system. That page has a very good description right at the beginning that I want to paste for you. 'A centralised system is one in which a central controller exercises control over the lower-level components of the system directly or through the use of a power hierarchy (such as instructing a middle level component to instruct a lower level component).' Doesn't that sound like MasterNodes?
I know your answer is going to be that MasterNodes don't 'exercise control' but they do. You've just said that they are going to influence performance, which is exercising control. And we definitely know that they act on behalf of Dash users when they are mixing. By that definition the Dash network is 'centralized' and I don't think it's right to argue it any other way.
The Wikipedia article continues, and I think its important to go over some of the sentences and contrast it with Dash and Bitcoin/Monero, because this is a Dash vs Monero thread.
'A decentralised system, on the other hand, is one in which complex behaviour emerges through the work of lower level components operating on local information, not the instructions of any commanding influence.'
In Dash the lower level components (nodes) don't operate on local information. They rely on the MasterNodes to exert control and provide information and provide structure.
'This form of control is known as distributed control, or control in which each component of the system is equally responsible for contributing to the global, complex behaviour by acting on local information in the appropriate manner.'
This is the clearest indication, for me, where we see that Dash is centralized. The components in Dash are not equal. MasterNodes have way more power than ordinary nodes, and that means they are controlling things.
There are other excellent points in that Wikipedia article but I think the point is clear, and that is that Dash is centralized, Bitcoin and Monero are not.
Dash and XMR are not comparable in their objectives.
One is implementing a functionally diverse form of decentralisation that is going to manage everything from anonymity to network quality control and performance while the other is no more than an an off-the-shelf technology for 'hiding transactions' shared by 20 other projects.
One is implementing a functionally diverse form of decentralisation that is going to manage everything from anonymity to network quality control and performance while the other is no more than an an off-the-shelf technology for 'hiding transactions' shared by 20 other projects.
You do the cryptography in Monero a disservice when you describe it as off-the-shelf. Ring signatures are not new cryptography but the application in Monero is definitely innovative.
I also haven't seen anything formal from Evan about "network quality control and performance", have you?
In my research I have also found a section on the Monero website that seems to describe a lot more than just 'technology for hiding transactions'. Have you seen that page? It's this one https://getmonero.org/design-goals/
One is compliant with the entire bitcoin legacy commercial infrastructure and APIs, the other isn't (whatever you think the merits of that are). One works like Bitcoin with recognisable procedures for managing blockchain addresses, transmitting funds, the other still doesn't even have a cross platform GUI wallet.
If I had to guess I'd say 99% of the merchants out there use Bitpay or Coinbase or one of the others for interacting with Bitcoin, so I am not sure this is much of a problem, if at all.
I also think it's very cheeky of you to make a statement like this as if attributing the API compatability or the Dash GUI wallet to Evan's hard work. You and I both know that he hasn't worked on any of that from scratch. Maybe we can give him credit for minor changes to the Bitcoin GUI.
One is the original anonymous-money project and is now consolidating and advancing the whole feature set, of which pre-emptive anonymisation is only one. The other is a one trick pony that will be banging the same drum for its existence in months and years to come.
See above.
One has a dev who adds value to the project day in day out according to a clearly defined roadmap that gets delivered on consistently. It's hard to know if the other has any devs at all.
Now you're just lying, toknormal, and that's doing harm to the whole Dash community. Why would you lie on something so obviously wrong?
Dash has nobody competent besides Evan now that vertoe has left!
I used the People Behind Monero page on the Monero website, https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people, and I researched all the people there. They are mostly people who have been in the cryptocurrency community for years. They've been on Bitcointalk since 2011-2013, except for NoodleDoodle and eizh that have only been on Bitcointalk since the beginning of 2014. On that page they also list 8 other developers who have contributed and they link to their github pages.
If you click on github contributors page link on that page it lists 25 contributors. Most of those contributors have contributed only to Monero. What I mean is if you look at the Dash github page, https://github.com/darkcoin/darkcoin/graphs/contributors, the top 5 contributors are working on Bitcoin not on Dash, they don't even care about Dash. If you look on the Monero page there's only amjuares that worked on Bytecoin BCN and everyone else is a Monero developer. Even vertoe worked on Monero!
You are passionate about Dash but it is easy to see that Monero has quite a number of developers. I don't think it's good to compare Dash to Monero on that.
As I pointed out in another thread, Dash is now starting to deliver the fruits of it's dual layer, service-oriented approach (they will be many) in the latest release which implements decentralised quality minimums for the network.
This is *proper* decentralisation folks - functional diversification. Not reproducing the same mono-dimensional robot operation a million times (thats called redundancy). The first ever cryptocurrency network that is going to check itself for quality and performance standards on an ongoing basis. (What flight computers do for example).
Although that's a pretty mundane feature from a user's point of view, it's the type of stuff that makes a network useable and practical which has been one of the highest priorities for the Dash project since its inception = 'make it useable'.
This is *proper* decentralisation folks - functional diversification. Not reproducing the same mono-dimensional robot operation a million times (thats called redundancy). The first ever cryptocurrency network that is going to check itself for quality and performance standards on an ongoing basis. (What flight computers do for example).
Although that's a pretty mundane feature from a user's point of view, it's the type of stuff that makes a network useable and practical which has been one of the highest priorities for the Dash project since its inception = 'make it useable'.
So I did some research on decentralization. My starting point was Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_system. That page has a very good description right at the beginning that I want to paste for you. 'A centralised system is one in which a central controller exercises control over the lower-level components of the system directly or through the use of a power hierarchy (such as instructing a middle level component to instruct a lower level component).' Doesn't that sound like MasterNodes?
I know your answer is going to be that MasterNodes don't 'exercise control' but they do. You've just said that they are going to influence performance, which is exercising control. And we definitely know that they act on behalf of Dash users when they are mixing. By that definition the Dash network is 'centralized' and I don't think it's right to argue it any other way.
The Wikipedia article continues, and I think its important to go over some of the sentences and contrast it with Dash and Bitcoin/Monero, because this is a Dash vs Monero thread.
'A decentralised system, on the other hand, is one in which complex behaviour emerges through the work of lower level components operating on local information, not the instructions of any commanding influence.'
In Dash the lower level components (nodes) don't operate on local information. They rely on the MasterNodes to exert control and provide information and provide structure.
'This form of control is known as distributed control, or control in which each component of the system is equally responsible for contributing to the global, complex behaviour by acting on local information in the appropriate manner.'
This is the clearest indication, for me, where we see that Dash is centralized. The components in Dash are not equal. MasterNodes have way more power than ordinary nodes, and that means they are controlling things.
There are other excellent points in that Wikipedia article but I think the point is clear, and that is that Dash is centralized, Bitcoin and Monero are not.
Still waiting for Manamina's reply to my previous argument...
Let me rephrase: Due to the nature of a transparent blockchain, there will always be associations with addresses, even if your concerned association is eliminated. People won't mix because they don't think they need to, or maybe they aren't aware of some illicit trade 80 transactions up-chain. Because of this, we will still see increasing use of blockchain analysis and increasing discrimination against transactors that leads to fungibility issues. The only way to eliminate this concern is through an entirely opaque block chain.
Let me rephrase: Due to the nature of a transparent blockchain, there will always be associations with addresses, even if your concerned association is eliminated. People won't mix because they don't think they need to, or maybe they aren't aware of some illicit trade 80 transactions up-chain. Because of this, we will still see increasing use of blockchain analysis and increasing discrimination against transactors that leads to fungibility issues. The only way to eliminate this concern is through an entirely opaque block chain.
Busy day, no time to post, just as well since I 'killed the thread'
Anyway, you made a great point here. I guess the answer is that DASH is optionally fungible. You can mix balances if you want and nobody can prove there is any association between your mixed addresses and someone else's. I agree this means users could forget and end up with dodgy associations by accident or whatever.
I also agree that XMR is more fungible....pretty much totally fungible! However, I don't think that what you originally said is true - i.e. that all DASH ends up tainted. There would be too much ambiguity in the blockchain introduced by widespread mixing. Blockchain analysis tools would frequently hit 'dead-ends'.
Okay. Then in my opinion, yes, it's probably fit for purpose right now. But as demand for blockchain analysis services increases, major fungibility issues will start to pop up. Of course this won't be provable until it actually happens.
Fair comment. The coin is still in development...will be interesting to see how these arguments stack up over time.
The astrophysics magnifier coenhances the posturality of the synposis reaching maturity stage before hand calling can be initiated...The impeccable grasp on the pre-hand calling vestification is also viable.
Will you marry me?
Regards,
Shitstain
Still waiting for Manamina's reply to my previous argument...
Let me rephrase: Due to the nature of a transparent blockchain, there will always be associations with addresses, even if your concerned association is eliminated. People won't mix because they don't think they need to, or maybe they aren't aware of some illicit trade 80 transactions up-chain. Because of this, we will still see increasing use of blockchain analysis and increasing discrimination against transactors that leads to fungibility issues. The only way to eliminate this concern is through an entirely opaque block chain.
Let me rephrase: Due to the nature of a transparent blockchain, there will always be associations with addresses, even if your concerned association is eliminated. People won't mix because they don't think they need to, or maybe they aren't aware of some illicit trade 80 transactions up-chain. Because of this, we will still see increasing use of blockchain analysis and increasing discrimination against transactors that leads to fungibility issues. The only way to eliminate this concern is through an entirely opaque block chain.
Busy day, no time to post, just as well since I 'killed the thread'
Anyway, you made a great point here. I guess the answer is that DASH is optionally fungible. You can mix balances if you want and nobody can prove there is any association between your mixed addresses and someone else's. I agree this means users could forget and end up with dodgy associations by accident or whatever.
I also agree that XMR is more fungible....pretty much totally fungible! However, I don't think that what you originally said is true - i.e. that all DASH ends up tainted. There would be too much ambiguity in the blockchain introduced by widespread mixing. Blockchain analysis tools would frequently hit 'dead-ends'.
Okay. Then in my opinion, yes, it's probably fit for purpose right now. But as demand for blockchain analysis services increases, major fungibility issues will start to pop up. Of course this won't be provable until it actually happens.
Fair comment. The coin is still in development...will be interesting to see how these arguments stack up over time.
I wonder how Illodin feels about that since from the quotes it appears that he was one of the people trying to get this mining up and running trying to be one of the first to insta-mine it.
I would not be happy if i was mislead like that. It seems that in this case Evan certainly did not keep his word at least not as it could have been reasonably understood from his posts.
I would not be happy if i was mislead like that. It seems that in this case Evan certainly did not keep his word at least not as it could have been reasonably understood from his posts.
A consequence of "more" redundant systems is an increase in probability of component errors, and in Dark's case having more components only increases probability of overall system failure.
When you plug up one hole the juice just squirts out another. You will always need more eye patches (see components).
A consequence of "more" redundant systems is an increase in probability of component errors, and in Dark's case having more components only increases probability of overall system failure.
bla bla bla
We have Monero for privacy, and we have Bitcoin for whatever dash is trying to do
I think DRK is a pump'n'dump like any other altcoin, I just don't see what i brings.
Dash and XMR are not comparable in their objectives.
One is implementing a functionally diverse form of decentralisation that is going to manage everything from anonymity to network quality control and performance while the other is no more than an an off-the-shelf technology for 'hiding transactions' shared by 20 other projects.
One is compliant with the entire bitcoin legacy commercial infrastructure and APIs, the other isn't (whatever you think the merits of that are). One works like Bitcoin with recognisable procedures for managing blockchain addresses, transmitting funds, the other still doesn't even have a cross platform GUI wallet.
One is the original anonymous-money project and is now consolidating and advancing the whole feature set, of which pre-emptive anonymisation is only one. The other is a one trick pony that will be banging the same drum for its existence in months and years to come.
One has a dev who adds value to the project day in day out according to a clearly defined roadmap that gets delivered on consistently. It's hard to know if the other has any devs at all.
As I pointed out in another thread, Dash is now starting to deliver the fruits of it's dual layer, service-oriented approach (they will be many) in the latest release which implements decentralised quality minimums for the network.
This is *proper* decentralisation folks - functional diversification. Not reproducing the same mono-dimensional robot operation a million times (thats called redundancy). The first ever cryptocurrency network that is going to check itself for quality and performance standards on an ongoing basis. (What flight computers do for example).
Although that's a pretty mundane feature from a user's point of view, it's the type of stuff that makes a network useable and practical which has been one of the highest priorities for the Dash project since its inception = 'make it useable'.
Enjoy !
Jump to: