Bitcoin Forum

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/622022840330682368

He forgot the part where Monero is a fork of Cryptonote and Risto instamined most of the coin.  Looks like Operation Bribe was a complete success!

There are cryptonote forks which have more innovative than Monero.

Yea so? Dash/Dark is also a fork of Bitcoin. Risto instamined? Lolz, dont lose your mind folks

Attacking Monero doesn't prove Dash any less snake oil, but thanks for providing proof of your real intent in regard to creating Monero spam threads.  ;) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1126649.0

If only it was just snakeoil.

https://www.deepdotweb.com/2015/07/16/pedophiles-launch-dash-darkcoin-mining-crowdfunding-platform/

Reaction from Dash community?

'It's a lie.  And Peter Todd is a poopy head!'

(Same DENY! DENY! DENY! response as Catholics...before the litigation started draining their coffers.)

Dash: the choice of child abusers and their see/hear/speak no evil apologist enablers).

Here's a spin: a dasher planted that story so the faithful could be beguiled into believing that dash is anonymous. The logic-for-dummies being, "If pedo's use it, it must be anonymous!" Distraction is a tool of marketers and this one can be refuted later when the Todd comments blow over.

Cognitive ignorance.

Peter Todd tells it like it is. It's still surprising to me that DASH supporters manage to jump on the bandwagon when they know the distribution was utterly ridiculous. If Satoshi had mined 50% of Bitcoin in 3 days then we'd all be on Litecointalk.org...

Or instamining such an amount would have become the standard practice and values would just be a lot lower. The only reason instamines are now shunned upon is because developpers that have this huge premines dont use them for what they said, instead they dump.

Instamines and other forms of narrow distributions have largely been shunned since the beginning of altcoins. There's no reason to support it, ever.

As someone who dislike both Dash and XMR, I find it hilarious that most people can only promote their supported coin by attacking the other.

.

The one thing Bitcoin doesn't really address is privacy. If users looking for privacy want the facts about what their best options are, there's no reason that these arguments shouldn't be had in a very public manner. If Peter Todd, who likely doesn't hold either XMR or DASH wants to weigh in on the best anoncoin and we want to discuss it, what's wrong with that?

The Kardashian sisters DASH boutique Store
http://boutiqueshoppingonline.com/dash-store-pictures (http://boutiqueshoppingonline.com/dash-store-pictures)

DASH: Dog Agility Sport Handlers
http://www.dashagility.com/ (http://www.dashagility.com/)

Dash is an online tutorial to help you learn HTML, CSS, and JavaScript and create websites from scratch
https://dash.generalassemb.ly/tumblr (https://dash.generalassemb.ly/tumblr)

How to Run a 200M Dash
http://www.wikihow.com/Run-a-200M-Das (http://www.wikihow.com/Run-a-200M-Das)h

DASH was developed to fight high blood pressure, will slim you down no worries
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?int=9be246 (http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-overall-diets?int=9be246)

Why be so Dash?
https://i.imgur.com/uQUHqdl.png

.

PGP: 0x7FAB114267E4FA04

"An avid Twitter user and conference regular, Todd has worked on everything from off-chain transactions and privacy-enhancing stealth addresses to '2.0' projects like Viacoin, Counterparty and coloured coins."
http://www.coindesk.com/video-core-developer-peter-todd-bitcoins-future/

LOL

why so many coins? can i say peter todd is a snake oil dumb moron for involving with many scam coins?

this guy is a joke

Peter Todd is right. DASH is a joke. No serious cryptography expert endorses it over Monero and cryptonote

Satoshi still holds an absurd amount of Bitcoins, 7% of the supply.

There is not a human being alive that even comes close to owning 7% of any world currency or commodity.

If Bitcoin became the world's reserve currency tomorrow, Satoshi would be the wealthiest man in history.

Evan lied about the difficulty algorithm and the retroactively cut the max coin supply after his massive fastmine

Satoshi did none of that and was honest all along

I'm not accusing Satoshi of anything, although I do think early Bitcoin rewards were overly generous. I think though his massive stash is something of an economic risk but I think for the most part he no longer has access to the coins.

Yes, it's called "marketing". Everyone wants to ride the coat tails of the market leader.

What do you mean 'why so many coins?'? The only 'coin' listed there is VIA. Unless you want to consider Counterparty a 'coin' even though it's Bitcoin 2.0 tech built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain. It does have it's own token though, so it's debatable. Even so, that's only two projects he consulted on of that type, neither of which are scams.

I agree with Peter Todd

LOL. Dash isn't anonymous, that was Peter's point. You're holding that anonymity spot for us. Keep it warm.  ;)

And? No serious cryptography expert would endorse Monero and cryptonote over the plethora of over options.

This just boils down to the old "my shit is better than their shit" argument.

Except Peter Todd who recommended Monero over Dash in these very tweets.

And you might take a peek at the addresses in Greg Maxwell's profile
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=11425

Wow. You're seriously uninformed.

Well, I'm just wondering what will happen when the paedophiles realize all of this and switch to monero? Will iCEBREAKER and TrueCryptonaire crying in every monero topics around because of this? ...or they will be happy to see more monero fans on board :)?

Not to mention Wladimir J van der Laan (Bitcoin Core) who has also been working on the Monero codebase recently.

I honestly don't know what it is about the Dash cult. I'm not sure if they even know what cryptography is. They don't seem to be clued up about anything at all.

Nope, just saying that both DRK/DASH and XMR are two equally shitty coins in a boxing match over who is supposedly the least shitty.

Yes there is an XMR address in his profile.

You wont find any BTC core team members with a DASH address in their profile. That would be embarrassing!

if you don't want to call counterparty as a scam coin then we can call this a scam asset. it's involving money and trading. plus those other coloured coins/assets.
peter todd is bitter at evan duffield for not giving him credential for using his shitty coinjoin
darkcoin is a 50% premined scam coin and evan duffield once worth over $25million, i guessed he didn't want to give some of his wealth to original creator so this bitter was started

Reread the post. Peter Todd calls Monero, "genuine crypto" in the initial post and "good crypto" in a later post. Nowhere does he call it shitty, bad, or any other negative word. So unless you are saying you know more than Peter about what makes a cryptocurrency good, you should sit down.

Did I say Peter Todd called Monero shitty? I don't think I did. Just because Peter Todd says Monero is good, doesn't make it good. It's more likely that XMR will have a good run, hell it will certainly have a better run than the majority of coins produced.

But does this mean XMR isn't a shitcoin? No, in fact it'll be reduced to the same level as DRK/DASH and all of the other "anonymous" coins as soon as something better comes out.

The bolded part implies that Peter's comments were only representative of his opinion of dash vs. monero and not the coins overall. If this isn't what you meant, you need to write more clearly. If it does, you are incorrect as i pointed out. Your backtracking to all anon coins will be replaced therefore all anon coins are shitty is absurd--it is the equivalent of saying all sports cars are shitty because they will be replaced by newer sports cars one day. If i want the best anonymity/privacy today, your generalized judgement would have me waiting for eternity as something better will always come along. Thankfully I'm smart enough to get the best anonymity today and will get the best anonymity a year from now--if it changes--when it is available a year from now.

It'll be down to around 5% by 2025. Still, it's a significant amount of holdings and I imagine that if Bitcoin ever becomes something like a world reserve currency that Satoshi will setup some sort of charitable organization, similar to what Gates or Buffet did with their wealth.

This claim is not hart to rebut.
How many coins have been anonymized the past 24h, last week, last month and in total?

That's faulty reasoning and you ignore Peter's analysis at your own peril. Once a theoretical attack happens, it will be too late for those engaged in the system--like a snake oil salesman pointing to his healthy assistant as proof that his oil is the real-deal and will solve your problems. Meanwhile traces of asbestos in the magic potion are giving long term users cancer.

Masternodes add an attack vector and any cryptographer worth a damn will point out that these systems are fragile enough without adding things that will complicate their workings until the point they don't work as intended. *A month back, I calculated that 95% of masternodes were concentrated on corporate hosting sites within the borders of 5 countries--all friendly and most likely willing to share data on something as abhorrent as pedophiles mining a coin for illicit use-- this is only one attack vector available.  Maybe instead of saying he's wrong because there isn't yet proof that the coin has been compromised, you could ask him to document his findings and pay him for his time.

* https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077613.0

Thanks for that link, looks like the reward of running a masternode has gone up from $40/month to $56/month on average since then.

Must be that sweet pedo money rolling in. Guess we'll see when the feds get interested.  ;)

Dash is not in competition with Monero, which is not a cryptocurrency, was not designed as a cryptocurrency and is unlikely to ever perform a cryptocurrency role other than as a minority speculative asset (as it is does right now).

Monero (or the original design specification (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm) that characterises cryptonote's behaviour) is a cryptographic record keeping system designed to track money in a bank. What some fly developer decided to do (wittingly or unwittingly) is lift the template for the record keeping system, ditch the bank and try to get away with calling the residual cryptographic transport mechanism "money".

The Nature of Money is Not Obscurity
Contrary to what a lot of cryptographic programmers come-self-appointed-monetary-analysts assert, privacy (in the sense of hiding transactions) is not an integral part of any "money like good". It is the domain of record keeping for such.

Metals, Coal and even Paper cash do not have privacy "buit into them". They have fungibility which supports anonymity amongst its holders. The records that track the transactions for such "money like goods" are private and may (as in the case of bank accounts) in fact be referred to as 'money' but they are not the money, they are just the records.

Obscurity - A Bookkeeping Concept
In the case of cryptocurrency, there is no intermediate counterparty holding records on your behalf. (If there was, a system like cryptonote might still be of some use). Cryptocurrency therefore re-orders the priorities of monetary transparency and record keeping privacy such that latter becomes the domain of the holder and not the monetary media itself. This is what allows bitcoin to be defined as base money as opposed to a mere record keeping system.

Anonymity - A "Visible Cash" Concept
What IS important in cryptocurrency, however, is fungibility - as everyone keeps raging about. Improving fungibility enhances the performance of any money-like-good as a cash medium. Coal is pretty fungible. You could watch a shipment of coal arrive at the port without reasonably distinguishing it from any other shipment. But you wouldn't improve the fungibility by hiding the shipment altogether - you'd simply be sowing doubt about the its existence and destroying coal's suitability as a monetary medium.

Dash does not try to do this. It is possibly the only cryptocurrency project right now that has all the design priorities of blockchain-based money in the right balance.

Who Has the Right Design Goals ?
Dash hasn't thrown the baby out with the bathwater like sidechains does (by ruining bitcoin's fungibility and mobility - two fundamental properties of good money (http://contrarianinvestorsjournal.com/?p=391)) or by reverting the blockchain back to a mere bookkeeping system as cryptonote does. Instead of such car crash, ill thought through sledghammer approaches, it adds a little bit of salt, in a minimally invasive way to the existing bitcoin architecture while extracting huge gains from the result. In other words, it doesn't hide the coal shipments, it just makes the piles of coal less 'lumpy' and perfectly fungible.

Peter Todd may have had a weak technical case if Dash and Monero had been trying to solve the same problem. They are not. Cryptonote is solving the wrong problem (https://sage-exchange.co.uk/resources/sage-one/online-security) - one that's associated with its original role as a record keeping system. You can't just take a cryptographic banking system, throw away the bank and call it money. (You can fool some of the people...).

Dash, on the other hand, is addressing a genuine monetary property - i.e. solving the "right problem" without adversely impacting any other characteristic of bitcoin's almost-perfect design.

https://i.imgur.com/XXwF3yA.png

Toknormal you have not the slightest clue how the technology works. The NSA document you linked bears no resemblance at all to how cryptonote works.

In fact cryptonote works almost exactly the same way as Bitcoin or Dash, but with different formats for addresses and signatures, while the document you linked works nothing like Bitcoin and discusses almost exclusively Chaum's e-cash schemes that preceded Bitcoin both chronologically and as a matter of fundamental design iteration (specifically the major advance of Bitcoin, and retained in both Dash and cryptonote, was to remove the bank function that you are confused about).

You would do your cause good to actually learn something about the design of what it is you are flailing around trying to criticize and avoid citing documents that are not only off-base from a technical perspective, but bear exactly the same relationship to Dash as they do to Monero in terms of technical lineage.


This is fundamentally wrong. Physical money is inherently private in that only the parties transacting have knowledge of the transaction (unless they choose to share that knowledge). Bitcoin removed this privacy by making all transactions public to every third party in the world. More private systems like Dash and Monero try to restore the original property of being private-by-default. Peter Todd has his opinion about which is more of a valid solution, as do both of us. Two of those opinions are well-informed.

He doesn't understand how cash works either. He wants us all to live our digital lives without the wallet blindness afforded us by a leather wallet. He thinks all account balances should be public and on display for governments, mobsters, hackers, business competitors and our wives--Tok doesn't even get why people wouldn't want this public knowledge--he's a fucking moron or so deluded with his fantasy of dash becoming THE global currency that he misses the whole point of an anon coin--hiding shit when you want, showing shit when you want.

Nothing would please me (or my wallet) more than for you to convince me of your case, since I could pick up nearly 5 times the amount of Monero for a given holding of Dash.

Somehow though...  :-[

Maybe I'll just have to resign myself to the fact that I'm just "ignorant" as smooth  alludes to or a "moron" as Generlize says, and will have to consign myself to eternal poverty from now on  ;)

(P.S. It's the public who ultimately decides what is money and what isn't. If you're trying to define and pass of mere 'balances' as money then a public blockchain is a public blockchain. "Obscure" it at your peril).

I wrote moron or deluded by greed (cognitive dissonance).

We obscure cash every day in our wallets. People decided that, they actually created a thing to hide their money in because they either liked the privacy or thought they needed it--in your backwards dashworld, people are wearing their cash around their necks.

Never mind.

I'm sure the discerning public will understand your logic, even if I don't  ;)

I'm interested in the discussion about what makes money money. Two questions:


I'm not sure I understood the point here and I think that is making it more difficult to get the rest of your discussion. Can you elaborate a bit?


What specific problems result from obscuring the blockchain? Why does hiding transactions make something less like money? (and for the Monero people here, is this actually what Monero does? If not, please explain why so that someone with limited familiarity with Monero or cryptography could understand.)

I don't know what toknormal is talking about with the 'bank' business, and I doubt he does either.

Monero does two relevant things differently from Bitcoin:

1. It automatically creates a new address for each payment using stealth addresses. This would be the same as Bitcoin if people didn't reuse addresses (or use one one of the wallets for Bitcoin that support stealth addresses). This prevents linking multiple payments to the same recipient (since each uses a different address).

2. It signs transactions (spending an output) using ring signatures rather than regular signatures. Ring signatures cryptographically guarantee that one of the private key holders signed it, but don't reveal which it was. This prevents tracing of payments since there are multiple candidate sources for each payment.

Other than that it works the same as Bitcoin in terms of how it handles transactions (there are other differences such as different PoW, not having a fixed block size limit, etc. but those aren't relevant here). There is no bank, no bookkeeping, and none of the other nonsense toknormal was rambling about.

It's to do with how you define "base money" as opposed to derivatives of base money. If you are a plumber and offer to do work for me in exchange for my bike, the "bike" forms the base money for the transaction. If then later I give you an IOU for the bike because you wanted to collect it later, the IOU becomes the money instead, but it is not the "base money" - the bike is. It lies at the end of a chain of trust which now comprises paper IOU as well as the bike.

We consider a fiat bank account to be "money" since it can be exchanged for goods. But it is actually just a number in an account which is backed by base money - (ultimately 'debt' which in turn represents some other person's future contribution to the economy). Gold shares that are traded on the stock exchange are not "base money", they are secondary derivatives (like the IOU). The gold is sitting in the vault and doesn't physically change hands but represents the "base money" for the transaction.

When is comes to "privacy" in the traditional world it is a distinct concept from "fungibility". Privacy manifests itself in the accounting for base money (in this respect, I equate a fiat bank account to a bookeeping function which tracks it's holders call on a common pool of debt - the debt which acts as the 'base money' for the economy).

Cryptocurrency portends to re-invent the concept of 'base money'. It is a base monetary medium that is not backed by anything. It is anonymous (because unlike a fiat bank account, it is not directly associated with an individual / legal entity). The way the Satoshi model is designed uses a type of public / private key approach to allow individuals to hold and transfer cryptocurrency without loss of anonymity and - more importantly as far as the 'integrity of base money' argument goes - without impacting on its transparency.

If you're going to design a new form of base money, you would do well to start with the properties of money and implement these as faithfully as possible. There is a broad level of agreement on what they are:

http://contrarianinvestorsjournal.com/?p=391#
http://www.amosweb.com/cgi-bin/awb_nav.pl?s=wpd&c=dsp&k=money+characteristics
http://blog.milesfranklin.com/the-seven-characteristics-of-money
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money

Note that "privacy" (as in "obscurity") features nowhere amongst them. Even the word privacy barely appears. If you're designing new money therefore, you need to decide if you're building the wallet or the contents. Cruptonote has done the former at the expense of the latter and that's why Dash isn't pursuing this route. Instead it has faithfully supported the public blockchain while at the same time addressing fungibility improvements directly.

Contrary to what Monero proponents like to promote, bitcoin IS a fully anonymous currency. Any information about who happened to be on the other end of a transaction has to be gleaned from OUTSIDE the blockchain. In this sense, it's exactly the same as paper cash - if you hand me a 100 dollar note, I can clearly associate that 100 dollar note with you. The amount of information you can glean about the people controlling the movements is mitigated by maximising the fungibility of the base-monetary media (which, as I've explained, is exactly what Dash is doing).

On the other hand, obfuscation of the blockchain is attaching a priority to the base monetary media that does not belong there - and particularly not in a new digital medium that portends to function as base money.

That type of obfuscation alludes to two incorrect appraisals of what cryptocurrency is:

[1] - a form of money where an address corresponds to a person as a bank account does (it doesn't any more than a lump of gold does)

[2] - a record keeping system backed by some other 'base money'

The 'public blockchain' is therefore an essential element of anthing that portends to act as 'base money' as opposed to a record keeping system which is backed by such.

I described this more fully in this post (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg11035761#msg11035761) from earlier this year.

Who the fack is Peter Tudd?
So what crypto coin is not snake oil?
lmao
so boring :D

~CfA~

What is being stated about DASH is that its methods of "addressing fungibility improvements directly" are unsound. So unsound in fact as to deserve the term "snake oil."

Nowhere in your links for the definition of money is it stated that a requirement for being considered base money is that it have a public accounting system. Gold does not have a universal directory of past transactions. Nor does cash. You have not explained why it is essential or even preferential for a currency to have this property, and none of your links claim it to be necessary in their definitions.


What if I mail it?

This thread is about dash, but since you mention monero, there is a function called 'viewkey' which performs the exact function you claim it is not capable of.



Dash's methods of "maximising the fungibility of the base-monetary media" is what is being claimed to be unsound.



By your own definitions, obfuscation of the blockchain actually IS a requirement to be considered money. Fungibility (aka consistency) happens to be a requirement. Dash's unsound attempts to be fungible happen on a volountary basis. Unmixed coins used to buy CP are not the same as coins that have been mixed. By their taint they carry properties the mixed coins do not. The same goes for unmixed coins used for non-nefarious purposes. The point is that they are not consistent.



This is what you have not explained....

E-Peen Battle



https://i.imgur.com/d4cMdmd.jpg

Toknormal's description of how Cryptonote works or what is required for money to work was not legitimate.  With his pictures, he seemed to even imply that central bankers are needed for money to function at all.  Is this guy shilling?

He's trying to rationalize dash is better than bitcoin and monero at the things bitcoin and monero are best at. Bitcoin is the world's largest most secure decentralized clear blockchain. Monero is the world's largest and most secure decentralized opaque blockchain. He thinks (or wants us to believe)that masternodes are the preferred bridge between these two networks, but refuses to see (or admit) masternodes for what they really are: middlemen who can be bought and have control over the network they are supposed to decentralize and secure--so yeah, he is actually replacing bankers with masternodes and saying it is a good thing. Good for him and the other dash bagholders, bad for anyone who wants decentralization and/or privacy.

I don't think any of you are able to digest and understand what Toknormal is saying. You are ideologically blind.  I do hope that lightbulb moment will come to you some day.  In the mean time, Toknormal, you are the most eloquent at explaining this, and thus, you must continue to try, because this is of foundational importance. 

Please explain.


No, I think he is saying that they are required specifically when "money" is backed by debt. If money = gold (and only gold), then no central bankers are needed.

This article (https://mises.org/library/our-money-based-debt) helped me understand how that works.


However, that raises a few other question for me. Monero (or other related coins) is not based on debt; it has a blockchain. Why does making transactions invisible lead to a lack of confidence that it is actually "money" based on something rather than just a ledger?

Here is an abridged version of toknormal's answer to this question from the thread he linked earlier:



Firstly, if people are using Monero, or something similar, to buy things in the real world, doesn't that make it visible in the sense of the picture above? The important thing for people to know is that it can and is being used by people in the real world to purchase things. (Or are you saying that we will never get to that point? If so, why?)  The only part missing is the claim that value is maximized when "money" is fully auditable, but why is that a requirement?

Secondly, it's not clear to me how scams, heists and deceptions suddenly arise out of hiding which addresses are responsible for transactions.

I can digest it, but it sits in my head the same way Thetans do when Tom Cruise waxes idiotic.

One of the hallmarks of eloquence is condensing large ideas into the smallest format available. This is what makes poetry so powerful and good speeches so short. When Shakespeare said, "Brevity is the soul of wit." He was saying wit with both its humorous and intellectual properties intact--adding example to meaning--Tok is about as eloquent as he is witty.

in the end, you have to fully trust that the cryptography is protecting the blockchain, as there is no outside way to verify that after the fact.  That is the main issue Tok is talking about.  And although we think today that the cryptography is impossible to break, well, remember Bill Gates purportedly said 640KB of memory "ought to be enough for anybody."?  Every computer on anyone's desktop and every smart phone out there is a super computer, almost a quantum computer to one from those days.  What makes you think the cryptography wont be broken once quantum computers start to really take off?

Finally, when studying this site: https://cryptonote.org/inside, and I admit, I may not be seeing this correctly, but it seems to me that the elaborate ring signatures system only introduces as much doubt as to who the transaction belongs to as DarkSend does.  I can see that you can use as many people as you like to insert doubt (the example uses 3, which is the default number used by DS) and you could use 10, 20, 50 ring signature participant, as you could with mixing.  I don't see an advantage.  Each ring signature comes at a cost, as each one must be stored.

Yet DS's results insert just as much doubt about who spent the funds, without fancy cryptography that could be broken at some point in the future, and keeps the blockchain easily verifiable to anyone at any time.  It is completely future proof.  As Albert Einstein said, as simple as possible but no simpler.

As for what Tok is trying to say here (I believe, I could be getting him wrong, hate to put words in people's mouths) is that cryptonote was designed initially to be used with a central authority that holds the "keys".  Throwing those keys away only makes it impossible for anyone, not even a central authority to verify what happened, inside or outside of the blockchain.  The cryptography must be trusted, which kills the whole concept of trustless.  Thus his constant harping on illegitimatizing the blockchain.

Okay well that's totally wrong.


This totally misunderstands the concept of a blockchain. To verify a blockchain (even Bitcoin) requires cryptography. Unless you rely on cryptography, you could easily be given some fake bunch of data that looks like a blockchain but is actually nonsense.

No, not really.  I can follow the coins all the way back to when they were created.  I can do that with my own eyes, following the account numbers.  Nothing is obscured, even when mixing the coins, breaking them up into exact denominations, etc...  This is how Bitcoin works, this is how DASH works.

Actually, there is no way that you could call DASH snake oil, that is ridiculous.  It is simple, it does what it says it will do, it doesn't take anything other than simple math to understand the odds of guessing the owner of the coins.  Simple to understand, simple to implement (with a double network) simple to protect from attack.  I can understand it fully, deeply.  I can not glean all the information from cryptonote to see with my own eyes that all is true and correct.  Therefore I refuse to trust it, simply because I have to trust it.

You can follow the coins back how? By looking at gigabytes of 1s and 0s? Or by using a chain explorer which is connected to a node, which in turn only knows it is receiving valid information from anonymous people on the internet by verifying the cryptography? I'm pretty sure it is the latter

Are you serious?  Are you not familiar with the Bitcoin block explorers?  This example below is how you follow a coin back in time, on a DASH explorer:

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/661/V8SzAI.png (https://imageshack.com/i/idV8SzAIp)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/537/7xUoJy.png (https://imageshack.com/i/ex7xUoJyp)
http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/901/61zi5u.png (https://imageshack.com/i/p161zi5up)

I can continue this process with any coin, until I find the block / blocks where they were first created, as a block reward, and I can do this manually with the help of a block explorer to organize the information, and I can check how the information is disseminated on the web page by looking at it's code.

You added that last bit, yes, the explorer, which is easily read.  It is indeed served up by anonymous people who check it via cryptography, to verify that the Proof of Work was done at every block.  These anonymous people come to a single consensus, yes, true.  HOWEVER, the LEDGER that is the blockchain, is easily readable right back to the creation of the coin, so you can see clearly the coin's integrity.

Sometimes I'm blown away by comments like these, I wonder how people say thing so stupid.



1) monero is a cryptocurrency and it has the following characteristics.
    a) decentralized nodes that anyone can run, each independent nodes can independently verify the entire blockchain
    b) decentralized payment protocol based on committing signed to be rolled into blocks
    c) decentralized currency generation and block minting blocks through a distributed proof-of-something that anyone can do
2) also Dash kind of really is in competition with monero. If you look at total -> coins in circulation * price <- the market cap difference is actually pretty close. Dash marketcap is artificially fluffed by counting dash that is parked. However its worth noting that Dash has much more volume
    a) Dash marketcap = 3.66usd/dash * (~5,6,000,000 total supply - ( ~2700 masternodes * 1000) = $10,614,000 usd
    b) Monero marketcap = 0.52usd/xmr * 8,600,000 = $4,472,000 usd
    c) Bytecoin marketcap = 0.000049usd/byt * 174,500,000,000 total supply = $8,550,500 usd
    
ie the difference between marketcap bytecoin vs dash is less than 20% adjusted for parking

there are of course many other metrics to consider however i demonstrate that runner ups are within a reasonable distance to be taken seriously



Not only are you totally wrong. you are linking to an article that has to do with chaumian based digital cash. ie the precursor to cryptocurrency. You see bitcoin and its alcoins as well have cryptonote based coins have something called a blockchain. The blockchain is a decentralized ledger which takes the place of the third party used in traditional banking system.


this flyby developer only known by his pseudonym "satoshi nakamoto" happens to have developed the underlying technology the so called "residual cryptographic transport mechanism"  in his 2008 white paper Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

you may not like it but it kind of plays an important part in all cryptocurrencies including dash. ;)

Please show me you can do the same on your blockchain, which I can't see how to do, and then I'll be satisfied that monero is trustless.  Otherwise, I'll never be a fan :)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1126927.msg11919237#msg11919237

except that cryptonote uses a decentralized ledger where all users control the keys and sign messages that get rolled into blocks and chained togeather. ie a blockchain

http://moneroblocks.eu/

Not just verifying the proof of work, the signatures need to be verified as well, otherwise those blocks might contain invalid transactions making your coins worthless. That's hard core cryptography using actual math. It is essentially the same situation as crytponote, just slightly different math.

Yes, that is a cryptonote block explorer, but what you can not show me is the hash that the coins previously came from, because it's hidden.  you can't tell what the "names" of the coins are going back to their creation.  The "name" or account number, changes whenever the original coin is broken up, merged or changes hands.  In XMR, this information is completely lost and not stored on the blockchain.  I can't see it, I have to trust in cryptography.  If anything goes wrong, nobody would ever know.  And at it's worst, if computers ever get strong enough, which is quite possible with quantum computers on the horizon, all transactions will lose their privacy, the very reason for all this convoluted mess.

I don't trust this system.  I can't see it and verify it.  What good is it for everything to be hidden completely, to the point where you have to trust that it is working?

With a simple, understandable system that fully protects the privacy of the user,  yet requires no trust - as was always the whole point of the decentralized crypto currency of Bitcoin - DASH is not more superior due to it's complexity, but due to it's simplicity.  If you're such a technocrat that you don't understand this, I can only feel bad for you because the majority of the world will.

Whereas Bitcoin and Monero miners and payment processors can't be bought and controller, nor Monero coins borrowed and amassed to produce large amounts of ouputs to reduce the anonymity set.

You don't understand what the concept of 'no trust' means. It means that you can verify the cryptography yourself on your own computer, generally using a program (although in theory you could do it by hand on paper). Without doing that you have no way to do know that a blockchain (be it Dash or Bitcoin or Monero) is valid. Once you do that, you do know it is valid.

It especially does NOT mean that you trust masternodes to not reveal the mixing they are doing for you, and without that Dash is no better than Bitcoin terms of privacy. It is either not trustless or completely worthless.

Smooth has covered this with you and the other dashtards on multiple occasions. I need to save it so i can copy and paste it to your foreheads. Not that it makes dash any less snake oily.

LOL. Here's the attack vector Evan created out of ignorance, stupidity or pure not giving a fuck.

The easiest attack is to buy masternodes and ddos attack competing nodes until you own the traffic. Evan claims it's financially implausible, but ignores that nodes are most profitable when there about a 1,000 masternodes (he has a ROI graphic on the dash BCT thread that underscores this). He also ignores that the attacker would be pulling incomes from these masternodes--given that most are held on corporate servers underlies that no one knows who owns them outside of the host and the owner. He also ignores how motivated an attacker may be, that he or another masternode operator might comply given the right circumstances (threat or lawful compliance) and how deep LE's pockets are--silly, dangerous, stupid.

If you trust that system knowing the flaws, you deserve whatever comes your way--except maybe being linked to pedophiles--can you show that link on your explorer?

To state it simply, creating outputs has an inherent cost since it consumes a non-renewable resource (block space). The design is carefully constructed so even miners or someone working in collusion with miners can't create unlimited outputs without incuring that cost, and can really only create a linear number of outputs over time. Even a high but limited number of sybil outputs does not significantly reduce anonymity because of the exponential explosion of tracing paths. (I've given numerical examples before, I won't repeat them here.)

An attacker trying do to this will need to compete with regular users for block space and therefore incur a cost proportional to the share of the outputs created. This in turn is likely to be pointless for the reason stated in the last sentence. As with most good cryptography, you have a linear function competing with an exponential function. The exponential wins.

Then why are none of these attacks working?  We're #4 on coin market cap.  You think we're not being attacked?  Aside from monero's verbal attacks, you think there aren't hackers out there trying to attack our network?  We're over a year and a half old, we've been attacked, we solved those issues within hours each time.  Proof is in the pudding.  Good luck with that.

There are known attacks on Bitcoin that aren't happening, such as spending money to buy hash rate, the NSA using its own semiconductor facilities to build ASICs (or paying Intel to do it - something even much smaller governments could do since they too have secret contracts with major corporations), or a small number of pools working together, or being hacked and then used together, or even selfish mining. There are also more exotic attacks that have been published recently that also work. None of these happen in practice largely because all of crypto is tiny, and major attacks won't come until it is much larger.

#4 cmc sounds all impressive but it is less than 1% of the size of #1 (probably even less than that in terms of actual use), and #1 is still very small relative to finance generally.

Attacks will come in time. Now is the time to choose the strongest systems and continue working to strengthen defenses.

In cryptonote, I still can't verify it with logic, therefore I will not trust it.  That's all I have to say on it, I'm going to go back to my hole.  I can see your point, that you are willing to trust.  This is a philosophical difference, a difference in what we value to be important.  In this case, the argument can never be resolved.  Good day to you :)

DOS'ing masternodes doesn't reduce the anonymity set of the transactions or coins mixed before the DOS. If the masternode count drops 50% for example all of a sudden, mixing coins at that moment is not a good idea. It was already suggested a year ago or so that the wallet would take care of this and protect the user during the network downtime. It hasn't been implemented yet afaik, DASH must grow at least 100x at minimum before this (an appearance of such a motivated attacker) would become even a possibility.

That's all very nice but none of that changes the fact that Pater Todd says that Dash is snake oil, and I agree with him.

If you don't like Monero, then don't use it. Maybe stick with Bitcoin or look for something else. Stay away from Dash Oil.

I'd say more like 1000x (even 100x wouldn't get to Bitcoin's size, and Bitcoin isn't attacked all that hard) but the problem is that these issue are unfixable without a complete redesign.

The anonymity set attributable to the masternodes is unknowable because you don't know, can't know, and will never know to what extent the masternodes are compromised. The best you can do is run a few masternodes yourself (assuming you are rich enough to afford it; in the unlikely event that Dash were really successful the masternodes would all be owned by billionaires or major corporations or governments), but unlike running your own Bitcoin or Monero node, that doesn't really help you because you are only going to be a tiny fraction of the network. What the rest of the network and the underlying infrastructure is doing (and on which your privacy depends) is unknowable to you.

That's quite close to the definition of snake oil, being a potion of unknown composition which is alleged by its promoters to be helpful but can't be tested or verified for safety or efficacy.

Holy shit. A philosophical difference? When did we stop talking about cryptography and mathematics and start talking about your "feelings". I am simply blown away at how silly you people are. On one hand you are saying that you cant trust a coin with an opaque blockcoin on the other hand darksend makes coins opaque. Please explain this to us me. I just dont get it.

You don't trust cryptonote because... you cant verify it with logic!!?!?!? Its an open source computer program based on a public blocchain where EVERY full node verifies the data independently , its 100% mathematical logic. I'm sorry to say but this is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.

DDOS is to control the majority of nodes, not to directly reduce the anonymity set--though by doing so while monitoring the nodes you posses would break anonymity--which was my point. Nice suggestion, but wouldn't an attacker take control of the nodes before any measures were taken, while it was cheapest, and while they could gain the most info for the longest time without raising any red flags? Also, you still have no measure in reality or in the works to stop an organization from using coercion or compliance to motivate a node operator to turn over data--this is even better since the whatevermine granted the first users such a large stash of coins and the masternodes are most likely concentrated in a few hands. But here's the big problem: masternodes are human controlled intermediaries that perform important functions. Whatever breaks dash's anonymity will happen because you trust this moronic system that is begging to be broken. You are playing a game of whack-a-mole and apparently no one in dashland has the theoretical capability to see it or the moral compass to speak up. Snake oil.

Of course I don't like nor use nor ever bought Monero, no worries.  Also, Peter Todd is a child and a technocrat.  I don't put any credence to his name calling whatsoever, it's silly.  I'm not looking for anything, I found it January 18, 2014 and have only bought/sold Bitcoin to interface with fiat.  I'm a complete DASH cheerleader, as I've always admitted to, and you know me.  However, anyone that wants to understand better, can at least see an opposing view here, though this is only a silly name calling thread to pat yourselves on the back with.

By guys, you're going back on ignore, LOL :)

Yea I edited the 10x to 100x like 5 seconds after I posted it. :)

It wouldn't necessarily need a complete redesign to shut that attack vector. All that's needed is to prevent the mixing masternode from knowing which outputs (of the mixing transaction) belong together with which inputs. The mixing peers could do a key exchange and encrypt their own outputs with random mixing peer's public key, and decrypt the others' outputs they can using their private key, and then pass clear text outputs to the mixing masternode.

I wouldn't rule a complete redesign out either - the "decentralized blockchain governance" funding system will allow anyone to suggest a project that needs funding, and perhaps someone will suggest a new design and if the project gets voted it gets the funding. As this thread is as much about Monero as it's about DASH - maybe some Monero devs might want to earn some money on the side and suggest they can implement CN blockchain for DASH for $20k for example and then have the funds to continue Monero development. ;)  Obviously if DASH grows 10x, 100x, or 1000x before that becomes relevant, then add appropriate number of zeros to the $20k example number.

Or perhaps something entirely different - the future is wide open.

Trustless verses trust is at the root of Bitcoin.  Centralized Banks and their ilk, vs a decentralized trustless networks.  Monero works ulitmately like a trusted central authority, it is opposite, no matter how much fancy mathematics is included, to what Bitcoin achieved.  So any argument as to which is best is indeed philosophical.

I can't follow where the coins came from without cryptography.  Everything is hidden.  The ledger does not exist, only a chain of cryptography.  As Toknormal always says, it's throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Now I feel like we're just repeating ourselves.  This means you are not really reading what I wrote, and that means this is futile.

Monero works like a trustless (human trutless/mathematical proven) decentralized cryptographical system. Saying it any other way is lying.

Good luck getting the votes, LOL

Then stop wasting our time and learn cryptography.

Monero only requires trusting proven cryptographic techniques.  Anyone may (with logic) verify this: https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

Dash requires trusting third parties in the form of Masternodes and THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.

"Trusted third parties are a security hole. (http://szabo.best.vwh.net/ttps.html)"  - Nick Szabo 2001

So a chain of cryptographic signatures rolled into blocks is bad... as the basic structure of all blockchains even including dash. or is it specifically cryptography that you don't understand?

specifically what kind of cryptography is not logical?

+1

you fail to understand that cryptography is the building blocks of all -> CRYPTOcoins <- including dash. Its in the name ;)

Or they could do all this without masternodes at all, as is being done with Bitcoin-based mixing systems, so again, Dash and masternodes are pointless. One of the original criticisms of Dash from Greg Maxwell (inventor of CoinJoin) is that the whole purpose of CoinJoin was that it can work directly on top of Bitcoin. Dash missed this point entirely, in pursuit of an instamine and speculative gains. If you are going to create a whole new system, there are better ways of doing mixing (cryptonote being one of them, which was first proposed by satoshi, CT from Blockstream being the first building block of another)


Okay great. At that point, we can discuss whether or not that complete redesign is also snake oil.

Oh look, THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION INC's slow witted lawyer finally got them to take down the most blatant example (http://darkcoin.guide/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/masternode_payment_plan.png) of their HYIP attributes!

Unfortunately for them, it's still in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601003557/http://darkcoin.guide/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/masternode_payment_plan.png

Also, fluffypony's Epic Domination Post: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/cpmvogy

Explain to me how I can trust a cryptographic algorithm that says a coin is indeed valid and was created properly and that nothing malicious has happened, though none of that information is visible or verifiable on the blockchain.  Explain to me how I can know this.  Not in theory, but in unbreakable proofs.  Perhaps the cryptography has indeed kept the coins true, but how do I know bad information, extra coins, a super block payout can not happen?  How do I know this, I can't verify the validity of any of these coins except to accept what the cryptography says is spendable at that moment in time.

And by the way, your response is extremely rude.  If you can't converse but only attack, you should shut it.  Knowing how to do a cryptographical proof has nothing to do with knowing how to properly and usefully apply that proof in a system. (I can do the first, but am open to the fact I'm wrong about the second)  I see a hole I can't trust. I'm asking for an explanation, but none of you have given it to me, other than "hey, it's cryptography man, you can trust it baby!"  Sorry, that's not good enough for me.

You're an idiot Icebreaker, don't embarrass yourself.

This is incorrect. All of the information that is used by the cryptography is visible and verifiable on the blockchain. That's the whole point of it all.


FWIW the block payout amounts in cryptonote are visible and public. See the first transaction in every block on the chain explorer. That's not really the point though. You still need cryptography to verify that any of it is actually valid, regardless of which coin you are using.


You could learn math and work through the proofs yourself. Failing that you are blindly trusting the cryptography regardless of which coin you use. That's why they are called cryptocurrencies.

Difference is, that the mixing in DASH is automatic, trustless, and decentralized. And, mixing is not all that masternodes can do. Instant transaction confirmations come to mind. Further, I wouldn't say having a healthy number of full nodes is pointless.

First, you need some background in zero knowledge proofs and fully homomorphic encryption.  Better make coffee...

Done?  Good.

Now read this:  https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

Welcome to Monero Mountain!   8)

First, you can get on github and verify the math--which experienced cryptographers have done. Having to verify each transaction when you can simply verify the math that regulates each transaction seems a bad (inefficient) way to go about things. If you don't understand cryptography, you should admit it and move on or learn it and add to the conversation--its like you are telling a physicist that a neutrino doesn't exist because you can't see it or understand the math. And asking them to teach you the math is a task that is probably not possible for most humans and wouldn't be fair to ask, even if you could learn it, because you are on a forum and you aren't paying them to tutor you. Christof Paar has a great intro course online if you are interested.

I also think it's rude that you mislabel people's honest labor in an effort to spin the argument away from Todd's comments, so don't throw rocks. Unless you can disprove the math behind ring signitures, you're barking up the wrong tree. This is old and proven cryptography that has yet to be broken. But besides the math there is an analysis that doesn't require any math whatsoever; if monero's coin distribution suffered from any anomalies, you would be sure to hear about it from exchanges, wallet holders, and developers in the space. This hasn't happened since its birth, so i guess math, even really cool and complex math, works as expected.

I can do the math, I understand that part, it is the implementation I am not understanding, or must be missing something because I see holes.  Yes, each block, a coin is created, I understand that.  But where that coin goes, how it is broken up or combined with other coins in the future (if trying to follow it forward) is hidden.  Ok, another way of saying it.  Cryptographical proofs grant authority to change things in the blockchain ledger.  Either to create the entry in the ledger by being the first to find a solution that meets the criteria, granting the right to create a block, or cryptography is used to show authority to spend coins with a key.  When a coin is created via a block reward, but it has no "name" that you can see created and morphed into another "name" (which is what I'm calling account numbers) How can you possibly know that someone hasn't found a way to insert coins that were never mined, but simply produced because they can fit into the system.  Not double spent, just brought into existence?  How can you know this can't happen when no coins have a "name"? or "family history"?

1. Every coin has a name. There are unique TXIDs and then each output has an index. So the name of an output worth 9 XMR is 23b3c77b13d8a3a08f96f2820aebcb395490306a89df981c604638b3fb10aa56.0 (first output of that transaction).

2. Coins can't simply be "brought into existence", and this you can definitely see right in the block explorer. Every transaction has sum(outputs) < sum(inputs), or alternately sum(outputs) = sum(inputs) - fees. There is no way to bring coins into existence this manner. The only ways coins could come into existence would be mining (also visible in every coinbase transaction) or through double spending, which you exclude, and which is ruled out by properly verifying the cryptography.

so the txid from the creation of the coin, is used for the bases of identifying the history of a coin and ability to spend it rather than an account number?  How do you do that?  Sorry, but unless I'm mistaken, the txid in BTC and DASH is not normally an identifying "name" of any sort.

See, without anything to check it against, I can see a TXID being inserted.  Maybe not that simplistically, but those numbers are simply generated from the transaction, but if you don't have the foundation for the transaction......... Ugh, I'm having trouble explaining where I see the hole....

You are mistaken. In Bitcoin and presumably Dash the previous txid is exactly what is used to identify the existing output (aka "coin") being spent:

So is the public key and the hash the same thing in cryptonote?

The public key is not the same thing in Bitcoin or cryptonote, and the public key is not used to identify transactions in the Bitcoin protocol. The public key is used as an input into verification, which is also the case in Cryptonote (although in that case it is a one-time key, equivalent to a wallet now reusing addresses in Bitcoin). When block explorers display transactions indexed by public key they are using a database (of their own construction) lookup, not directly using data from the blockchain itself.


 

OK,
I'm not going to give up on understanding this, but I do need to take a break.  Thank you for your help.  I'll come to the monero thread later when I can more clearly write my questions, and have done more research.  Or maybe better yet, pm you, as I don't like being attacked. Thank you again.

At least I can understand the basics of Cryptonote without needing smooth to spoon feed me mashed bananas like a helpless infant.

Here comes the plane, open wide!   MMMmmm, yummy Cryptonotes!   :D

I think people are getting confused between the optimal properties of base money and the priorities of record keeping on behalf of the holders of such.

If I expand my little example of earlier - where a plumber agrees to do a job for you in exchange for your bike but asks you to keep it for him for a while till he picks it up, then the distinction can be illustrated. So you give him an IOU for the bike. The IOU’s get traded, then a third level emerges where a bank keeps track of all the IOU’s in a set of accounts. This all forms a monetary chain of trust as shown below.

https://i.imgur.com/cssNjwE.png

The numbers in the bank account represent something (the ‘value’ is sourced somewhere else), so we don’t need to worry about any adverse impact of keeping the records private, even though we may refer to those account balances as “money”. We trust the IOU 3rd party to honour those numbers.

The IOU’s represent something, so we equally don’t need to worry about impacting adversly on the properties of base money by keeping them private.

The bike, however, is at the end of the chain. It is ultimately the “money” for this particular exchange by definition (because it was agreed at the beginning of the transaction). Different rules apply here because we are at the end of the chain of trust and the bike must be desirable in it’s own right - not because it represents something else. In this case, authenticity is the only criteria - privacy only features in the recording of the transaction.

If we are trying to invent a new form of monetary media (base money, not derivative money as in bank accounts), we already have 2000 years or more of precedent to guide us. The design objectives (http://contrarianinvestorsjournal.com/?p=391) are already known - simply implement these as faithfully as possible (as Dash is doing) to have the best chance of adoption. Gold got valuable because it exhibited these monetary properties and worked as money, not because it was attractive aesthetically. Klondyke gold rushers didn't say "hey - lets get our hands on some of that, it's really private". They said, "lets get our hands on some of that, it's a publicly understood, valued and recognisable asset".

If people find that hard to understand intuitively, look at it analytically instead. Consider the impact of obfuscation on the accepted base monetary properties (http://contrarianinvestorsjournal.com/?p=391) (we’re talking here about ‘natural’, commodity base money like precious metals, not backed by a trusted third party). For a start, obfuscation does not feature in any of the core properties - that should ring warning bells with you already. Secondly, obfuscation simply impacts adversly on almost all of them, simply by mitigating the ability to arrive at a public consensus of its veracity.

Cryptonote based currencies are well suited for recording private transactions in a higher order financial layer such as bank accounts and bookkeeping systems where the numbers in the balance represent value that is sourced (backed) elsewhere. But they are a non-starter as a definition of ‘base money’ because they are far too obfuscated.


The relevance is that they both specify monetary systems which use cryptographically obscured transactions and balances. In the first case (the 1996 document) it is an appropriate use of such because we are not talking about unbacked money. Having the bank in the loop supports the value and as long as the bank "honours" the numbers in my cryptographically protected balance, I don't need to worry about public consensus arriving at a definition of it being money in its own right.


You're confusing the base money with the record keeping function for transactions and balances. An easy mistake to make because we live in an economic environment where the two are synonymous. Cryptocurrency, however, portends to replacing the gold / coal / oil itself as money, not the records of ownership and exchange for such.

I want to pay a hooker without my wife knowing.

Do I read a mantra on what money should be written by a pseudoeconomist and buy a coin with same the anonymity level as bitcoin?

Or do I use the coin that's agreed upon to have the best anonymity?

How will I ever decide?  ::)

I think for you, you should definitely be a Lemming :)  Follow what you're told.  It's the best policy, just ask Ross Ulbricht,

You're the one following the master to his node and paying him for the risk to your privacy. And you probably have spent so much time in that cult that you believe people accidentally instamine coins, but don't have the heart to fair launch. OOOPSY  ::)

First, you fail to defend Dash against Peter Todd's "snake oil/fake crypto" charges.

Then you lash out at Monero, making untrue assertions which you failed to prove, becoming in the process embarrassingly lost in the intricacies of Basic Cryptonote 101.

And now, you are retreating with hands a-waving into comforting fuzzy generalities about "optimal properties of base money" while invoking ink-cloud nonsense about plumbers and bikes.

If you backpedaled any faster, your bike chain would have come off.

And if you "don't like being attacked" I suggest not attacking others.

Not quite "holds the keys", more "honours the balances".

If I hold an account balance which I KNOW I can exchange for a higher order form of money (e.g. the bike in the example above or physical gold in the example of gold shares / gold backed currency) then I don't need to worry about redefining my account balance as money in its own right. A trusted 3rd party has already 'rubber stamped' it for me.

Cryptocurrency, however, has no such rubber stamping 3rd party other than the public. It therefore has a far bigger challenge to meet than supporting privacy and that is supporting value. (i.e. arriving at a public consensus that it is money, and base money at that).

As I've posited above, any obfuscation whatsoever of the base monetary media, just inhibits this evolution of a public consensus definition of base money. As an absolute base minimum you need to have all the following aspects exposed to the entire userbase of the system at all times for every address:

For any given address at random:

[1] - all the transactions that contribute to that balance (all inputs)
[2] - all the transactions that depleted that balance (spends)
[3] - the originating addresses for [1]
[4] - the destination addresses for [2]

That is a public audit for a given address balance that will support a public consensus of its integrity and veracity. No amount of math formulae or cryptographic b.s. substitutes for such transparency.

Although one person cannot go through every address in the blockchain to satisfy themselves of the global integrity of the system, the aggregation and general network effect of millions of people doing so every minute and every second of the day is an endorsement that no trusted third party, nor any cryptographically obscured blockchain could ever match.

People with "Fiat heads on" and a "Fiat mindset" see these balances as corresponding to people. They do not. They are anonymous as cash is. Just because you can see the originating address of a transaction doesn't tell you what the nature of the transaction was and whether money changed hands or just moved between two addresses controlled by the same person. It doesn't tell you if the controller was initiating a transaction on behalf of someone else, themselves or even if it was an automated transaction.

As for gleaning information from outside the blockchain, that is mitigated by maximising the fungibility of the monetary medium (which is, as I keep repeating, not the same as maximising its obscurity).

It is not the job of a monetary media to support the privacy of its holders beyond - in the case of cash - maximising fungibility (which IS one of the recognised monetary properties) . Its job is to efficiently store value and to that end a publicly defined currency needs a public blockchain that supports a public audit of the kind I just described.

That's a lot of words. TLDR; Toknormal has an opinion that any math stronger than addition and subtraction can't be used to verify cryptocurrency based balances. What's that backed up by? Oh, nothing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c)

I completely and thoroughly understand DASH.  I understand completely how and how well it protects my privacy.  This is why I'm inclined not to trust other solutions, because I see holes in them.  Aside from that, if cryptonote were to actually prove to me that it can not be manipulated, I still wouldn't be inclined to back it because it has a major issue in blockchain size.  Dash is 50% older than Monero, yet has 25% the blockchain size.  Can the chain be trimmed and still be solid?  Can this be done with a completely hidden chain such as cryptonote's, which I already don't trust?  It's going to be hard to convince me.  But I will keep an open mind and continue to try to see my way through this :)

otoh is by far the biggest DASH holder.  Nobody out there touches him.  And he bought them all, so I think the dam braking in the begining, and it's subsequent sell off (because it was just another silly alt coin for all anyone knew back then) means absolutely nothing to anyone who is serious about the technology.  So it's your loss.

An account balance IS the result of addition and subtraction - nothing else.

So yes, what the public needs to see as an audit of an account balance is addition and subtraction - nothing else.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=1-mOKMq19zU#t=15

I'm not trying to convince you of anything; you're obviously a hardened loyalist who is trying to spin a Bitcoin Dev's analysis of their investment into a hand-waving distraction, "But over here..."

Masternodes are a human controlled point of failure that has never nor ever will be incorporated into a serious cryptosystem. These systems are fragile enough without excessive parts that serve no real purpose other than to funnel money into the greedy hands of early adopters.

Snake oil.

 

If it were the case that ring signature mixing were extensively used (it will be in the future but is not and has not been the case so far), then the chain would be around 3 times bigger than a Bitcoin-like chain with similar usage. This is derived from a combination of the mix factor (bigger signatures), denominations (more signatures), and a much tighter encoding for transactions (smaller base size).

Likewise, if Darksend were extensively used, the Dash chain would also be some similar multiple of a Bitcoin-like chain with equivalent usage (due to the additional transactions created for "rounds" of Darksend).

Thus one can conclude from the numbers you cite that some combination of these are true (probably both):

1. The difference in size is largely due to higher usage of Monero

2. DarkSend is not being extensively used.

And therefore:

3. If Dash had the same usage as Monero, and Darksend were extensively used, then the chain would be much closer in size, if not larger (possibly larger because of multiple rounds of Darksend, along with the bulkier Bitcoin-style transaction encoding)

But let's not get too far off topic here. As usual the Dashers like to pay distract-and-obfuscate when it comes to any criticism of Dash, changing the subject to talk about Monero instead. Apparently regardless of how valid the criticism or how credible the source. Monero having a larger blockchain does not make Dash any less snake oil.

I'm sorry, but I have read what Peter Todd said, and he has no idea what he is talking about.  Comparing instant X to green addresses or DarkSend to CoinJoin is like comparing boiled wheat to a German Chocolate cake.  He acts as if none of the issues in those first thought experiments were resolved.  I agree, I'm a fan of DASH and of Evan Duffield, because he really thinks outside of the box, has come up with super eloquent solutions to resolve those issues, keeping everything simple and verifiable.  That takes genius.  Complicating things to the point where you lose all the beauty of why Bitcoin works is simply death. 

There's no technology in existence that you can't cherry pick aspects of and make such idle remarks.

What is lazy and disingenuous about Peter Todd's comments is that they don't address any of the real priorities identified by the various competing projects in the cryptocurrency space. Rather they are the remarks of an overgrown schoolboy trainspotting programmer who could care less about what he's implementing and everything about the tools he uses to implement it.

I'm not saying that's necessarily what he is, but I am saying that that is what such remarks characterize.

I have tried to address those things in this thread - ie present some level of business (or monetary) process analysis that is abscent from all the technological mud slinging. I've supported my arguments with a whole lot more background than Peter Todd did so I don't feel the need to defend petty point scoring factoids about perceived weaknesses in network security.

This debate is about something much more fundamental.

In that case every single cryptocurrency fails your standard because it is impossible to verify the balance of an address without using actual cryptography to validate tranasctions. Yes you can add or subtract tx amounts, but you may be adding and subtracting invalid transactions, making the resulting total incorrect, invalid, and meaningless.

There is no escaping cryptography to audit any blockchain. Period.

Peter Todd is an expert in crypto and computer science.  You only attacked his credentials *AFTER* he dared to criticized a coin you are holding bags of.

If he said, 'Yes I love Dash, and Monero is rubbish' you would obviously be singing his praises.  That's called hypocrisy...

Breaking gmax's CoinJoin and renaming it "DarkSend" isn't thinking "outside of the box."

Breaking green addresses and renaming them "InstantX" isn't thinking "outside of the box."

Ignoring Bitcoin's raison d'etre, which is trustlessness, by involving trusted third parties in the form of Masternodes isn't thinking "outside of the box."

None of that is any more "genius" than a cargo cult priest's "outside of the box" idea to build bamboo runways.   :D

It must be a very interesting life to spend every single one of one's limited lifetimes' days on an internet forum discussing, caring so hard and fighting about something(altcoins) that the world's population will never care about, will never use, and is entirely obsolete.  Talking about waste...

May these peoples' little egos fuss and fight here, it's better than making a fuss on the real streets, eh?
bb!=)

I don't think you're following.  Sure, the transactions are valid in that they have ownership verified and approval from the miners to spend, but every coin has a pedigree you can research, and you can verify every transaction in a bitcoin like blockchain.  In the case of DASH, it looks exactly the same, only because DarkSend coins were broken down to look exactly alike (with same amounts) then mixed, you can't tell which coins came from where, but they have a corresponding input, preserving privacy and fungibility.  I can't audit a cryptonote blockchain.  At least not the way I can figure.  This is what I need to learn if it's possible.  And it must be audited without cryptography.  Because cryptography only validates ownership, not pedigree.  Or at least as far as I can understand at this moment.

You seem to be happy enough to have joined the club  ;)

Tok, no one cares (except dashers) about your weird theory of money that happens to mangle dash into your prescribed fit. If it were a good theory, you would be able to explain in a clear and concise manner, not like someone who got a hold of really good ganja and watched a documentary about money once.

The money I want is simple: about everyone takes it, it's fungible, and it won't be traced back to me--like a coin, which is even better than cash. Monero fits this definition and i don't need graphics or links or convoluted sentences to explain why it works for me.

I don't know why your bitching that a cryptographer is giving technical analysis--that's what he's an expert in, so trying to shift his criticism away from what he's an expert in misses why his critique matters so much and why you can't just dismiss it with, "But I think money...." Either meet his criticism head-on or find yourself being ridiculed for not adding to the conversation or what this thread is addressing.

As I explained to you earlier, you can do exactly the same type of audit. Every single transaction except coinbases have inputs exactly equal to outputs (if fees are included in outputs), and that is entirely visible. Coinbases can be verified to match the published reward schedule in every instance starting from block 0 all he way to block infinity (unlike Dash, BTW), again all visible. Thus you can be assured that coins are not and never have been created out of thin air.

You further need to verify that transactions have valid signatures (for which all the necessary inputs are, again, visible), which is finally exactly the same thing you need to do (but with slightly different mathematical equations) with every other cryptocurrency.

You guys started this thread to slap DASH in the face with an off handed, inaccurate and mean spirited comment by a so called "bitcoin developer" who is acting childish and insecure.  And you continue to act childish and insecure.  We just want to make sure that anyone opening this thread gets the other point of view as well. 

LoL. Really ?

Then you don't have money I'm afraid.

Yes. You should really learn how these systems actually work.


Okay then. Not "money" according to your (and likely only your) definition. That includes Dash.

It might have been offhand, and it might have been mean spirited. Neither of those is necessarily admirable. However, there is nothing to suggest it is inaccurate, and you are certainly in no position to put your level of expertise and credentials up against Peter Todd's in making that determination.

This is just technological B.S. that nobody monetary user is interested in or needs to know. It is not a financial audit.

I already described what an "audit is" and it is not something that cryptonote supports because the relevant information is obscured. The originating address is obscured, the destination addresses are obscured, even the balance itself is obscured - that is the whole *point* of the cryptonote technology which is why I say it's relevant for bookkeeping or record keeping of a trusted party-backed currency but not for defining a new form of base money.

Using quotations around "bitcoin developer" to describe an actual Bitcoin Developer is childish and inaccurate. And calling Icebreaker an idiot was mean spirited. This is the internet, you have as many words as any of us, so playing victim comes off as a last ditch ploy.

Again viewkeys, TOk, you keep repeating this tripe and you know, at least you should, that it is complete BS. A viewkey acts as receipt with all the information that an accountant would need. Smooth's point is that the blockchain is reviewable without giving up private information. This is no different than how cash works. So is cash not money?

The addresses are "obscured" in exactly the same way as they are when you use Dash and Bitcoin and follow the recommended best practice of not reusing addresses. If I'm not mistaken, Darksend does this automatically as well.

The balances are obscured in that you can't tell which outputs belong together, and you can't tell which are spent. Again, this is the same as with Dash or Bitcoin. You can't tell the balance in my Bitcoin wallet, because my Bitcoin wallet has many receiving addresses, and you don't know which those are.

This was always the intent of Bitcoin and this is how it works today. The difference is that Cryptonote (and Dash for that matter, if we put aside the third party trust required of masternodes, and the fact that the entire system is ad-hoc defined with no formal specification and no possibility of mathematically-proven soundness) leaks less unintended information in the form of identifiable links between transactions and addresses than Bitcoin does, leaks which allow people to perform third party analysis and piece together more information (for example which addresses and/or "coins" have been used for various "bad" things, which other addresses might  be owned by he same person who just sent me some money, etc.).

It has nothing to do with "good money" or "audits."

I'm sorry tok, you are just horribly confused and (likely willfully) ignorant.

Bitcoin, Monero, and Darkcoin all have the same large problem.  The ASIC came too soon for Bitcoin, so a wide distribution, which is required for currency, is a fraction of what it would have been if off the shelf hardware could have been used for even a couple more years.  Even Satoshi has quotes talking about a "gentlemen's agreement" to not use GPU miners, heh.  Whether the Bitcoin distribution is good enough for it to succeed in the long run is unknown.

For Darkcoin, having block rewards set to 10x what they're supposed to be the first day or two, then reducing coin supply afterwards from 80 mil to 20 mil is a show stopper.  Does anyone really think Bitcoin would be as big as it is now if Satoshi pulled off that blunder?  The answer is an obvious no.  People would refer to Bitcoin as "Scamcoin" if  Satoshi had done that, and the market cap never would have broke a dollar.  Every other coin that's had a blunder that huge on launch, such as "GPUcoin", was relaunched.  The fact that Darkcoin was not relaunched after a mistake that huge is nuts.

Then for Monero, just like all CPU mined coins, trying to mine any with the botnets on it is almost impossible.  I tried mining Monero the third day it was released with two Haswells and got zero.  I don't think it even had botnets on it then.  Ironically, Dogecoin probably has a better distribution than everything else in the top 10.

A viewkey is not remotely a substitute for transparency. In fact it's an example of exactly the design cludge I'm talking about since it's a compromise between transparency and privacy - without enhancing either.

What are you talking about--I can let people view my transactions with a viewkey, so the tax man is satisfied which all the transparency I need. Never mind that Smooth just corrected all your misconceptions. But keep on harping about it while you shilling your snake oil. I've got the money I want.


I think cheap coins and the darkmarket will help distribute monero--though how long coins stay under dollar and how big the darkmarket gets is anyone's guess. The official GUI will have smart (background) mining and that should help distribution and network strength. Most people won't get much, but it will be like free change depending on your energy costs.

You're wasting your time. Let's recall toknormal is the guy that said "Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters." -- nicely cached by Google for everyone to see.

Zero technical knowledge. He's simply stringing words together that he doesn't understand in an attempt to sound smart. You would have a deeper conversation with a chatbot.

Yes - you like to make that accusation about my appraisals periodically, but the debate is about whether a public blockchain or a cryptographically obscured one better supports the classic properties of money. I'm not confused about that and certainly not willfully ignorant because it very much is to with "good money" and very much is to do with"audits".

I feel a bit like a contractor arguing with a bunch of clueless programmers who have every idea of the solution and no idea of the problem, so I doubt we'll get much further in this exchange. In the meantime, the "auditability" argument is easily soved - just post one.

Not on this thread it isn't. The debate is whether Dash is snake oil and whether Peter Todd is better qualified to answer that than you are. The answers are yes and yes.

Yeah, but cash does have  a unique serial number. I should know because I have this little beauty in my possession:


Of course, its intrinsic value is only one Canadian dollar. ;)

So, gtfo, quick...and buy a shitload of monero while is declining and cheap. You don't have to make a new thread in need to atack Dash and on its back make a little support.
Dash is about not only a privacy but something else, and Monero is about being anonymous only in order to support darkmarkets etc. Be fine with it.

What a coincidence. Second time Dash is attacked in ridiculous way :D
Nicely done guys, you achieved what you wanted...I bought some because as smooth said:


So you know what to do now. It's showtime...second time or third or fourth  :D

Look back at the post history, it is your fellow dashers who rerouted this thread into a dash versus monero thread. So prove that evan's coin isn't snake oil or go back to your echo chamber.  ;)

Yea, right...and you are...a monero supporter who attacked dash first.
I'm still waiting for your fella with his deanonymizer  :-*

The way masternodes work, they may already be monitored and there's no way you could check.  ;D

In case you forgot.

Right, but it does not have a universal directory of past transactions. Cash with a serial number is very similar to crypto with opaque blockchain. It can be verified to be authentic, but you can not determine its previous owners by using its serial number.

edit: 1111111

So if masternode will be blinded, will it help you?

I'm at poloniex now, forgive me

NO^

Perhaps not the same blinding you're talking about, but this might help:


But then again, before that kind of motivated attacker (who infiltrates all the masternodes in the world) appears, DASH will need to probably grow at least 100x, so that's gonna be maybe a year away still. ;)

And sorry about posting OT in this Monero thread.

That's a dumb assumption considering it's easier and more expansive now and a dash mining pedo ring is motivation enough. But keep to the shill script; i'm sure snake oil sales is a noble profession in some circles.

Hey this is OT. Stop calling names

Back to poloniex

After all I will thank Peter for that and you can even blow him for the same. With respect

Dumb assumptions are made by smart people when it serves their agenda. The whole thread is calling dash snake oil, so you better get used to getting called out when you bring your weak dash-marketing-spin into play.

Are you worried this imaginary pedo mining ring would get caught? Or that it turns out there never was such ring?



Just trying to keep it in touch with the current reality. I presume you being used to stalled development makes you think all the progress is finished after GUI wallet is released and no further improvements are expected.

EDIT: And this time my post wasn't fully OT. ;)

Hoping its imaginary doesn't make it imaginary, and  last time i checked, law enforcement doesn't need much prodding (or proof) to flex their muscles. But go on saying, "Nothing to see here, everything is under control..." I'm sure that the power of wishing will make technical flaws disappear.

Ok, I am fine with it. Are you?
Meanwhile, let me take the risk where to put my money or support.
If I lose, never mind, if I win, never mind.

So called bitcoin developer? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?author=petertodd - looks like 60 commits to me. How many commits do you have on any cryptocurrency project? Given any talks? Written any analysis or whitepapers? He has a lot more history of providing intelligent input to the community than you do.

And I'm sure creating more MONERO threads and wishing DASH would go away will make MONERO go to moon anytime now.

And i'm sure attacking monero will sidestep the puddle of snake oil you are standing in.

This isn't a Monero thread - why do you keep bringing it up? If you feel strongly about DASH standing up to scrutiny, maybe you should get Peter Todd to do a debate on a podcast with someone from the DASH team?

His twitter wasn't an intelligent input.
It was dumb, childish and unintelligent input.

Back to polo. I will try to make some support for you guys. And don't worry. It's my money. My risk. Allright? Thank you

This is a great idea. I don't think Fluffy or Smooth would stand back and let supporters handle it if Monero was put in a similar position. If Evan thinks Peter is out of line, he should correct him.

This thread is about Monero created by Monero and bumped by Monero to hype up Monero. Duh.

Evan is in his hole  :D trying to finish his product while you are trying to drag him out

edit: forgot to mention...back to poloniex where monero has the volume

Is a hole where he refines his snake oil?

Choose words you like

I'm off on holiday. See you all later. Be nice (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=O9Rjb3ecqaM#t=6) to each other now  ;)

https://i.imgur.com/bXWAyxD.png

And attacking monero is refuting Todd, how? Can't Evan refute Peter's assessment or are shills with memes the only thing propping dash up?

Still snake oil....

It's difficult to refute Peter's assessment when he provides absolutely no details other than name calling.  Now if he would elaborate...

Have you asked him? No?

I'll elaborate on an obvious flaw in its supposed anonymity, maybe you can refute it:

Surely DASH has at least one developer / supporter sophisticated enough to challenge Peter Todd on his assessment, no? If this was my investment, I'd push for answers if someone with a strong tech background called it "snake oil".

Again, it's tough to challenge his "assessment" when he provides ZERO backup or documentation or analysis or anything but name calling.

OK, let me quote your prophet:

https://i.imgur.com/d6xuBfq.png




hmmmm.  Is he saying that the instantx feature of DASH is "better off"?

Can throw life raft near sinking ship. Can not force members to be saved. Some prefer snake oil more than truth. Snake oil taste makes feel better while drowning.

Sell snakeoil to buy Monero?

I'm thinking about pure profit. War Dash-Monero is out of my game.

Dear Peter (if I may be so bold as to call you that as we have never met):

I read your twitter statement comparing DASH to snake oil.  I'm trying to understand your premise.  Could you elaborate with any relevant facts, documents, test results, theories, quotes, assertions, or anything at all that will help me validate your concerns.

Thank you,

An Enthusiast.

-------------------------


There, that should get a response from his holiness within the hour.

Do you think he's lurking here?  ::)

Try this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/

Sounds like wally the economist

http://dilbert.com/series/66

I don't do reddit or twitter or facebook.  You have my permission to copy my question and post it.  I assume that you would be interested in his response.


EDIT
------
You started this thread, don't you want to read his justification?

I dont even knew Peter Todd before this, but i have to agree with him on that one... reduzing the block time is not a good soluction for a lot of reasons, bitcoin should be considered money, and its normal to have services working on top of it, just like VISA work on top of FIAT... you are talking about instax, instax is an feature on top of an central pseudo-descentralised autirity

Instantx is a transaction whose funds are locked by the masternode network until the miner network confirms it through block writing (EDIT - which prevents double spending and confirms in seconds).  Can you elaborate on what "central pseudo-descentralised autirity" means?

Here you go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2546

i sent him a pm hopefully he will clarify and this insane thread will die

Thank you!

https://i.imgur.com/ygBgj1J.png

It works both ways.  ;)

FYI

This thread is a perfect lame example of Argumento ad verecundiam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It's a very common logical fallacy. Perfect for insecure people.


I'm very interested in the reasoning of PT about this issue.

Tnks Oaxaca.

Unless there is something concrete to discuss, why bother?  A one-off name-calling without any rationale is trolling.  If some kind (ANY KIND) of real discussion points emerge...

LOL..what a shade

So you want Peter Todd tell you the formula of your own snake-oil? It's a snake-oil.  ;)

I'm impressed by your thorough analysis.  Your points are articulate and well laid out.

I'm still waiting for you to refute this (I'm no Peter Todd, but it seems kind of a big security lapse and it can warm you up for when Todd shows up):

Your plan to break the anonymity of DASH is to:
Buy 1,000,000 DASH,
Set up 1,000 MasterNodes you control,
DDOS all of the other MasterNodes (2,800 or so in 38 countries), and
Profit!

where to start?

Dude.  You're talking about TasteofStephana.. no wait.. TantricStephanie.... you know...  

Start by rereading it. You missed some things, but I expect selective reading/hearing from dashers. Also, 95% of the nodes are in 5 countries (all allies) and on hosting services and there aren't 2,800 active nodes--last time i checked it was around 1,200. given pedos are mining dash (allegedly) it wouldn't be hard to imagine those countries working together to stop and prosecute by using subpoenas or coercion to hosting companies or the mn operators themselves.

Last I checked there are 2,866 ACTIVE MasterNodes. 1,200 was roughly 1 year ago.  You are obviously way behind.  I suggest you start by reading the open source code or the PDFs or something.

Your concerns are real.  I'm sure that the US and it's allies are planning this takeover while we type.  Jesus, this is the best you've got?

Meanwhile, I'm sure you all have been waiting for the reply to my PM.  Here it is:

https://i.imgur.com/zYuSd2g.png

lol wut

this is satoshi's prof

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3

Trolololol ::)

It was less than two months ago when I did my research: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077613.0 There are 1,800 active listed, but if you check the dates of the last transaction, you can see many are from months ago which means they aren't active unless masternodes don't pay for months which would suck for the operator--before when I researched, there was a list of the masternode's holdings (1000+ meant active, 0 meant inactive, most weren't --more than half if I remember correctly), but now that information and the hosting company's name is cut off--I'd like to think it was a reaction to my research--you don't want the suckers knowing too much about the going-ons.  


I do like how you create a fake satoshi reply, dismiss the attack vector without any analysis, and misrepresent the real number of active nodes, but I don't expect research or formal arguments from dashers. If you don't think law enforcement would coerce or subpoena mn operators (you'd only need Evan or Otoh for million dash) or hosting companies to comply in order to break up a pedophile-mining ring or a drug syndicate or human trafficking operation, then you haven't been paying attention with how well LEAs orchestrate international sting operations--though again, they would only need one or two whales and they'd have enough to undermine anonymity and it could be done by one domestic agency.

It's an attack vector and it won't disappear until you get rid of masternodes or find a better way for them to create anonymity. Also, Peter Todd hasn't made a post since early June and he is currently offline, so maybe someone can make him aware of oaxaca's request.

Maybe blind signatures, or


and maybe add CCT into the mix to remove the need of uniform denominations (this will reduce the bloat radically).

With the "decentralized blockchain governance" funding system coming there will be a hefty amount of dev funding available to implement improvements.

EDIT: and sorry again about posting OT in a Monero thread.

Isn't it nice to know that you have a higher reputation than Satoshi? You'd think he'd would get a founder rep or something?  ???

1.  "misrepresent the real number of active nodes"?

Distribution of 2866 (with 2616 unique IPs)
Dash Masternodes
(Summary by Country, unique IPs only)
Last check: Mon Jul 20 23:30:31 CEST 2015 V2
Client version: 110223

2.  Let me get this straight...

Your interpretation of "snake oil" is an extremely far fetched attack vector?  You want to DDOS 2,866 servers worldwide for an extended period of time without anybody noticing?  You should be aware that there are no coins stored on these nodes.  If a server goes down, it can be recreated on a different server (anywhere in the world) in a matter of minutes.

3.  Faking Satoshi PMs.

Guilty.  Whatever.

Maybe trolls like those in this thread keep downvoting him.

Once Masternode blinding is released Mr MoneroRunner here will have nothing left to ramble about just like IceTroller had nothing left after Evan removed the reference node. So it's a waste of time. They'll both just revert to Insta-trolling and we're back at status quo.

That's how I feel about your counter argument--if you are too lazy to even get Satoshi's details right, why should I expect you to take the time to research your counter-arguments. Here's the link to dashnodes:

https://dashnodes.com/index/masternodes/page=34&offset=1650

It lists 1,800 nodes, but many haven't had a transaction in weeks or months--so are these active? Or is the network just that slow? Or is the site broken? I'd love a site where I can research the hosting companies again  ;)

See above for the bolded part for the attack vector you keep conveniently missing.  ;D

I'm going to bed, but I hope you have fixed dash's anonymity with a fake letter from GMaxwell by the time I wake. Or maybe you can make a noob account for PaterTod and get a recantation. Good stuff. Can't script this.

^Isn't it funny how he accuses people of being "selective" when he explicitly chooses the one only broken Masternode-counting site?

Try these kiddo:
https://dashninja.pl/
https://dash-stats.firebaseapp.com/

First calculates ACTIVE Masternodes in real time from what I can tell.
Second one updates every couple minutes.
And yeah: Both show almost 2900 full nodes strengthening our network.
Go on, DDoS them all. I'll make some popcorn.
Oh and don't forget: Once they're blinded all your attempts to "control the traffic" will run down the shitter (even though the chances to do that right now are already infinitesimally small).

^Funny how you missed the other attack vector, but thanks for links; I'll check to see how many are actually active and how centralized they are by country this weekend--maybe even get a fix on all the ones that are using hosting companies again. Again, thanks. Also, is partially active, active? Seems like a half-phrase.

Oh look, there is only one entity holding all masternodes in one country and on one server

http://dashnodes.com/index/charts/
http://178.254.18.153/~pub/Dash/masternode_locations.html

You seem to be concerned about it. Do you want to invest or...nevermind...whatever

There it is again your favorite word: centralized
You know what? I don't like you: You're centralized. You are just one person. You have only one liver, one heart and one throat. All centralized points of failure. Oh wait, this is retarded. Sorry. I just wanted to apply the word centralized to the most moronic example I could find. Kinda like you.

"Centralized by country" is such an incredibly dumb thing to say I can't even fathom how anyone can make it up.
Bitcoin is centralized on only one planet, so I guess we're all fucked (except the Cryptonote crowd ofc, you're all above us in the stars).
Masternodes are "centralized" because they're umm... they're oh I dunnow... You have to use them for mixing, so it's centralized, durr!
Yep, convincing logic. I guess Bitcoin is centralized too then in that respect because -god damnit- you have to use other nodes to make a transaction. FFS is anything decentralized these days?

By the way: No I did not miss your "other attack vector". To the contrary. I wiped it away, you must have missed it. Maybe read a little on what Masternode blinding actually achieves and you might realize your entire rambling came a few months too late. If Monero could speak it would probably reply "Story of my life" to that.

source code for instantx needs to be fixed before masternode blinding.

Instantx is not a secure system  from a cryptographic standpoint

Also, as long as humans can be subpoenaed or coerced by law enforcement, you can gain enough network to break anonymity. Otoh probably owns a million dash and Evan probably owns a million dash--LE would only need their compliance to have 2000+ masternodes--that's why centralization and instamines and masternodes make a terrible mix.  

Great point. If 2 people control that large a percentage of the Masternode network nobody using darksend has any real privacy protection

People note of advice. Hold your Dash or buy more.

woah.. looks like I'm gonna need your opinion instead of Peter Todd's on whether to wipe standing or sitting.

No, "centralized" is Duffield's favorite word.

That's why he acts like Dash's central banker, after extensive research and analysis in the form of talking to some guy who happened to be around (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg11917341#msg11917341).

Nope, not anything like a HYIP. Not in any way whatsoever:

OMG, what a fucking shill.

Ok another useless thread created by Trolleros...

Lol.

Next!

Edit : How to make an empty thread from an empty Tweet? Only Trolleros can make it possible!

This is how Monero pumps, to attack their rivals is the only way they can get attention.

Munero volume was dying on Poloniex, so let's help them Pump.  8)  

This thread is brought to you by DASH. DASH, where you can get your own version of Snake Oil mix, instantly! Still looking for that Peter Todd endorsement - keep trying!

Did you know that an uncle of mine say one day on Facebook that he loves dark spaghetti. Don't know, but I think I''ll make a thread about this.
Yes it's true!

If your uncle was Gordon Ramsey and dark spaghetti was a brand, you'd have a decent thread. Even better if that spaghetti tasted like ass and was made from recycled motor oil (what sheen! what flavor!) and Gordon said as much.

For an "empty tweet" the DASH thread sure did spend a lot of time discussing it (and how much they hate Peter Todd).

You'd think they'd rather discuss more important matters, such as what to do about Dash being used for Pedofunding (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1126835), but for some reason that was not the case.   :-\

Well, 'cause I don't care about the DvM battle in any real way, I thought I'd give Peta Todd a shot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peta_Todd
https://www.google.nl/search?q=Peta+Todd

Mmmm.... that was fairly painless  :D

Yea, you've done it guys.
First selling at .0023 then .0028 and then go back down.

I think my post isn't OT, because you are all about...you know

.

.

Peter was right to call Dash snake oil.

Dash's dev has dropped his plan for masternode blinding (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg11986536#msg11986536).

Privacy is no longer a concern for Dash as it tries compete with Visa and Bitcoin as a centralized payment rail.

All that 'anon stuff' was thrown out along with the Darkcoin brand.

This thread is about why Peter Todd calls dash snake oil.

There are other threads where it is on-topic to complain about the number of Monero threads.

Wow, a moment of clarity from iCEBREAKER.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the "why" question.  I've asked repeatedly and in different ways.  The only response is "It's snake oil!, It's snake oil!"

That doesn't answer the "why". 

Dash's commonality with snake oil is the magical thinking of their consumers', which is taken advantage of by the con men.

Just as rubes from the farm believe snake oil can accomplish what real medicine cannot, so do DashHoles believe Masternodes provide higher security than Bitcoin's proof of work.

Your argument has blown me away.  I'm completeley convinced you are correct.  You display such depth of reasoning in a well thought out, logically written way a child could understand it.  Your use of extensive, annotated quotes from Peter "the prophet" Todd simply cannot be challenged.

Visa is better since you can borrow money for free from them and invest your own money to the shares of Visa earning dividends.

The consensus from the experts is that DASH "anon" tech is not based on solid cryptography yet their market cap still says they are doing well.

1. Are their true marketing experts promoting DASH?

or

2. Is the price artificially inflated due to centralized control of a few "instaminers" who seek to retain that control with the masternode voting and reward system?

My guess is a combination of both 1 and 2. Lets not discount the successful marketing of DASH so far (primarily targeting lesser educated newcomers) or underestimate how long it can last.

Dash's ostensible market cap isn't comparable to fairly launched 100% proof of work coins.

It's inflated by the insta-mined (+insta-mastered) coins nobody ever worked to produce nor paid market rates to acquire.

"Peter Todd calls dash snake oil."
cuz it is

but does NOT matter ... the Duff Buck has run top10 in market cap long enough that Dash likely can hold $3 even if dash whales dump hard to buy sports cars and blow.

Monero ... you're running way back there ... need to give up on the competition and refocus ... say on $10M by creating a cool 'anon' exchange platform ;)

the DvM battle is OVER, focus on the war

I wish Peta Todd was into crypto ;
https://www.google.nl/search?q=Peta+Todd&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjY4oee-cPKAhWHCI4KHTtaAeQQ_AUIBygB&biw=1366&bih=653

It is snake oil
https://i.imgur.com/uOu76rO.png

The incest gets more stupid:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/dash-to-become-the-first-alternative-to-bitcoin-offered-by-the-lamassu-atm-project
http://deginner.com/
https://twitter.com/iravagecoins (start reading from Jan 22 and then reverse chronologically)

Pucker Up!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j6Seu5OWWVY/UuZ6ssl6F3I/AAAAAAAAHyw/7tZ60DbcxWY/s1600/Lipstick+On+A+Pig.jpg