What is Monero's Problem? Some of the monero most prominent members act like bullies in the Bitcointalk forums. And that's a shame. No, criticizing bad tech is criticizing bad tech and coins built on (you guessed it) bad tech don't like when you point out their bad tech--though I think vcashers are mad because they borrowed code from Satoshi and forgot to thank him/her/them. You'd think they would be going after dash's market cap as they are in the same quick transaction market, but they also went after Bitcoin, so maybe they have a thing about attacking coins that are doing it the right way, which doesn't make sense, since strategically it would make more sense to go after the coin with similar investor profile or after a less technically proficient user base that can be more easily swayed by FUD--but whatever.... I'm sure they think they know what they're doing  speaking of bullies, criminals and stalkers....... Ceti, are you implying that I've done any of those things to you? Or is this just another weak attempt to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks? Do you really think so little of the community that you think they can be swayed with unsubstantiated rhetoric--I know this is all you need in dashland, but here you're gonna have to do better. |
|
|
|
What is Monero's Problem? Some of the monero most prominent members act like bullies in the Bitcointalk forums. And that's a shame. No, criticizing bad tech is criticizing bad tech and coins built on (you guessed it) bad tech don't like when you point out their bad tech--though I think vcashers are mad because they borrowed code from Satoshi and forgot to thank him/her/them. You'd think they would be going after dash's market cap as they are in the same quick transaction market, but they also went after Bitcoin, so maybe they have a thing about attacking coins that are doing it the right way, which doesn't make sense, since strategically it would make more sense to go after the coin with similar investor profile or after a less technically proficient user base that can be more easily swayed by FUD--but whatever.... I'm sure they think they know what they're doing |
|
|
|
Vcash is the only coin that ISPs can't kill by blocking a specific port and the only coin other than BTC that Poloniex only requires 1 confirmation for. Even if you don't understand what john's doing, you must have some agenda for attacking this coin with clear innovations when there are so many pointless clones worth more.
Look at the title of this thread--I wouldn't have even bothered posting if no one had gone after smooth. The title is meant to bait (specifically the Monero community) and you're surprised that people take that bait? |
|
|
|
nice move doremi!wise enought to not fall into liar's trap lol So dude can't produce evidence of his accusation and instead raises some old hate thread--yeah, nice move. And yes, he was caught lying and sidestepped the question--so saying "wise enough to not fall into the liar's trap lol" says a lot more than you think. Though I think it was more self-preservation than wisdom--as a wise man wouldn't make claims he couldn't back or could find a less obvious ploy to distract attention. |
|
|
|
I think now that Monero has flopped they could consider relaunching the network with an ICO
I mean like LISK and etc is doing, just use an existing project (in Monero's case Monero, in Lisk's case Crypti), and relaunch it with an ICO to work on the unfinished product.
That means Monero devs can attract a lot of funds and then finally finish the GUI etc
what say you, folks?
Are you talking about a Swap with an ICO?  Actually I mean just like LISK is doing now. Close the old project (Crypti), offer some bonus for Crypti holders in the ICO. Reopen with the same code, edit/revise/finish it with the help of the ICO funds. Monero can close the old chain and issue the ICO. Old Monero holders can exchange their coins for the new Monero. This way Monero devs can revive Monero, and gain the funds necessary to finish the GUI and other important stuff that's been neglected.  You know you're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist? You can follow the progress with the following links: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg14830769#msg14830769The presumption that throwing money or people at technical problems misses that bigger or more isn't always better--especially with complex programs that hinge on separate parts working seamlessly together. Or maybe a million monkeys could actually write Hamlet. Though it seems pretty unlikely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem |
|
|
|
d00d
V.B. practices duck and punch for months
David Haye takes $1B smart contract for V.B. to win (anon like of course)
Haye throws a punch as slow as he possibly can,
VB ducks and punches, Ctrl-Alt-Shift-Kill!
Haye goes down, Haye goes down!
Cha-Ching!
No self respecting fighter is going to take a dive for the skinny dude from Road Trip. Though..... Haye has an older sister--maybe she'll take a dive. |
|
|
|
Shitcoiner's rule #1 of investing. If it excites you and you are not expert, then buy more because most n00bs are also not experts. If you are an expert, never invest because you will buy Monero and never see any gains.
So there's this game that you can play, and in this game, you can buy stocks, housing and other asset that go up and down in value and even return interest--this game happens use Monero as its gateway currency, and if you play the game well, you exit that gateway with more Monero than you entered. If the price of Monero increases let's say 2-3 times in the year(s) you played the game, all the better. |
|
|
|
You can nitpick about random metrics of Bitcoin if you manage to survive past that date. Bitcoin will either be very valuable when the day comes, or people will all be killing each other in the street over slim jims and no currency will have value. I do not care about anything beyond that at this point, and likely neither does anyone else. There is nothing else to discuss. Doing nothing is not a solution. Ethereum is a scam, so to war with Bitcoin we go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pvxpv_fycl8Like clockwork, the truth is normally found at neither extreme but somewhere in the middle. I agree about doing nothing is not a solution. Bitcoin isn't even a good weapon in that war--there's a reason it's being embraced by TPTB: it isn't private and it is getting more centralized by the day. If Ethereum and Bitcoin both trend towards centralization to achieve their stated goals, how is anyone criticizing one while holding up the other as mankind's salvation? Maybe instead of looking at the first iteration of weaponry to fight centralized trust systems, we should be looking at the best weaponry currently available. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
|
Global politics aside, there doesn't seem any demonstrable reason that Bitcoin won't continue down the centralism road. There needs to be some change in the way Bitcoin works, and as of yet, I haven't read anything that sounds like in a change in Bitcoin, but rather periphery effects that may or may not lead to decentralization.
Other than the proposal YarkoL mentioned, are there any other changes that have been proposed? Is that a serious consideration?
Counting on other technologies or global politics to work out a problem inherent in Bitcoin seems chimerical.
|
|
|
|
And you should really put more attention to what TPTB is saying.
Neither Smooth or I agree with Anonymint about BTC mining having a predictable endgame. It's entirely plausible that commoditization of sha256d could make most big mining farms extinct, with the only miners remaining being people that use the waste heat to power some other type of utility: water heaters, central heating, industrial use, etc. You might risk the utility company diverting hash voting power for nefarious means in such a scenario, but what are the odds the utility companies of the US, North Korea, Iraq, Iceland, and whoever else all collude? It's impossible for Anonymint to know what shape mining will take in the future. You're the only one I've read use the term commoditization for Bitcoin mining's future--what do you mean? And can you clarify how it fixes the centralization problem? |
|
|
|
Hate me for this but this is where shadowcash steps in...
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but one of the Monero Devs deanonymized shadowcash already. https://shnoe.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/de-anonymizing-shadowcash-and-oz-coin/Although, if we are talking just about decentralization, shadowcash is probably more decentralized than dash--it would be hard not to be unless we're comparing it to Ripple. Thisnis old news dude... The fix was fixed... Didn't realize anyone had stuck with it after that, my bad. Though still not sure what sdc has to with dash's decentralization problem-- |
|
|
|
But we already knew DashHoles aren't exactly the brightest stars in the altcoin galaxy. http://blog.oleganza.com/post/144087873288/problem-with-proof-of-stake-and-coin-voting-inProblem with Proof of Stake and “coin voting” in general
The problem with “voting by coins” is that most coins do not vote. This leaves a small fraction of UTXO to actually vote which is not representative and highly volatile since anyone risking to use idle keys to a large stash of coins can dramatically affect the voting outcome.
Most coins are locked up well “under matress” with multisig, time locks and possibly even with HSM-controlled keys. Also, pubkeys to long-term stashes do not want to be exposed from under their hashes in order to be better protected against a QC development in the long term.
In other words, most coins that matter, cannot and will not vote.
This leaves only the least important coins to perform voting. Obviously, the result of such voting will be worthless. off-line masternode voting via trezor solves this problem. next. ...
off-line masternode voting via trezor solves this problem. next. Coins have nothing to do with voting. Nothing at all. Coins may stay safely locked down and votes can still be cast. These potential security concerns have been solved long ago. Thanks to Evan, Dash is three steps ahead. #REKT It doesn't solve the problem of centralization though. The only way you can do that is to openly redistribute the instamined coins and get rid of the aggregation of coins on masternodes--two things that will likely never happen. But I'm sure you'll add more layers of complexity to the problem in a vain attempt to stay a few steps ahead of criticism. But unless you do the two things I outlined, you will miss the core problem of centralization and any "fixes" will be lip stick on a pig. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1443867.msg14601018#msg14601018there is no centralization problem, your problem is with free market capitalism. the biggest dash holder bought his coins on the free market while you were wasting money on monero or some other coin that did not perform well, that's your own fault. the instamine does not affect anything anymore, no more than the monero cripplemine or btc's early distribution. the biggest fear early on with the instamine was that someone would dump a bunch of coins and crashing the price, that time has now passed. the ~400k cryptsy theft and slow dump affected the price more than anything (thanks for the cheap coins). as soon as those coins ran out around november the price slowly tripled. before that there was the mintpal dump from moolah alex green's hackery and even before that there was another exchange that was hacked early on and a bunch of coins that were dumped. lol, you had so many chances to buy cheap coins but failed and now you are butthurt. the monero cripplemine and the dash instamine are both old news and i don't think either effects the coins anymore. however the dash instamine was accidental and the monero crippledminer was a scam by corrupt devs. the 11.8 million monero fastmine is the main problem. due to the double whammy of the cripplemine and fastmine y'all should just restart monero with a fair emission curve and non crippledminer. oh and a official GUI wallet would be nice too.  i wouldn't waste my time however as monero (one trick pony) will soon be replaced by zcash or something similar. dump now, thank me later! Why the bitmonero/monero Ninjalaunched Cripplemined Fastmine matters https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1435385.0So you want us to believe that the instaminers (not that that's the whole issue with centralization--masternodes being the other part) not only sold "all" their coins, but also didn't engage in market manipulation to gain more cheap coins? And further, you want us to believe they didn't design benefits into the coin for coin hodling and didn't take advantage of the very benefits they designed into the coin?
 |
|
|
|
But we already knew DashHoles aren't exactly the brightest stars in the altcoin galaxy. http://blog.oleganza.com/post/144087873288/problem-with-proof-of-stake-and-coin-voting-inProblem with Proof of Stake and “coin voting” in general
The problem with “voting by coins” is that most coins do not vote. This leaves a small fraction of UTXO to actually vote which is not representative and highly volatile since anyone risking to use idle keys to a large stash of coins can dramatically affect the voting outcome.
Most coins are locked up well “under matress” with multisig, time locks and possibly even with HSM-controlled keys. Also, pubkeys to long-term stashes do not want to be exposed from under their hashes in order to be better protected against a QC development in the long term.
In other words, most coins that matter, cannot and will not vote.
This leaves only the least important coins to perform voting. Obviously, the result of such voting will be worthless. off-line masternode voting via trezor solves this problem. next. ...
off-line masternode voting via trezor solves this problem. next. Coins have nothing to do with voting. Nothing at all. Coins may stay safely locked down and votes can still be cast. These potential security concerns have been solved long ago. Thanks to Evan, Dash is three steps ahead. #REKT It doesn't solve the problem of centralization though. The only way you can do that is to openly redistribute the instamined coins and get rid of the aggregation of coins on masternodes--two things that will likely never happen. But I'm sure you'll add more layers of complexity to the problem in a vain attempt to stay a few steps ahead of criticism. But unless you do the two things I outlined, you will miss the core problem of centralization and any "fixes" will be lip stick on a pig. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1443867.msg14601018#msg14601018EDIT: you could also limit the node aggregation to a very small fee (much tinier than the 10%-50% APR currently) and redistribute the instamined coins and take all power functions away from masternode control--though the odds of these things happening are pretty slim to none as it would require Evan and his buddies owning up to the instamine and relinquishing the benefits. |
|
|
|
Hate me for this but this is where shadowcash steps in...
Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but one of the Monero Devs deanonymized shadowcash already. https://shnoe.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/de-anonymizing-shadowcash-and-oz-coin/Although, if we are talking just about decentralization, shadowcash is probably more decentralized than dash--it would be hard not to be unless we're comparing it to Ripple. |
|
|
|
You don't get my point :
Another shit thread from Trolleros.
YOU WILL NEVER SWALLOW DASH MARKETCAP! For fuck sake NEVER! Your coin is dying because of your fucking community of morons...
Once again: Try to make something positive for what you like, and stop talking about Dash all day long.
And for your title it should say : "Why I think Dash fails decentralization".
Objectivity kid, Objectivity.
I also made another topic that fits your logic.  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1430839.msg14472374#msg14472374 |
|
|
|
Decentralizationthis :    Centralizationthis :  Without mentioning, that without GUI more than 90% of all XMR must be in Polo  great decentralization example kid! How many node Monero have (from https://monerohash.com/nodes-distribution.html) Total nodes: 176 - Last updated: 24 minutes ago (just lol : another great decentralization example kid!) Another shit thread from Trolleros. YOU WILL NEVER SWALLOW DASH MARKETCAP! For fuck sake NEVER! Your coin is dying because of your fucking community of morons... Once again: Try to make something positive for what you like, and stop talking about Dash all day long. You didn't read or understand the OP. Dash's failure at trustless decentralization is the test case that formed my understanding of why trustless decentralization is necessary for any cryptocurrency to succeed at being disruptive. Dash's failure is that it built a centralizing flaw that aggregates coins to those who run nodes and layering power functions (votes, fees, privacy, etc...) onto these nodes.
Dash's nodes have two major weaknesses in design: first, they are pay based, or paynodes, which means that they can be bought and sold. The second flaw in design is that they collect fees, which means node holders collect money that in turn can be used to buy more nodes that in turn can collect more fees, and so on and so forth. Where this especially becomes troubling is that dash's launch produced 2 million coins in 2 days and this initial distribution cannot be verified to be fairly distributed, which means the resources to buy 2000 nodes (more than half of current existing at this writing) were made available to a few lucky guys who happened to be mining at that right moment--considering this is 30% of current distribution and given that they could have bought 2000 or more masternodes since that scheme was introduced, the number of masternodes these initial miners could have may be considerably more than 30%, and considering that this control can aggregate over time, it illustrates why these systems need to be trustlessly verified.
I apologize for all the numbers just thrown at you, but lets make it simpler, since the masternode system collects the revenue that determines its degree of centralization, and that centralization can't be verified to any statistical certainty, we should assume that it is increasingly trending towards a traditional oligarchy or monarchy, where one or a few have undue power over the entire system--how it behaves, the distribution and security of its benefits.
We can assume this model fails at decentralization if we follow the principle that a cryptosystem should be trustlessly verified--it is imperative that if you want to break away from the shackles of a central power and from the enablers of these systems, you can not get there following the same old trusted rules, mathematics have given us the tools to undermine and outperform these old world systems, but we will never get there by using systems that forgo the technology and embrace the old world trust model in a vain attempt to disrupt those standards by embracing them.
As for those graphs and there lack of any useful information for determining real-ownership, the implications of a large control of nodes to a few people (no matter what hosting service they run or in what country), or even redistribution on exchanges is back into the hands of a few instaminers at a lower cost, which therefore aggregates more control--two words:  |
|
|
|
More crapcoin spam on the front page than usual now. I keep seeing some lunatic post claiming "Rimbit" is going to defeat BTC LOL.
Alts used to pump on legit news not so long ago. Now the only movement up is on P&D scams like the recent EXE action on Poloniex. I believe the Anonymizer and smoooooth have decided to let the "get rich quick with my lunch money" crowd run wild without retort. A P&D circus is what the gamblers want. I do believe there exists a significant quantity of readers (100s?) on these forums that want to invest and support an altcoin which has serious potential to solve the problem that, Bitcoin IS basically DESTROYED. I also believe if ever such an altcoin arrived and it was gaining serious levels of user adoption (e.g. millions of users of the currency), then number of serious readers and investors would increase to the 1000s. I believe all of us are conditioned to think that no such altcoin will be forthcoming because developments thus far have been so underwhelming, scammy, vaporware, and/or slower than a snail's pace. Monero and Z.cash for example appear to be serious projects plodding forward at a reasonable pace, but neither of them really solve the "to the billions" scaling problems and they'd argue that such a scaling goal isn't required or possible for now or even ever. Does anyone agree or disagree with this presumption of mine? Adaptations come through a process of desire. ATM the only desire is for a blockchain to handle this type of stress based on theoretical capacity--until there's a legitimate demand/stress we won't know what any of these technologies can handle. We need either more attacks or more actual demand to ascertain what they can and can't do. My guess is if the demand was there and a lone technology couldn't handle the stress, either existing technologies would be adapted to use with the new technology or a more adaptive technology would replace it. To put it bluntly, we're still at the "My dad can kick your dad's ass" stage. |
|
|
|
I will never understand why the two communities are hating themselves. I don't own any of them, so I haven't a side. Beside that, getting added on BTC-e is not a common thing. Congratulations !
Its not really hate, honestly. Its more like getting awake in the middle of the night by some irritating mosquito (aka Monero troll) that is constantly buzzing near you. In the end you just want to squash it so you can get some decent sleep. Try waking up to an annoying sockpuppet trying to sell you shares of Pets.com masternodes. |
|
|
|
i wonder why xmr development were focused on thing that we cannot see such " increase of anonimity " arent their coin anon already how would we rate their improvement sound like a bunch of hot air to me LOL Nice concern trolling, but I think you missed the memo that would have told you that anonymity, like fungibility, isn't a yes/no proposition in cryptosystems, but a more/less proposition. Thankfully the Monero team has cryptographers that are actively working to reduce or eliminate attack vectors, in this case with I2p developers. Would you like to dig a deeper hole and second guess I2p developers too? https://github.com/monero-project/kovri |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
