The DAO didn't fail, it was hacked. Quoted for hilarity. Nice distinction without a difference you've made there.  I hope there is a DAO2.0. I'll invest in it in a heartbeat.
Also quoted for hilarity.  If Mindcrash didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. Nobody else so neatly encapsulates the blithering hubris of the ETH Bailout Fork mindset better than he does. |
|
|
|
Why not put this "feature" in the OP, as other ostensibly privacy-driven coins showcase their privacy tech?
because it's not that important as far as realistic attack vectors go. most critics/trolls looked at the info long ago and realized the math and tech was solid and moved on to looking for other things to complain about. How can critics/trolls "look at the info" when nobody except Tante knows where to find it? The hand-waving "old news" defense is very Clintonian. Don't you remember that DarkCoin was created to protect privacy? Don't you think Dash should back up its claim to "PrivateSend" with publicly available information? I understand putting it up on StackExchange isn't an option for Dash, but you guys should at least have a wiki or FAQ with this legendary "Proof of Sybil Resistant Masternodes." |
|
|
|
I foresee ETH-C dying a slow death, slowly fading into obscurity like 99% of the rest of the crypto.... with a future of " You are mining what? I never heard of it."
ETC is only 30 days old. Perhaps you could wait at least 60 or 90 days before rushing to write yet another ETC obituary? |
|
|
|
Speaking of technical discussion, Dash's privacy scheme is being (unfavorably) compared to Cryptonote. The discussion is being held on Monero's StackExchange, because Dash by a wide margin failed to qualify for StackExchange and never will because it is a community of get-rich-quick low information types unlike the high brow SE. http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/112/how-is-monero-compared-to-dashPrivateSend does have a potentially serious flaw.
Each coinjoin requires a server to facilitate the mixing. This requires users to trust that the server is not recording details on where each user's outputs are ending up. Dash attempts to mitigate this risk by using what they call "masternodes". Masternodes are the servers which coordinate PrivateSend. These masternodes require a deposit of 1000 Dash to run. In theory, this collateral prevents someone from creating an arbitrary number of nodes for the purpose of recording coinjoin details.
Does this really mitigate the risk of coinjoin details being recorded, enabling transactions to be traced? Not reliably. The reality is that the majority of masternodes are hosted by a small number of VPS providers. These VPS providers could easily record the transactions being facilitated by any masternode that they host. Please respond here or on SE if you have any substantive input to make on this important issue (price comparison/speculation does not count). the vps providers could record transactions but it would not do them any good. you need to control or have access to ~90% of the mn or transactions to deanonymize ~1% of all transactions. since these vps providers are different and spread all over the world no one entity or government has access or legal jurisdiction to that info. somewhere there is a chart showing the exact mathematical probabilities. i'll try to find it or maybe someone can post it, i think tante has the info. Why aren't the "exact mathematical probabilities" subject to the Birthday Paradox, in which far fewer adversarial Sybil nodes than one might guess are needed to unravel the entire Coinjoin sweater? You seem to be asserting Masternodes benefit from some kind of inverse Birthday Paradox relationship, where everything just happens to luckily work out for the best. It would be nice if exact numbers were available for evaluation on neutral ground such as StackExchange, or an equivalent with less stringent requirements that Dash actually might be able to meet. If Tante can find the obscure/exotic proof for your claims, perhaps she may also submit it for discussion on the Monero SE comparison thread. paradoxical i did not realize it was your birthday, happy birthday man, i'll get you a sweater. while looking for that chart i stumbled upon a important dash thread that required my attention. that thread lead me to other threads/issues that now require my attention. so your not really important question will have to wait until i have time or someone else post the chart info. it was posted on dash talk by evan long ago but there is so much info there (unlike some other coins forums ) it got buried. I'm only asking for very basic information wrt Darksend|Masternode Sybil resistance. Why is this basic information about DarkSend buried somewhere, underneath layers of distractions? Why not put this "feature" in the OP, as other ostensibly privacy-driven coins showcase their privacy tech? Is there a reason it's kept out of the spotlight, while hand waving and marketing rule the day? |
|
|
|
Dash's me-too, so-called "DAO" doesn't work at all, because it is vaporware. If it was working, it would quickly fall to the same adversaries that destroyed ETH's DAO. But unlike ETH's DAO, nobody would really notice or care.  |
|
|
|
I hope Stephan brings it on.
You are in luck, but only if by "brings it on" you actually meant "I hope Steve Tool pens a mea culpa on the Slock.it blog." https://blog.slock.it/on-a-personal-note-from-stephan-tual-710f32e6eebI would like to offer an apology for tweets and posts which have not been appropriate considering the circumstances, but also for all the trouble the DAO has caused, directly or indirectly.  #REKT |
|
|
|
Speaking of technical discussion, Dash's privacy scheme is being (unfavorably) compared to Cryptonote. The discussion is being held on Monero's StackExchange, because Dash by a wide margin failed to qualify for StackExchange and never will because it is a community of get-rich-quick low information types unlike the high brow SE. http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/112/how-is-monero-compared-to-dashPrivateSend does have a potentially serious flaw.
Each coinjoin requires a server to facilitate the mixing. This requires users to trust that the server is not recording details on where each user's outputs are ending up. Dash attempts to mitigate this risk by using what they call "masternodes". Masternodes are the servers which coordinate PrivateSend. These masternodes require a deposit of 1000 Dash to run. In theory, this collateral prevents someone from creating an arbitrary number of nodes for the purpose of recording coinjoin details.
Does this really mitigate the risk of coinjoin details being recorded, enabling transactions to be traced? Not reliably. The reality is that the majority of masternodes are hosted by a small number of VPS providers. These VPS providers could easily record the transactions being facilitated by any masternode that they host. Please respond here or on SE if you have any substantive input to make on this important issue (price comparison/speculation does not count). the vps providers could record transactions but it would not do them any good. you need to control or have access to ~90% of the mn or transactions to deanonymize ~1% of all transactions. since these vps providers are different and spread all over the world no one entity or government has access or legal jurisdiction to that info. somewhere there is a chart showing the exact mathematical probabilities. i'll try to find it or maybe someone can post it, i think tante has the info. Why aren't the "exact mathematical probabilities" subject to the Birthday Paradox, in which far fewer adversarial Sybil nodes than one might guess are needed to unravel the entire Coinjoin sweater? You seem to be asserting Masternodes benefit from some kind of inverse Birthday Paradox relationship, where everything just happens to luckily work out for the best. It would be nice if exact numbers were available for evaluation on neutral ground such as StackExchange, or an equivalent with less stringent requirements that Dash actually might be able to meet. If Tante can find the obscure/exotic proof for your claims, perhaps she may also submit it for discussion on the Monero SE comparison thread. |
|
|
|
Ok look like safe network is heading forward. Very good progress on development also price spike.
Meanwhile eth still drama on the new chain and old chain....sign...
It's easy to avoid drama WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE A WORKING PRODUCT and are still deep in the hopey-dreamy vaporware phase. I doubt MAID will make it as far as ETH did (about two years) before suffering a catastrophic DAO-type debacle and ensuing ETC-type contentious hard fork. |
|
|
|
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/marijuana/article/DEA-s-pot-ruling-slammed-by-lawmakers-doctors-9144437.phpThe Drug Enforcement Administration is enduring perhaps the most pronounced round of criticism in its 43 year-history, after a widely discredited decision last week to keep treating marijuana as the most dangerous drug on the planet.
Last week, the DEA denied two petitions seeking to change cannabis' official federal designation as a schedule 1 drug — a label reserved for drugs with 'no medical use and a high potential for abuse'.
Pot is considered by the federal government to be as dangerous as heroin or LSD, and more dangerous than prescription painkillers, which cause dozens of fatal overdoses a day. Cannabis has no lethal overdose. About 48 percent of Americans have tried weed once, and about 33 million are regularly users of it. According to her father, the POTUS, smoking pot is as bad as (and thus equally illegal to) shooting heroin. Obama could have told the DEA to put pot on Schedule 2, but did not. What a hypocrite. Jail/fines/probation for poor stoner kids, high times at LaLaPaLooza for Lil' Wookie Junior, his precious untouchable crotch fruit.
|
|
|
|
This discussion is being held on Monero's StackExchange, because Dash by a wide margin failed to qualify for StackExchange. http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/112/how-is-monero-compared-to-dashPrivateSend does have a potentially serious flaw.
Each coinjoin requires a server to facilitate the mixing. This requires users to trust that the server is not recording details on where each user's outputs are ending up. Dash attempts to mitigate this risk by using what they call "masternodes". Masternodes are the servers which coordinate PrivateSend. These masternodes require a deposit of 1000 Dash to run. In theory, this collateral prevents someone from creating an arbitrary number of nodes for the purpose of recording coinjoin details.
Does this really mitigate the risk of coinjoin details being recorded, enabling transactions to be traced? Not reliably. The reality is that the majority of masternodes are hosted by a small number of VPS providers. These VPS providers could easily record the transactions being facilitated by any masternode that they host. |
|
|
|
over 35000 dash bought in massive buys in the last 2 hrs....hmmm looks like $15 is coming
 On poloniex or bitfinex or btc-e? There are so many major exchanges. poloniex! Nice, I will keep my 800 Dash for long term. Maybe 10X who knows. Dash will pump like in 2014. If it were me, I'd buy 200 more Dash and start my own masternode. I think of masternodes as financial life rafts for the future. The price of a masternode is about $13k, and is starting to exceed the price of a good used car. The days of affordable masternodes may be drawing to a close. That's OK because masternode shares are available. It's just safer in the long run to manage your own. Hello Price Speculators. Please use the Dash Price Speculation Thread, in the Price Speculation Sub, and keep this thread available for technical discussion. Speaking of technical discussion, Dash's privacy scheme is being (unfavorably) compared to Cryptonote. The discussion is being held on Monero's StackExchange, because Dash by a wide margin failed to qualify for StackExchange. http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/112/how-is-monero-compared-to-dashPrivateSend does have a potentially serious flaw.
Each coinjoin requires a server to facilitate the mixing. This requires users to trust that the server is not recording details on where each user's outputs are ending up. Dash attempts to mitigate this risk by using what they call "masternodes". Masternodes are the servers which coordinate PrivateSend. These masternodes require a deposit of 1000 Dash to run. In theory, this collateral prevents someone from creating an arbitrary number of nodes for the purpose of recording coinjoin details.
Does this really mitigate the risk of coinjoin details being recorded, enabling transactions to be traced? Not reliably. The reality is that the majority of masternodes are hosted by a small number of VPS providers. These VPS providers could easily record the transactions being facilitated by any masternode that they host. Please respond here or on SE if you have any substantive input to make on this important issue (price comparison/speculation does not count). |
|
|
|
When the GUI is released will there be a "one click mix" option? or an easy way to specify how much you want to mix and how much you will need to pay to mix that much?
It is not really mixing even though the current terminology is mixin. Mixin denotes how many others sign the transaction besides you. That is ring signatures. These are transactions that have already happened. Currently the minimum mixin is 2 which means your transaction will be signed by 2 others besides you. They default minimum mixin will go to 4 in the future. You can choose the minimum or a greater #. What you choose can change the fee. I don't know how the fee will be displayed on the new GUI. Maybe others can comment on that or correct my explanation above. And these Ring Signatures help to keep my funds secure? ring sig keep it anon. Teeechnically they make it untraceable. When untractability is combined with unlinkability that makes it private. When privacy is utilized to its fullest extent THAT makes it anon.  Of the three e-cash projects that have made it onto StackExchange: - Bitcoin runs on drama. - Ethereum runs on controversy. - Monero runs on comedy. |
|
|
|
Who says all coins have to be mined?
Either the coin is available or not, and functional in society or not.
Satoshi's whitepaper explains exactly why all coins have to mined, if we are to work around the Byzantine Generals' Problem of decentralized trust. Make a cup of coffee and and google "reusable proof of work." You've got a lot of homework to do. Your noob opinions are worthless and wrong. Nobody cares about your unsupported blanket assertions, useless platitudes, and circular logic. |
|
|
|
Do you think the 3.6 million DAO ETC hacker should return the stolen DAO ETC to the original holders?
I'd prefer the hacker use his ETC to fund ETC development. Or dump it all into ETC supporters' stronger hands. Better yet, burn all the DAO ETC. It's not about money, it's about sending a message. (joker.png) |
|
|
|
The irony is that the so-called white hats were associated (even remotely) with the ETH foundation, which went to hardfork ETC into ETH for exactly the purpose of undoing what they are now shown to do in any case.
This kills off the little bit of "moral high ground" that the ETH foundation and their "white hat collaborators" assigned themselves, namely "undoing theft even if that means giving up our own engagements of immutability". In other words, the authors of the ETH hard fork are now found to adhere to the same principles of functioning as the DAO hacker and ETC, while their whole forking business was based upon their claim to be "of a different morality".
the red line one can find in the ETH movement is that, even more than the DAO hacker, ANYTHING goes: not just playing by the hidden tricks in the game, but even altering the game, lying and cheating, as long as one can profit.
Good point. ETC supports unstoppable code running on an immutable ledger, which is what the ICO investors were sold. ETH is Calvinball, where even the rules for changing the rules are in constant flux.  |
|
|
|
Now that the brave, heroic DAO "rescue" has turned into catastrophe and scandal, nobody will admit having anything to do with the RHG. Confucius say, "Success has many fathers but failure is an orphan." |
|
|
|
How in the blue fuck was this going to work? Surely they didn't think they would be able to slide a shitton of tainted coins into a MAJOR EXCHANGE without someone freezing? Furthermore, said exchange would be brain-dead if it allowed them to crash that market, which is probably earning them a great deal of quid atm. This was a bold, bold misstep. And those funds are gonna be tied up forever. They certainly can't send them back; they are going to have to be released to a third party and I feel the authorities are going to get wrapped up in this eventually.
This is shady icing on a suspicious cake they have been building since the first blatant conflicts of interest arose in this saga.
Oh my, what delicious phrasing! The best part is we may still anticipate the cherry on top, and perhaps a side of ice scream as well.  ETH vs ETC is a battle for the soul and future of smart contracts. If there is one thing Satoshi might use His coins to change, this is it... |
|
|
|
where's our minecache friend with his etc = criminalcoin line? I haven't seen him writing it for at least 12 hours now. I miss it.
Mindcrash is in bed, trying to recover from a serious case of cognitive dissonance. The recent revelation, that his heroes in the EF/RHG stole millions of dollars worth of DAO investors' ETC and (clumsily) tried to launder them into exchanges for market manipulation purposes only to have them frozen when lawyers got involved, must have been a bit much for him to take. Meanwhile, let's remember the good old days back before mindcrash got completely fucking REKT.  |
|
|
|
I can't wait until Satoshi dumps his bitcoins!
To buy Ethereum Immutable
Heh. That would be the ultimate act of crypto-drama! And it's more likely than you think, because ETH vs ETC is a battle for the soul and future of smart contracts. The Architect is not happy with Team Bailout: Problems with Ethereum governance https://medium.com/@Swarm/problems-with-ethereum-governance-2209dd40ba11At least in Silicon Valley, not everyone is enthusiastic about the hard fork. At the last Silicon Valley Ethereum meetup in a show of hands only about half were in favor. Prominent dissenters now include Nick Szabo, Fred Ehrsam of Coinbase, and Peter Todd. Szabo commented that anonymous voting mechanisms are vastly preferable to things like carbonvote, which have several historically documented problems. Nick Szabo said it best at the end of our meetup, “Perhaps we should take the time to learn from the past before repeating its mistakes.” |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
