And so are the questions that go ignored.  

Nice design! Sleek and modern.

Wrong. courtesy of anonymint/tptb_need_war:


"If any one of the hashes in the chain of 11 hashes has a lower entropy then the entire chain does. Say you found this vulnerability and didn't announce it. Instead you could use it to amplify your hashrate. With that you could take unfair levels of mining rewards, or potentially launch double-spend attacks.

Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.

So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash."

What about dash and btc rhymes? One uses, intelligently, one algo to secure its network, one is fairly launched, one is peer reviewed heavily, one doesn't shimmy important functions onto nodes unnecessarily, one has a mysterious genius(es) behind its beginnings...the other, well....

Maybe you can start your day with answering these straight forward questions:

--If the instamine doesn't matter to potential investors, why does your ANN say, "Dash has no premine and was fairly and transparently launched" The difference between an instamine to someone trying to avoid a premine is similar to the difference of someone trying to avoid simple carbs, but thinking that the manufacturer includes high fructose corn syrup when they list the product as sugar-free. It's greasy advertising at best, and a bait and switch at worst.

--Why do you use x11 as an algo when experts (actual crytographers) agree that every algo you add weakens the whole?

--Why should we trust Evan to get privacy at the protocol level correct, when he either botched the launch or lied?

--Why is there no peer review of Evan's plans for evolution? My guess is he wants to keep moving the target before his ineptitude is realized by the seemingly cultish dash community.

 

I agree with this sentiment as far as the brand is concerned (the currency symbol is a different matter), plus it fits in with eternity/eight if that is the emission.

I hold monero (as well as aeon) and never claimed my reasons for criticizing dash were wholly altruistic. But if the the criticism fits, you wear it whether it is coming from a saint or a sinner.

Now how about that proof of losing your wallets? Also, how would dash's market cap equal a moon shot--a moonshot is billions beyond where Bitcoin currently is. So we should be criticizing Bitcoin for its lack of fungibility in moneroland (which we do) and digital fiat for its lack of privacy (which everyone does). Criticism are either valid, invalid or opinion and dash's instamine is valid, x11's weakness as an algo is valid, and darksend's second rate privacy is valid as attested by Evan himself (finally).

For a guy who claims to have lost his wallets and therefore has no current holdings in dash, you are doing a lot of prove it talk.

You lost your wallets? Prove it. Because the tone and amount of post you do defending dash makes it seem like you are still holding a lot of dash.

"There will come a time when no one cares about the instamine"

When is that? Because it seems the more that people hear about the instamine, the more people care about it. If you hear about it and don't care, fine--you're risking your money and are fine with losing it if it happens. But the people who don't know about the instamine have a right to know and Evan isn't telling them himself. And when he's pressed on the point, he makes it sound like it's nothing or normal.

Maybe leave the dollar half-in/half-out of digital to illustrate that it can't be digital and private?

And ones that had protocol level privacy already...

Inspirational content! Where's American Pegasus when you need him?

Crichton bids 50 @ 12

But it's made even easier when you cram algos together like X11:

"If any one of the hashes in the chain of 11 hashes has a lower entropy then the entire chain does. Say you found this vulnerability and didn't announce it. Instead you could use it to amplify your hashrate. With that you could take unfair levels of mining rewards, or potentially launch double-spend attacks.

Fixing it after the fact also probably means the inability to unwind the damage already done if it had gone on a long time undetected.
So 11 hashes is 11 times more likely to have a vulnerability than 1 hash." Anonymint

And from noted cryptographers:

"The Sum Can Be Weaker Than Each Part"

Gaëtan Leurent and Lei Wang

"Abstract: In this paper we study the security of summing the outputs of two independent hash functions, in an effort to increase the security of the resulting design, or to hedge against the failure of one of the hash functions. The exclusive-or (XOR) combiner H1(M)+H2(M) is one of the two most classical combiners, together with the concatenation combiner H1(M)||H2(M). While the security of the concatenation of two hash functions is well understood since Joux's seminal work on multicollisions, the security of the sum of two hash functions has been much less studied.

The XOR combiner is well known as a good PRF and MAC combiner, and is used in practice in TLS versions 1.0 and 1.1. In a hash function setting, Hoch and Shamir have shown that if the compression functions are modeled as random oracles, or even weak random oracles (i.e. they can easily be inverted -- in particular H1 and H2 offer no security), H1+H2 is indifferentiable from a random oracle up to the birthday bound.

In this work, we focus on the preimage resistance of the sum of two narrow-pipe n-bit hash functions, following the Merkle-Damgård or HAIFA structure (the internal state size and the output size are both n bits). We show a rather surprising result: the sum of two such hash functions, e.g. SHA-512+Whirlpool, can never provide n-bit security for preimage resistance. More precisely, we present a generic preimage attack with a complexity of O(2^5n/6). While it is already known that the XOR combiner is not preserving for preimage resistance (i.e. there might be some instantiations where the hash functions are secure but the sum is not), our result is much stronger: for any narrow-pipe functions, the sum is not preimage resistant.

Besides, we also provide concrete preimage attacks on the XOR combiner (and the concatenation combiner) when one or both of the compression functions are weak; this complements Hoch and Shamir's proof by showing its tightness for preimage resistance.

Of independent interests, one of our main technical contributions is a novel structure to control simultaneously the behavior of independent hash computations which share the same input message. We hope that breaking the pairwise relationship between their internal states will have applications in related settings."

https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/070

https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/070.pdf

Just because your dev is either a liar or too stupid to realize an instamine would follow your coin around for the rest of its existence, doesn't mean that all devs are liars or stupid--that's called projection. As for XMR.TO and its number of transactions, did binaryfate give you that figure or did you pull it out of your ass in a weak deflection worthy of a dashtardian?

You're a poor man's Anonymint--all the bluster without the technical prowess.

The OP brought up Crypto Kingdom and you responded to that post--though it seems you thought you were responding to Monero, so maybe you should get a brush-up on your reading comprehension skills or just pay more attention to what's being talked about.


And when i responded to the CK comments, I got this:


You made a dumb comparison to a topic the OP brought up and now you are accusing me of changing the subject--project much?

You associated Bernie Madoff with the game. Or did you forget?


Don't get angry with me because you forgot what you were talking about.

My benefactor? Price? It's free to start playing. When it goes live again, you can sign up and play for free. I don't know where you and Spoetnik got the idea that you have to pay or there is a price, but you can check the crypto kingdom thread and see that playing for free is how Risto imagined most people would and should play. There's an investment angle to the game that can cost money, but that's by user choice and not a requirement--so maybe that is why you both are confused.

You can play the game for free--like most other online games-- so compare apples to apples. If you want to spend money on the game that's your prerogative (just as in most online games). If you want to start FUDing Blizzard, at least you would maintain a consistent idiocy.

In regards to crypto kingdom, it's a game. If you enjoy it, you play. If you don't enjoy it, you don't. You don't have to pay, so why the nagholder FUD?