You're conflating fungibility of the coin supply with "fungibility" of the transacting environment.

They are distinct.

Optimally Implementing Privacy in a High Value Digital Asset as Distinct from a Low Value Transacting Platform

It isn't the job of a monetary asset to facilitate "hidden" transactions because that asset will be traded in a myriad of environments, each of which depend on maximum public consensus as to its veracity. Case in point = encrypted blockchains. Most of their transaction volume takes place on trusted platforms where identity verification is required and where those platforms provide the 'privacy'. Meanwhile, the encrypted blockchain itself is about as verifiable as a highway through a shattered windscreen at 70 miles an hour.

It is, however, the job of a monetary asset to be fungible which means that one unit of its supply should be as indistinguishable as possible from any other unit from viewpoint of both keyholders and non-keyholders alike. That is Dash's priority and that is where it excels because it's been able to optimise fungibility against the background of a transparent blockchain.

Privacy in the Native Environment

Now lets consider "privacy", even if you want to use the Dash native asset platform as the transacting environment.

Satoshi already did most of the work by breaking the statutory association between the asset and a legal entity. He created bitcoin as a bearer token where nobody could know who was transacting despite being able to see, verify and endorse the veracity of those transactions. However, with recourse to off-chain knowledge it may be possible to infer information about keyholders identities of nearby addresses which mitigates fungibility.

What Dash does is to impose a cash drawer archetype on the blockchain to continuously restore fungibility without recourse to transparency or delinking of sequential addresses (which would eventually kill the public authenticity of the blockchain stone dead). That has the effect of eliminating the use of off-chain knowledge in combination with on-chain address patterns to discover the identities of keyholders.

There's your privacy. Perfected for a high value digital asset. Transparent. Free from toxic encryption and decoupled from the priority of keeping address balances visible to maximise public consensus as to their authenticity and consequent value. It's also decentralised because each transaction is treated on a case by case basis whereby it receives an arbitrary allocation of mixing sources as opposed to a single, centralised encryption algorithm. Users and holders therefore enjoy increased protection with increasing usage because any attack vector:

A. requires off-chain information
B. is limited to a single transaction, not the whole network

Where's the Value ?

If all you want is a valueless, hidden transacting environment, stick with SSL. It has a better track record than encrypted blockchains of not blowing up and also has far more adoption.

If, on the other hand, you want to own a digital asset of high value and mobility, that can be held, traded, publicly observed and verified with ultimate privacy then you need transparent fungibility which is what Dash has aspired to from the very first day of its conception.

Sounds good. You appear to be working hard for your network. Congratulations on your recent success + algo transition !

$4100 incoming on stamp.

No stopping.

Bears caught out. Wrongfooted & booted out of the market:

 • bought at $4900
 • sold at $2900 on fear

goldmoney.com blockchain isn't gold. It's a gold derivative, no different from credit.

When you "hold" gold-backed blockchain tokens you're not holding gold, you're holding credit. When you trade them you're not trading gold, you're trading credit.

So bitcoin does indeed "allow you to do something that metals don't" which is to hold a genuine bearer token. That's something gold used to be in the days of physical markets but is no longer capable of since it has a slight problem with travelling through wires.

What Schiff & Co Gold & Silver people fail to recognise is that gold gained its value through monetary function, not intrinsic value. It essentially represented a physical bitcoin of the day. During the latter part of the 20th Century, however, the bulk of the world's trade and monetary exchange volume migrated to electronic platforms which left precious metals crippled in terms of monetary function - totally illiquid.

With bitcoin you can both:

 • hold it

and

 • exchange it with a trading party on the other side of the planet in 20 minutes

That is "monetary function" and it's something that no precious metal can compete with which is why during 5 years of the worlds biggest fiat money printing exercise when metals had the biggest open goal they've ever had, they were left standing with their underpants around their ankles while bitcoin skyrocketed.

Amen to that.

One of the most succinctly stated distinctions between a store of value and a worthless payment rail I've seen.

In blockchains:

 • transparency...is what makes them valuable

 • fungibility...is what makes them private

That's why these two need to be decoupled so that they can be optimised independently of each other. It's also why Dash's privacy model constitutes a far more valuable token than one where you simply bury the entire blockchain under a layer of thick, syrupy encryption that gives cover to corruption and lets "wounds" go septic long before they're even known about.

The "SSL" of crypto: Ok for momentary transfers but potentially toxic for storing value.

BTC trading ultra-technical. That sharp reversal occurred right on the uppermost boundary of the previous support range. So it's a technical correction. Nothing more and whoever went massively long at that point (JP Morgan) knew exactly what they were doing.

That isn't "de-anonymising Dash". That's de-anonymising ISP accounts.


Well, one type of "research" at least



See here for more details.

Amtell'nye.

Don't be surprised to retest $1300 eventually.

We were at $890 only 5 months ago.

Prices need to be baked in.

It's a fact of life.

Accept it.

Swallow it.

Live it.

Trade it.

@profitgenerator212, Do you even realise you're comparing an encrypted blockchain with an unencrypted one ?

If you had done - and stated that at the start of your "article" - you could have stopped right there because *anything* encrypted is going to be more "private" than its unencrypted equivalent since you're hiding the entire transacting environment under a layer of obfuscation.

Which begs the question...why didn't Satoshi build encryption into bitcoin as a priority ? Why was transparency the priority over obfuscation ?

You might find that a bit difficult to answer as long as you cling so religiously to this ridiculous assumption:


Lets analyse this statement for a moment.

A bank account is “defined” by a contract of statutory ownership. Its balance is both nominated AND public, since it’s open to 3rd party human beings who act as auditors and endorsers of the transactions therein. What Satoshi did was to break the link with an “owner” to establish the following properties for a blockchain balance:


 • there is no longer any statutory owner, balances are instead controlled by a keyholder who remains undefined right up until the point of deployment of the private key in order to “spend” the funds

 • ‘accounts’ are no longer nominated

 • the trusted 3rd party is removed and the public is now both auditor and endorser of value directly (by way of markets)

 • although the blockchain itself is transparent, recourse is always needed to off-chain information to know anything about the nature of the transaction or the transactees, even if addresses are linkable

The result of these subtle but significant changes was *anonymity*. As stated above, you need off-chain information in every case to make any associations with human beings. Even if you happen to have it and can associate an address with an individual, as soon as that balance moves to a different address you’re straight back to square one. You once again need recourse to off-chain sources to rediscover anything about that new address. You can’t even know whether it’s still under the control of the original keyholder or a new one. Furthermore, if the address is a freshly created one there won’t even be any off-chain information to help you either.

It is therefore nothing like a bank account. Satoshi implemented this decoupling of ownership and “control” in order support the one thing that underpins Bitcoin’s value more than any other - TRANSPARENCY.

It is against this background that Dash’s privacy model is prioritised and that’s where your comparison might have been appropriate. For a start, Dash values “anonymity” over “privacy” which is something that Monero/Cryptonote does not. Dash maximises the anonymity of an address balance while also maximising the transparency of the transacting environment to provide high fidelity for BOTH keyholders and NON keyholders. An encrypted blockchain doesn’t attempt to decouple those priorities, it simply buries the entire transacting environment - warts an’ all - with the following results:

See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg17896089#msg17896089

Anonymity and fungibility.
Your “article” makes no attempt to distinguish these terms, yet they are as distinct as “cash” and “credit”. A private transaction is one that no-one can see (in terms of its key components: originating balance before, originating balance after, target balance before, target balance after). An anonymous transaction is one that everyone can see but not glean any off-chain information from. With that in mind, “privacy” is not always the preferable of the two since it’s basically another word for obfuscation and obfuscation is toxic to authenticity.

Flights with no radar coverage are more "private" than ones with it. A diamond you trade but never see is more "private" than one that you do. Zipped files are more "private" than unzipped ones, whether their contents are corrupt or not.

Strong or Weak Privacy ?


What you actually mean is, “Dash is not an encrypted blockchain and Monero is”. No disagreement there, but that doesn’t make its privacy “weak”. Monero has a centralised privacy model - its protocol uses a single encryption algorithm to protect the entire blockchain. Dash’s, on the other hand is both transparent AND decentralised. Every mixing transaction is anonymised on a case by case basis using a different set of nodes with arbitrary denominations where actual address balances are used and new addresses are continuously created. Not only that, the fact that entire coin supply is being continuously mixed at random points and times creates analytic ‘firewalls’ on an ongoing basis which keeps it fungible holistically, not just at transaction level. This gives protection even to those not using private send in their own wallets.

Finally, this little gem:


Really ? I look forward to your whitepaper on that one. You’ll probably make more bounty money writing it and supplying it to the Dash devs that you will holding either coin.

I wonder if people consider the humungous tax bills they're incurring from all this cashing out.

Here's the real reason why China is "banning bitcoin" again.

Because their own currency is sh........

"Real money" that's totally iliquid ?

Is that not a contradiction terms ?

People with "half a brain" will tell you that a retest of a 6-month old high is easily on the cards at anytime, never mind when half the world's market goes offline for good.

So that makes $1000 not an unreasonable bottom - at least as a spike.

The question is, which will tank the most from China shutting ?

 • demand
 • supply

It will bottom out in the $2200-$2800 region.

The correction is looking bootiful on the 1-Week chart.

Revaluation getting baked in.
Not bubble.

Firm growth rings being put in place and solid anchors - unlike the 2013/14 rise which didn't get a chance to consolidate after the 1k ATH. (Well, it did but only by the time it had lost 90% of its growth).

Bricks being put in place for utter skyrocket over the next 6-18 months.

 • BTC compressing

 • Dumperoo

 • It's technical