Secure PoW needs decentralized hardware, while PoS needs decentralized distribution, both are theoretically insecure and both are practically secure except for low difficulty (or price) coins.
Thing is, all coins started @ low prices... so there is a history of ownership by bagholders when the price was near zero. |
|
|
|
But again, the interesting thing is that you can buy up 51% of a PoS coin, and then sell off your coins so that you no longer have 51%, but your history of having once owned 51% makes it possible to attack the network at any time, for free.
I doubt it. => The other attacks you describe all derive from the fundamental reason I declared all non-proof-of-work systems to be insecure back in April.
My logic was mathematically fundamental. The input entropy set is quite deterministic and well known and thus can be preimaged. For example, accumulating a lot of coin-days-destroyed and then targeting them in clever ways to subvert the security.
The randomness (entropy) of each proof-of-work is fundamental and mathematical and it can not be preimaged. It can only be surely defeated with > 50% of the network hash rate.
|
|
|
|
So how did he 'acquire' the coins? Sure, PoS security includes distribution, but to say thats no risk, no cost attack is just false?
In the nothing-at-stake vector You buy / mine (depending the initial distribution) => you sell (at this point you are even) => you keep the "snapshot" of when you had the coins => you now begin an attack on the network with zero coins and nothing to lose. |
|
|
|
This is Veri's growth chart. Looks great to me. Over 500 btc buys this morning, if it carries on like this, it could go parabolic like DRK.
Just don't forget to get out in the right time, however great the pump is - it's still PoS coin... Whats the problem with pos coins ? So to summarize, if a credible attacker announces his/her intention to destroy a POS currency, holders of that currency are likely to sell to the attacker very cheaply due to their belief that the attack will be successful and thus their coins will be worth nothing if they sell them. Very interesting point. In fact, it presents a "prisoner's dilemma" of sorts, where an attacker can be thwarted if the majority is able to resist the pressure, but where it's in the interests of an individual to break consensus and deal with the attacker. Yes, but there are still other vectors which do not really require selling. You can use prior owned coins to attack the blockchain. You can counterfeit the chain with a chain where you HAD the majority stake at some point of time - but you no longer need that majority to launch a nothing at stake attack - where you risk absolutely zero effort / money (you've already sold your coins in the past). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615843.msg6753716#msg6753716The attack has no cost or risk.
Very simplified example:
The network stake is 2M xCoins.
I acquired 1.1M xCoins as of block 1,000.
I sell you 1.1 M xCoins for $$$$$$$ and the transfer is recorded in block 1,001.
I now no longer have any xCoins (effective block 1,001+), I have no cost as I received $$$$$$ in return for the 1.1M xCoins.
I start building an attack chain as of block 1,000 double spending my transfer.
Eventually even if the main chain has a head start, my attack chain will be longer. This is no different than a 51% attack on a PoW based network however my attack has no cost and no risk. I already sold the coins. I am merely using my history of prior ownership to attack the network.
Compare that to PoW. I build a hashing farm with 51% of network capacity. If I attack with it then the attack has cost and risk. The farm wasn't free, I may not succeed in which case I would lose all the legit blocks I could build. If I sell the hashing farm I can't engage in an attack based on the history that at one point in the past I had more hashing power than the rest of the network.
Both are vulnerable to a 51% attack however PoS allows the attacker to exploit the history (your security mechanism is recorded in the very thing you are attempting to secure) to attack without cost or risk.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin represents a systemic rebellion because it is "coded" money. The people living inside the coded virtual reality have now coded their own money to bypass existing structures. This dynamic is extremely fierce because multiple factors collide:
Thank you for this interesting perspective. Robert Anton Wilson has said that the future war(s) will be between those who would like to program themselves vs. those who would like to program everybody else. Thing is, it's not in the future. It's happening right now. All the programming bombardment is intended for this purpose. Those who can resist this programming are few and far between. This will change only as the percentage of those who can resist external programming rise in numbers and the species gets "security hardening" from the 100th monkey effect. The ultimate form of programming and hacking, is the programming of the human mind. Few know how the mind is programmed and even fewer know how they are self-programming themselves every day through their actions.
For every action there is a subconscious programming routine that is performed automatically: When you steal, your subconscious observes the stealing act and says "Since I'm stealing, my creative capacities are obviously not very good - otherwise I'd be able to manage on my own... the fact that I'm stealing proves that I have inadequate creative capacities". This is programming the subconscious of the thief into a very strong self-affirmation of limitation and parasitism. Nothing good can come out of that. This dynamic is inescapable in human affairs and it will blow up in some way, at some time.
The way this dual mechanism works is very, very interesting. Hypnotists use it to pass “suggestions” as pre-suppositions. They say something to the subject that pre-supposes something else as being true. For example, “when you'll awake later on, you'll feel relaxed and refreshed”... When the hypnotist says what will happen after the subject is taken out of the hypnotic state, it actually implies to the subject's subconscious that he will be hypnotized - it is a "given". Otherwise the second part doesn't make sense – as it pre-supposes the validity of the first part, which “goes through” without much resistance. Humanity at large is being programmed into inadequacy and limitation through this very mechanism as such pre-suppositions are so widespread that it is not even funny. For example, in a train platform I often hear “please mind the gap”, or “please mind your personal belongings”. What do these “suggestions” imply to my subconscious? Obviously, that I lack common sense and that I need to be treated like sheep. Same with some idiotic warnings in modern devices, or even cups of coffee that are supposed to warn us that hot coffee is... well... hot. Even the new books given to children in schools are touted as “much better”, in the sense that they contain a lot of simple language, explanations, photos, diagrams – all supposed to explain things in a better way. Yet, the child's subconscious will re-act like that: “ If I'm shown all these stuff in so many ways so that I can get a simple concept, then perhaps my intellectual capacity is not so good” - which then produces a generation of dumb kids. Same goes for TV and the masses when it tries to dumb-down the content so that the masses can supposedly understand it, which implies that they are too dumb to understand it in any other way. Implied suggestions that work as trojan horses of self limitation are a very basic component of external programming that is not so apparent as media content. Some of these suggestions come in "nice boxes" like "better books / education" or "government subsidies to the poor", which really intends to "lock" people into parasitic mentality. When everyone is feeding from the government it only takes a few decades to fully corrupt society and corrupt the ability of people to actually be creative and do something useful in their life. All under the guise of "helping the poor" - which in itself is a pretense. In the act of taking the money from the government, the individual is registering self-limiting beliefs that he is inadequate to create wealth on his own / he is a parasite - which is self-reinforced as a subconscious self-suggestion every time the act occurs. The United States are the #1 state where external programming methods are being applied consistently, at a rate of 10-100x compared to elsewhere, although Europe is slowly catching up. |
|
|
|
This is Veri's growth chart. Looks great to me. Over 500 btc buys this morning, if it carries on like this, it could go parabolic like DRK.
Just don't forget to get out in the right time, however great the pump is - it's still PoS coin... Whats the problem with pos coins ? |
|
|
|
Και άσχετα με τις αδυναμίες που αναφέρεις ξέρουμε πως αν δεν είχε κάνει το official τουιτάρισμα το DKR τότε, η τιμή ναι θα είχε διορθωθεί, αλλά δε θα έπεφτε εκεί που είναι τώρα...
Το pump του XC ηταν σε πολυ μεγαλο βαθμο πλασματικο. Ειχε κολλησει το blockchain και δεν γινοντουσαν transactions... το cryptsy ειχε ξεμεινει απο XC και ο whale buyer τα ειχε αγορασει ολα μεχρι το 0.006. Αυτοι στο mintpal εβλεπαν τη κινηση στο cryptsy οπότε αγοραζαν και αυτοι και το φτασανε 0.0045+... σου λεει εδω στο cryptsy ειναι 0.006. Ολο αυτο ηταν επειδη δεν υπηρχαν νομισματα ή ηταν κολλημενα σε transit. Μολις ξεκολλησαν τα tx και floodαρισαν τα market με ρευστοτητα (η οποια ειχε στεγνωσει 100%), ολοι πουλαγαν σα τρελοι. Μολις ειδαν και το tweet εγινε της μουρλης. Υπ'οψην οτι δεν υπηρχε καποιο "fud" - ασχετα τι αναπαραγουν (και το χουν πιστεψει στο thread του XC). Ο chaeplin απλα αντιπαρεθεσε τα 2 github. Δεν υπηρχε καποιο ψεμα. Ο dan εσβησε ΟΛΟ το github (LOL) και στη συνεχεια ειπε οτι "ανεβασε κατα λαθος" ενα αρχειο. Και μετα βρεθηκε και κωδικας απ'το fedoracoin στο main, παλι μεσω του github. Και αυτο κατα λαθος?  Μετα ΞΑΝΑΣΒΗΝΕΙ το github και αλλαζει τον κωδικα + φωναζει ατομα να "επιβεβαιωσουν" οτι δεν χρησιμοποιει κωδικα, ενω το review εγινε στον αλλαγμενο κωδικα. Και λενε μετα "FUD". Και πολλοι το πιστεψαν οτι ηταν fud-attack ενω το github δε λεει ψεματα. Γι'αυτο και το σβησε ολο το github 2-3 φορες - αλλιως αν εκανε απλα changes θα φαίνονταν το ιστορικο. Είχε πολύ καλό PR και όντως προσπάθησε να κάνει σοβαρή δουλεία αρχικά αλλά βασίστηκε σε broken τεχνολογία για ανωνυμία.
Το PR του DRK, ηταν 0. Η αγορα το ανακαλυψε. Κανεις δεν εκανε marketing το DRK. Το παραπανω post που παρεθεσα απ'το Μαρτη ειναι ακριβως για την "αναγκη" του marketing/hype κτλ. Τους ειπα οτι δεν χρειαζεται να κουνησετε δαχτυλακι - ολα θα γινουν στη βαση των fundamentals του 1%, οπως και εγινε. Αφοτου εκανε το μπαμ, μετα ασχοληθηκαν και τα media. Οσο για το οτι ειναι broken tech, προφανως το coinjoin εχει περιορισμους - αλλα το DRK δεν ξεκινησε να γινει fully anonymous. Το πλανο, εξ'αρχης, ηταν για moderate anonymity. TL;DR: We're building XCoin into a moderately-anonymous network, where the transactions are sent encrypted and only able to be read the party who is receiving the funds. Blocks will be published via CoinJoin as to ensure some amount of anonymity. This is being built in such a way to compete with the other top alt-coins and maybe even Bitcoin.
Καπου στο Μαρτιο, υπηρξαν καποιες συζητησεις με τον Anonymint ο οποιος ειχε πολυ περισσοτερες απαιτησεις και ως εκ τουτου "εσπρωξε" τον Evan να βελτιωσει το design σε μεγαλυτερο βαθμο anonymity και αυτο γινεται εκτοτε με τα revisions. Φυσικα το bitcoin blockchain παντα θα ειναι πιο διαφανο απ'το bytecoin αλλα το πρωτο εχει αποδειχτει robust επι 5ετια ενω το bytecoin ειναι ακομα ερωτηματικο. Οταν εχεις προγραμματα => code breaks. Ειναι γνωστο αυτο. Πρεπει να δουμε απλα τι θα σπασει και ποσο θα σπασει. |
|
|
|
|
Just tell them they are laundering money through exchanges as their anon-strategy and they'll have a bigger laugh.
|
|
|
|
I was talking in general. Bitcoin is anonymous compared to Credit Cards/Wire Transfers or other money transmittings.
To me the Darkcoin approach looks the most promissing to get true anonymity somewhen.
You probably won't get any kind of "true" anonymity from DarkSend. In current whitepaper there are too many edge cases when the blockchain analysis allows finding which output belong to which inputs with very high probability. DarkSend by itself really doesn't prevent reuse of addresses and doesn't prevent linking different addresses to the same wallet (user). DarkCoin implements CoinJoin concept. For example, in some implementations of CoinJoin it is even possible to determine which outputs belong to which inputs by eyeballing: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/27rsv8/confirmed_blockchaininfo_shared_coin_is_broken/DarkSend will make blockchain analysis just "harder", but still far from impossible. The paper is a few months old - the spec has changed since then. The inputs/outputs by eyeballing may occur in normal coinjoin, but do not apply for DarkSend where inputs are identical (denomination of 10 DRK). http://explorer.darkcoin.io/tx/56b3b95b76995d3e4d3107cf753c8496493010f625fc04d971e9262d74e6a5a5As you can see, inputs are 10-10-10 and the published analysis of input/output matching for coinjoin can't apply for DarkSend. There are other weaknesses, like the linking of change, which'll need improvement. |
|
|
|
Reality is made of language and money is a language, too.
If you take the language and make it programming language, it's spot on. Some of the scientists who are not so afraid to step out of linear/group thinking are beginning to understand and express that the fabric of reality is information and code, while the bing bang is something like ...a PC "booting" loading the OS. This reality has hardcoded constants for what constitutes "money". These constants are gold and silver. When fiat money was adopted, it wasn't really a systemic rebellion of humans vs the "program". Fiat was primarily used by the Elite so that the commoners can have their paper scam while they hoard the gold. So it was still recognized that gold is the #1 and paper was just a substitute so that they can acquire more of it. Gold was considered too precious to be in circulation and owned by the billions of people, so it was "devalued" in the eyes of the public and rendered "useless" compared to fiat money - which allowed the debt-slavery system to leech people of their resources and gold. Bitcoin represents a systemic rebellion because it is "coded" money. The people living inside the coded virtual reality have now coded their own money to bypass existing structures. This dynamic is extremely fierce because multiple factors collide: - Gold and Silver are hardcoded so they can't be beaten - The fiat scam is vulnerable to the Bitcoin model - although the political power can influence adoption - The global electronic currency which they have been planning now has a better "alternative" (Bitcoin) which will not be issued as debt or controlled by the Elite in the same manner (hierarchical/centralized vs P2P) |
|
|
|
Edit: DRK coins can currently be stolen https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc3-hard-fork-on-june-20th.1241/ and supports the hot/cold setup for masternode operators (allowing your money to not be risked at all.). So, until DRK fixes its fork, all DRK coins transferred through darksend are at risk. That's why the maximum darksend limit is 10, not the bullshit excuse you posted above. The node money is not any of the concern of those transacting money. It's the node owners responsibility to secure them, just like someone running an xnode can get his wallet emptied. That's not the transaction money. It's the node's owner's money and they can be hacked/stolen like any other wallet. With cold wallets it will actually be easier to hack an xnode rather than a masternode. When we say XC is stealing coins, we mean the transactions themselves which are trusted. any proven so or the stealing coins coming out your ass? Roll back several pages and you'll find such a transaction with lost coins. But why are you doubting this? ATCsecure said it himself... as it is right now the system is vulnerable to this type of situation. He WILL fix it in the future. |
|
|
|
Yes I understand that "stuck" is a figure of speech to depict "crawling speeds", but people were complaining about txs that took hours.
We need to do a stress test on the network with 100-500-1000-10000 txs per hour to see if it scales and record the networks ability to process them. After the findings are recorded, an assessment must be done and a course of action should be decided on whether it needs fixing or not.
Doing a comparative test to other networks (like BCN and BBR) for similar amounts of transactions is also desired for comparison purposes.
The adaptive blocksizing works fine scaling to any blocksize up to the static limit of 5MB, propagation issues however will make the network difficult to use at these sizes. Because of the fast block timing, it's undesirable to instantaneously generate huge blocks, and adaptive block sizing assists in ensuring this does not happen. This is the same issue as seen with Bitcoin; there is not fundamental scaling issue CryptoNote coins have that Bitcoin-derived coins do not. This is exacerbated to some extent by larger tx sizes with CN coins, but a lot of this slowdown was simply due to pool related dust on the network bloating tx size, an issue that has been resolved. Please consider doing a scaling analysis / simulated scaling run and publish results (no sugar coating) + proposed courses of action to rectify things that may need improvement... If you leave it to third parties to conduct such scaling review, the market is at the mercy of third-parties or FUDers to do it. When they do it, they can have enormous power to tank the market by issuing a report that "CN coins are dead" with proof of a curve hitting a wall that renders the coins DOA. You need to be pro-active about these things. " Yes we are aware of the problem through our own investigation and we are working on it" etc etc. |
|
|
|
I knew CN has scaling issues, but this went beyond my expectation. I don't know whether the adaptive block size is at fault or something (I read the thread - but that's the extent of my knowledge regarding the root cause of the issues), but it was not "looking good" to have the chain "stuck".
The chain was never actually stuck, there's just a limit to how many tx may be included in a block at a time. Many users didn't understand this and panicked and kept trying to resubmit their tx to the network, only to find that the tx were already in the mempool waiting to be included in a block. Adaptive block sizing expanded the chain within an hour, and then the tx all went through. It seems there was a misconception with that userbase that because block timing is fast, that their tx should be as fast, however, this is not the case from the code or the original documentation. Yes I understand that "stuck" is a figure of speech to depict "crawling speeds", but people were complaining about txs that took hours. We need to do a stress test on the network with 100-500-1000-10000 txs per hour to see if it scales and record the networks ability to process them. After the findings are recorded, an assessment must be done and a course of action must be decided on what to fix (or not fix). Doing a comparative test to other networks (like BCN and BBR) for similar amounts of transactions is also useful for comparison purposes. |
|
|
|
|
Just to be sure, I own a few MROs myself as a hedge to DRK (although I sold most of them in 0.007-8 with the intention to buy back lower and make a better cost avg), my question-post was to a guy popping up in the DRK thread and pumping Monero / shitting on DRK for like two pages...
I might answer a few counter-points later, as I don't have time right now. However yesterday's events were unsettling. If MRO can't take transactions by 200-300 geeks who use it right now, how can it scale to Bitcoin's levels of 2014 (500-1000 tx per block)?
I knew CN has scaling issues, but this went beyond my expectation. I don't know whether the adaptive block size is at fault or something (I read the thread - but that's the extent of my knowledge regarding the root cause of the issues), but it was not "looking good" to have the chain "stuck".
I always wondered how the market valued bitcoin-based scamcoins with "anon" features (=vaporware) with a 3 day or 1 week lifespan, higher than MRO which had obvious value, but the lack of trust in the bytecoin codebase compared to the trust displayed to the bitcoin codebase may explain this difference. And, maybe, yesterday's events show that this lack of trust towards BCN / CN-codebase is not entirely wrong. Although I believe there is a genuine need for different codebases to hedge Bitcoin with.
Usability can be fixed (adding a GUI is nothing serious), but scaling needs to be worked ASAP. A few people sending coins simultaneously and having the chain stuck = "DOA" material.
|
|
|
|
Liberty δυστυχώς τη πάτησα . Εντάξει δε μπήκα και μέσα, το χρόνο μου έχασα, απλά χάρις αυτό ένιωσα στο πετσί μου πως δουλεύει το community εδώ μέσα.
Αστα να πανε. Αυτό που αναφέρεις για το κλέψιμο των nodes, ΑΚΟΜΑ και να υποθέσουμε πως μπορεί να αποδειχθεί προβληματικό
Οχι, προσεξε - δεν υπαρχει καμμια υποθεση. Ειναι 100% προβληματικο. Ο τυπος εχει χακαρει τα wallets ετσι ωστε το ενα wallet να στελνει coins στο αλλο και στο τελος να φθανουν στο προορισμο. Αν εγω χακαρω το wallet και το κανω να ΜΗ στελνει coins προς τα εμπρος, τελος. Τα κρατησα τα coins. Ακομα και off να πατησω στο pc οταν λαβω τα coins απο ενα ενδιαμεσο transaction (πριν τα προωθησω προς τα εμπρος) παλι τα κραταω τα coins. Απλα θελει reinstall το wallet μετα για να μη κανει retry να τα στειλει οταν ξανανοιξει ο υπολογιστης. Ειναι διατρητο το μοντελο. Αυτο ειναι το προβλημα των trusted transactions. , πιστεύω θα το φτιάξει, γιατί ξέρει πως πρέπει να το δουλέψει και δεν το έκρυψε το bug. Απλά η λύση που πρότεινε και χλεύασαν πρέπει να τεσταριστεί live. Γιατί από τεχνικά δεν γνωρίζω, αλλά ξέρω πως όταν έρθει η ώρα θα δούμε αν μπορεί να λειτουργήσει όπως πρέπει. Πάντως και μόνο που απάντησε ότι θα το κάνει, δε σημαίνει πως επειδή δεν το έκανε εκείνη τη στιγμή προσπαθεί να το αποφύγει. Που ακόμα και στη χειρότερη να το απέφυγε, το πιο πιθανό είναι να το διορθώσει, απλά να μη το είχε έτοιμο.
Το προβλημα ξερεις ποιο ειναι? Οτι στην αρχη λεμε ενταξει, να δουμε τι θα φτιαξει (σημειωση εγω ειχα αγορασει απ'τα 0.00007 και πραγματικα περιμενα να κανει κατι καλο)... εστησε ενα κεντρικο μιξερ και λεει εχω working anon... καπου εκει εγω ειμαι σε στυλ "αυτο ειναι? wtf?"... Και λεει μετα για βελτιωσεις στο next version... λεμε οκ, αντε να δουμε τι θα φτιαξει μετα... Και εφτιαξε κατι το οποιο ειναι εντελως ηλιθιο. Και μονο που ειχε τετοιο σκεπτικο ειναι επικινδυνο - γιατι δειχνει οτι παρα τα qualifications που εχει ως προγραμματιστης, το ολο θεμα το εχει σκεφτει εντελως λαθος. Πιο λαθος δε παιρνει. Και το ηξερε οτι ειναι λαθος και το πεταγε κατω απ'το χαλι, συνεχεια. Ελεγε οχι δε θα κλεβονται coins κτλ... το οποίο ειναι ευχολόγια γιατι τεχνικα ειναι πανευκολο να το κανεις (και το ξερει). Οταν κλαπηκαν τα πρωτα coins λεει οκ θα βαλουμε learning trust model - ΝΤΟΥΥΥΥΒΒΒ. Εκει πραγματικα ηταν να σπασεις το μονιτορ απ'αυτα που διαβαζεις. Δεν υπαρχει learning trust, ειναι ολο λαθος. Δεν μιλαμε για απλη διορθωση. Μιλαμε για back to the drawing board. Του το επισημαναμε οτι και το learning trust model ειναι μουφα και επιτελους "καταλαβε" οτι χρειαζεται transaction signing. Στη πραξη το χε καταλαβει πολυ νωριτερα, απλα αρνιοταν να πεταξει τη δουλεια του ως λανθασμενη - κρατώντας ολο το XC community σε μια μουφα λυση που δε μπορει να τη παρουσιασει πουθενα χωρις να γελαει ο κοσμος. Ο Σατοσι εφτιαξε τα trustless transactions και ο Dan θεωρησε "πατεντα" ή καινοτομια το να τα ξανακανει trusted  Αν υπαρχει ενας λογος που η τιμη δε πηγαινει πουθενα, ειναι αυτος. Οτι τεχνολογικα το XC ειναι σε αδιεξοδο και οι επενδυτες αρνουνται να ριξουν χρημα αν δε το φτιαξει. In his defense, είχατε μπει τουλάχιστον 4-5 άτομα, εσύ, ο chaeplin και ένα δύο troll accounts και τον σπαμμάρατε. Αν χάθηκε και κάποιο τεστ στη πορεία, χάθηκε. Συμφωνώ μαζί σου πως ΠΡΑΚΤΙΚΑ, όταν γίνουνε διαφορετικά τα μεγέθη και μεγαλώσει η κοινότητα και τα transactions, τότε θα δούμε πραγματικά τι θα γίνει.
Αποφευγω να σπαμαρω / τρολαρω. Αλλα μπορει να εθεσα τεχνικα προβληματα υπ'οψην του. Αν καποιον τον ενδιαφερει ενα απλο pump & dump, δλδ να αγορασει, να βγαλει 1000% και να βγει, οκ, εκει τα fundamentals του coin ειναι αδιαφορα. Δε τον νοιαζει αν δουλευει το anonymity, αν το coin ειναι futureproof κτλ κτλ. Αμα εχεις μεγαλο επενδυτικο οριζοντα δεν εχεις λογο να επενδυσεις σε coin που ειναι DOA. Εντάξει cryptonote και τέτοια ξεφεύγουν από τις έτσι και αλλιώς περιορισμένες γνώσεις μου, αλλά και μόνο που άτομα σαν εσένα προσδιορίζουν τις τεχνικές τους αδυναμίες με κάνει να καταλάβω πως έχουνε τα προβλήματα τους και για αυτό ο κόσμος δε τα έχει απλά εκτοξεύσει, ώστε να σηκώσουν οι υπόλοιποι τα χέρια ψηλά και να πούνε "ΟΚ cryptonotes βρήκαν τη λύση, no reason να ασχολιόμαστε άλλο με αυτό" .
Ειναι προβλημα γιατι δεν υπαρχει ουτε 1 λυση αυτη τη στιγμη που να ειναι καλη. Ολα εχουν +/-. Ολα τα anonymous coins ειναι ακομα στην αρχη. Καποια "φτιαχνονται" / παιρνουν βελτιωσεις, καποια οχι. Κλείνοντας να πω πως δεν ξέρω κατά πόσο παρακολουθείς το XC topic, αλλά αυτό που αναφέρεις με το τεράστιο blockchain μου κάνει ΠΑΡΑ πολύ σχετικό με τις τελευταίες ανακοινώσεις jasinlee περί cachecoin(και τη συνεργσία με XC). Αν τυχόν δεν τα έχεις δει πες μου να στα ξεθάψω να τα σχολιάσεις
Κατι πηρε το ματι μου γιατι tankαρισε η τιμη μετα το συνεδριο και τη παρουσιαση... το tradeαριζα στα 115-120+ και μετα το πηρε η κατηφορα. Πραγματικα μου φαινεται αδιαφορη η εξελιξη και ασχετη με το anonymity. Οσον αφορα τα XC / Cachecoin, το cache φαινεται οτι κερδισε σε marketcap ενω το xc εχασε. Καλά όσο για scamcoin, rzr pumps κτλ δε θα αναφερθώ καν. Αφού το TOR προϋπήρχε πως γίνεται τώρα κάποιος να βγει και να το χρησιμοποιήσει για το anonimity? Κάποιο λάκκο θα έχει η φάβα.
Δουλευουν τον κοσμο. TOR εχει μεχρι και το bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Edit: DRK coins can currently be stolen https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc3-hard-fork-on-june-20th.1241/ and supports the hot/cold setup for masternode operators (allowing your money to not be risked at all.). So, until DRK fixes its fork, all DRK coins transferred through darksend are at risk. That's why the maximum darksend limit is 10, not the bullshit excuse you posted above. The node money is not any of the concern of those transacting money. It's the node owners responsibility to secure them, just like someone running an xnode can get his wallet emptied. That's not the transaction money. It's the node's owner's money and they can be hacked/stolen like any other wallet. With cold wallets it will actually be easier to hack an xnode rather than a masternode. When we say XC is stealing coins, we mean the transactions themselves which are trusted. |
|
|
|
I believe it's fair to say DRK catalyzed the field in that respect too. People are looking for innovation to invest into instead of shitcoins. However there's too much scam mentality. Coins showing a screenshot of some ultra-wallet that has X, Y functionality (that is just a photoshop or something) and run away with the money. I am having problems with the website but can someone tell me when RC4 will be there please ?
RC3 needs to be relaunched first. No dates right now. |
|
|
|
Γεια σου alexgr χαίρομαι που σε βλέπω και αλλού πέρα από το XC topic
Οι απαντήσεις σου ήταν πάντα τουλάχιστον μη προκλητικές και χαίρομαι που διαβάζω το quote σου και πέφτεις μέσα!
Το anonymous market το "πιστευω" στη βαση των fundamentals και παντα ειμουν diversified σε πολλα απ'τα ανωνυμα coins γιατι ειναι τα μονα που προσφερουν κατι που το bitcoin ισως δε μπορει να καλυψει (+ λυνουν το προβλημα του fungibility)... ακομα και οταν η αγορα ειχε μονο DRK + ANC (2mn + 1mn marketcap), τα ειχα και τα 2. Μετα βγηκε το bytecoin, το monero κτλ κτλ. Τα αλλα που εχουν βγει με κωδικα βασισμενο στο bitcoin το 90% ειναι scam (τυπου libertycoin / honorcoin κτλ) ή τελειως ηλιθιες ιδεες, στυλ "anonymity through exchanges" και κεντρικα-trusted mixers... Οi μονοι που φαινεται να εχουν κανει κατι ειναι ο evan του drk και ο dan του xc... το προβλημα ειναι οτι το drk ακομα δεν εχει μεγιστοποιησει το βαθμο του anonymity γιατι εχει κολλησει το development 2 μηνες στα node payments ενω ο dan το παει εντελως λαθος με τα trusted transactions που μπορει το node να κλεψει coins. Ελπιζω να αλλαξει το design γιατι ειναι απλα βλακωδες αυτο που κανει με τη προωθηση coins. Συν οτι το blockchain γινεται τεραστιο απ'τα transactions που κοβονται σε 800 κομματια. Αν το spammαρεις το blockchain του XC θα φθασει δεκαδες gigabyte για πλακα. Ειχα προτεινει να κανει καποιος ενα τεστ με 1000 transactions να δουμε τι μεγεθος κανει add στο blockchain + τι ποσοστο των coins φτανει τελικα στο στοχο του... και λεει ο Dan, I can do that... οσο ειδες αποτελεσματα απ'το τεστ, αλλο τοσο τα δα και εγω. Απ'την αλλη το bytecoin codebase εδειξε χθες σημαδια τεραστιας αδυναμιας οταν μπηκε το monero στο mintpal. Ποσοι εχουν monero? 200-300-500 geeks? (λογω cli και τεχνο-περιορισμων)... Εστειλαν καποιοι απ'αυτους μαζεμενα τα λεφτα απ'το poloniex στο mintpal μολις ανοιξε τα deposits και κατερρευσε το συμπαν - κολλησε το chain λογω "saturation". Και η ερωτηση ειναι, αν αυτο δε μπορει να αντεξει ουτε την σχεδον μηδαμινη userbase που εχει σημερα, πως θα αντεξει σοβαρο volume αντιστοιχο του bitcoin (πχ 500-1000 tx per block)? Δε μπορει να κανει scale αυτο το πραγμα. Το ηξερα σε θεωρητικο βαθμο, αλλα να κολλησει απο τωρα στο scaling μονο και μονο επειδη εστειλαν μερικες δεκαδες ατομα ταυτοχρονα τα tx τους δε νομιζω οτι το περιμενε κανεις. Ηταν epic fail beyond any expectation. Πραγματικα το bytecoin codebase* φαινεται DOA για σοβαρο scaling εκτος και αν κανουν κατι. Οπότε καλώς φαινεται οτι το market αποτιμούσε ακόμα και τα πυροτεχνήματα-scamcoins που ελεγαν οτι ειναι anonymous περισσότερο απ'το monero, εστω και προσωρινα μεχρι να αποδειχτουν οτι ειναι scams. Δεν υπαρχει market-trust στο bytecoin codebase. * Διατηρω μια επιφυλαξη για το χθεσινο επειδη στο Monero εχουν adaptive block size το οποιο ισως επηρεασε τη κατασταση. |
|
|
|
DRK so undervalued right now. Real price considering mining cost should be around 0.03-0.04
When mining DRK you just have to think ahead a bit... Everyone kept telling me it was unprofitable, yet here I am, happy as a dog in a sidecar. You always have to consider how many DRKs you'd get if you mined something else, sold it and bought DRK. If you can get twice the number of DRKs that way => why not... except the logistics of moving around the mining power all the time instead of leaving it @ DRK. The price of a coin should naturally gravitate towards its mining cost. If it costs >0.03 to mine and the price is 0.0165, that's good for price potential. It's also good in terms of using mining power elsewhere and buying DRKs off the market - creating demand. The opposite is the case when others are mining you for being the most profitable and then dumping the coins / suppressing the price. |
|
|
|
You guys know that people can steal coins from DRK aswell? That's why there is a 10 DRK limit?
Lol
You are confusing DRK (trustless) with XC (trusted transactions - undoing Satoshi's work). The node of DRK doesn't own your coins. It's the "lawyers office" that signs the agreement that the two parties want to change coins. It only signs the agreement. The number 10 is used for identical inputs that increase obfuscation. If everyone puts 10 in, how can you know who put what? http://explorer.darkcoin.io/tx/56b3b95b76995d3e4d3107cf753c8496493010f625fc04d971e9262d74e6a5a5That's the reason, not because coins can be lost. The plan was to increase denomination pools (10 / 100 / 1000) etc - so the limit would be then 100 or 1000, depending the highest pool. However changes in spec might move away from denomination pools. I mean, we do have better Dev's, technology, and plans. The only thing DRK has is media exposure and a Dev who couldn't fix a lightbulb.
Trusted transactions = inferior tech. Sorry. Satoshi invented trustless transactions for a reason and XC destroyed trustless transactions and marketed trusted transactions as ...innovation and superior tech. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
