People are going to use Monero because it allows them easy access to freedom (privacy is freedom).
No, this is to general and no automatism. People are not to use Monero because it allows them easy access to freedom & privacy. We as the community have to work, work, research, work & improve (in all parts of the project) , do even more improvement cycles, get in touch and open communication with general people and only if this is done, in great quality. People may use XMR because it allows them easy access to freedom. It won't just automatically happen because of CNs/XMRs superior design to other anon concepts/coins or other fundamental facts where Monero shines today. From what I can tell, assuming automatically adoption (because of above average technology) over time was one of the greatest problems of failed projects (crypto currency or not), e.g. Litecoin. Or just google: "superior failed technologies" and read some old new articles about failed very promising technolgies. -> Don't proclaim automatically adoption, it makes the community lazy and arrogant. (Historic proof: Litecoin) Who said it would be easy? I didn't  |
|
|
|
I think smooth is reasoning in vain with darkfans in other threads. These people are a different breed, described here - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=979562.0We should direct our energy on making Monero useful to average people, i cannot stress much. On getting the DB and an official GUI( I know, but it is a weak point for us) out soon. I personally assure, ill make Monero be seen and heard everywhere( Not spam) once we have these out. Actions speak louder than words. When Monero starts getting noob friendly, Dark will fade out itself People are going to use Monero because it allows them easy access to freedom (privacy is freedom). Right now, no one is giving people the freedom of a private life. The state has declared it unsafe, technology (tool of the state) has declared "only if you are smart enough do you get it, but we will do our best to keep it out of your hands and destroy you if we catch you with too much of it." People will turn to freedom because life is too short to live in the labyrinthine recesses of fear. |
|
|
|
Why? Privacy is the right of every man, woman and child. |
|
|
|
There is a wall of 200 btc wall at 0.00194....
Aaaaand... it's gone. Instead, there is 200 btc buy support above the yesterday's low  It is divived into two pieaces. The first one is at 192'ish and the rest is on 194. This might be for real since it has been broken into pieces. Manipulative walls are in one piece, real walls are cut into pieces. What would a manipulator stop from breaking his wall into pieces so it looks less manipulative? Not giving a shit. Abiding by a set of arbitrary rules. Not thinking of it..... I'm going with the first. |
|
|
|
No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?
Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased? No its just O(log(n)). Every additional mixin partner increases the size of your signature but less than the one before it.  look at O(log(n)) compared to other big o notations on this chart. Particularly look at it in comparison to O(n). Its a big difference. For example: If the limit(log(n)) < some reasonable signature size that can be affordably stored on the blockchain than you can use every single other key ever published on the entire blockchain to produce your ring signature. Infact if this were the case we could set a mixin minimum of like 1000 or something crazy. So in cost terms: if this is implemented, the costs of a 99 level mix-in would be less than the cost of a 99 mix-in as it currently stands? Correct? Probably. It's possible that this wouldn't be the case if n=2 in the new scheme were sufficiently more resource intensive than n=2 in the old scheme. But its highly unlikely that the difference between n=2 in the current scheme vs n=2 in the new scheme would be great enough to make mixin 99 in the new scheme cost more than mixin 99 in the old. Its a complicated way of saying that O(log(n)) only talks about the shape of the curve, it doesnt say anything about where that curve is placed on the graph. *edit* sorry that was needlessly complicated. yes. the answer is yes. i cant imagine that the authors of that paper would have even bothered to produce it if the answer were no. Thank you for the answer--enjoyed the complication. I was assuming a 99 mix-in would be located in latter parts of the O(log n) line for the sake of simplicity. Probably should have stated that. |
|
|
|
No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?
Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased? No its just O(log(n)). Every additional mixin partner increases the size of your signature but less than the one before it. look at O(log(n)) compared to other big o notations on this chart. Particularly look at it in comparison to O(n). Its a big difference. For example: If the limit(log(n)) < some reasonable signature size that can be affordably stored on the blockchain than you can use every single other key ever published on the entire blockchain to produce your ring signature. Infact if this were the case we could set a mixin minimum of like 1000 or something crazy. So in cost terms: if this is implemented, the costs of a 99 level mix-in would be less than the cost of a 99 mix-in as it currently stands? Correct? |
|
|
|
No way! That would be incredible. That would bring this project from secure and private to legit science fiction level anonymous. You could have hundreds or even thousands mixin partners. Correct me if im wrong but wouldn't this be the cypherpunk holy grail? Is it really within our grasp and just need "review"?
Would there be a decrease in mix-in costs as the available mix-in levels increased? |
|
|
|
Well it looks like you don't need to get any wallet software installed on TAILS to use Monero. Although it'd be much better if there was deepnet hidden service versions of mymonero.com So that all your web traffic doesn't have to pass through Tor exit nodes. Which are all heavily monitored. IIRC they're deepnet hidden service Electrum servers.
Also how is Monero's I2p development going and is there any timetables yet for releasing an I2p net only wallet. TAILS does include the I2p software too btw.
I'm sure if someone were to offer to build this that they wouldn't find a shortage of investors. Some of us are disappointed that the mymonero was taken off the investment table  |
|
|
|
Epic video. I think this kind of drama is very good for XMR as it tightens the community. We're living fun things together going through stories we'll sure tell to other in a few years.
Someone should upload it on youtube !
And now, we need A SONG!!
I suggest Time Warp from Rocky Horror Picture Show. Would sound nice over top that video in a year or three. |
|
|
|
If someone wants to buy shares of mymonero, just contact me.
Is there a prospectus? |
|
|
|
I think smooth's point regarding off-chain/on-chain privacy leads to an important question: if you're going to depend entirely on off-chain privacy, why not just use bitcoin?
Because with bitcoin you can't do it trustlessly and decentralized. Bitcoin plus dark wallet is probably better than DRK, assuming it gets popular enough, and maybe already. For one thing it has stealth addresses and DRK does not.
Except that Darkwallet transactions can be deanonymized, and there's likely nothing they can do to fix it. Wrt instamine - in the big picture, we are all still instamining. When/if the mass adoption and wall street level investing occur, it doesn't matter much whether the instamine lasted for 2 days or 2 years.  Everyone with just a little bit of brain will see that this argument is utter bullshit. To be fair, drek supporters think a point of human failure (that isn't the user) is trustless if you call it a masternode. |
|
|
|
 = me not so serious. It's pretty simple. If you allow a human point of failure besides the user themselves, this point will fail. A good privacy coin needs to be only dependent on the user himself for their privacy to be broken or safe. Darkcoin will fail because it imagines that its incentive scheme is greater than an incentive scheme(s) that a government can offer, or imagines the government won't ever use heavier coercion schemes. This is a spy agency's wet dream: a broken crypto-system that no one believes (at least the users) is broken that they can pick and choose their targets and wait for the target to slip-up so they can point to that as the reason of arrest or can manufacture proof that the user failed and the system is still not broken--see England's handling of Enigma. If I was paranoid, I'd believe this (the broken system strategy) is already happening with BTC.
|
|
|
|
In your mature scenario, Darkcoin would already be broken if that's the case (with every single masternode owner sharing data for $). Yes that is my point. The design is broken. It can't work longer term. That is my opinion. This does not mean that "DRK [the coin] is dead" after all the technology is still evolving and who knows how it might be improved. It might even evolve into something useful and valuable that has nothing to do with privacy. I have no idea. The current design is a fail IMO. And that's where we'll continue to disagree. You assign very high probabilities to your scenario playing out with the majority (if not all) masternode owners sharing data whereas I assign low probabilities of this being as large of an issue as you make it sound like it will be--strictly from an incentive trade off between data revenue streams vs risk of value loss to underlying holdings. The problem is that it is set up as a many-way prisoner's dilemma. The data trackers won't go to a masternode convention and try to get a collective body of masternode operators to make a collective decision to share data. They will go to individual masterede operators and pay for data. The only rational decision for an individual operator is to accept the money. His individual decision to do so won't harm the privacy of the coin much at all. In fact according to your arguments about probabilities across multiple rounds and blinding making each operator individually insignficant, it won't hurt at all. I suppose there is another possibility, which is that masternodes all end u being operated by the same party, in which case they can, possibly, make a rational decision to refuse. That's not very decentralized though is it? Majority of nodes are run on amazon AWS VPS systems or the like. You wouldn't even have to go to each player directly, but go straight to the hosting service. A major company would never risk losing revenue with a scandal as big as colluding with governments and revealing personal data! The people would never stand for it and there's no way a company could handle the economic backlash as citizens unite and boycott their services all the way to bankruptcy court.... |
|
|
|
I always wonder why a company doesn't cut out a niche as the "Privacy" tech company and offer users a series of tech solutions that are easy to use and Big Brother free. If people are willing to die for liberty, they're probably willing to pay for it too. Seems like privacy solutions require a huge cost in time and proficiency which is not readily available (or available at all to the less tech savvy) the same way a few extra bucks are.
"Easy to use computer that is spy ready VS spending your life learning the ins and outs of computer privacy" seems like a terrible paradigm if your goal is to end the threat of an Orwellian world.
"Easy to use computer that is spy ready VS easy to use computer that is spy free and is updated by the seller for a nominal fee" seems like a paradigm that could work.
There were people who thought cloakcoin had good privacy tech as well. It sounds great in theory, but privacy will always require a certain degree of technical understanding, especially as the "privacy niche" becomes more profitable to mainstream consumers. Just because something is advertised as "privacy tech" or "spy free" doesn't mean it actually is, but consumers will dive on it because they don't know any better. Maybe Assange and Snowden could be the CEO or Anonymous could give them a seal of approval. My problem is that it is out of the realm of possibility for most people and that list is getting shorter and not longer. So how do we make privacy mainstream? At least for devices. We already have the currency answer and a few more.  |
|
|
|
This is getting OT but "desktop" is increasingly irrelevant.
Desktop in this context also means laptops. I was including laptops. Computing is moving almost entirely to mobile (including broadly tablets and chromebooks) and the cloud. More mobile devices are sold every year than the installed base of computers, and the former is still growing (the latter not significantly). The cloud runs on Linux almost entirely, although in most cases the end user has no access to that. But at least the operator/provider of the service isn't running a spyware OS. They will often be running in a spyware virtual machine though. Overall it is a rather bleak picture in Orwellian terms, but it is important not to focus too much on one increasingly narrow segment at the expense of understanding the entire landscape. I always wonder why a company doesn't cut out a niche as the "Privacy" tech company and offer users a series of tech solutions that are easy to use and Big Brother free. If people are willing to die for liberty, they're probably willing to pay for it too. Seems like privacy solutions require a huge cost in time and proficiency which is not readily available (or available at all to the less tech savvy) the same way a few extra bucks are. "Easy to use computer that is spy ready VS spending your life learning the ins and outs of computer privacy" seems like a terrible paradigm if your goal is to end the threat of an Orwellian world. "Easy to use computer that is spy ready VS easy to use computer that is spy free and is updated by the seller for a nominal fee" seems like a paradigm that could work. |
|
|
|
In your mature scenario, Darkcoin would already be broken if that's the case (with every single masternode owner sharing data for $). Yes that is my point. The design is broken. It can't work longer term. That is my opinion. This does not mean that "DRK [the coin] is dead" after all the technology is still evolving and who knows how it might be improved. It might even evolve into something useful and valuable that has nothing to do with privacy. I have no idea. The current design is a fail IMO. And that's where we'll continue to disagree. You assign very high probabilities to your scenario playing out with the majority (if not all) masternode owners sharing data whereas I assign low probabilities of this being as large of an issue as you make it sound like it will be-- strictly from an incentive trade off between data revenue streams vs risk of value loss to underlying holdings.If the government is paying your operators in gold, dollars, or monero, and substantially more than what they make from fees; then what incentive do they have to care what the price of darkcoin is? |
|
|
|
Not sure how "valuable" fragments of data would be when masternode blinding rolls out and spreads inputs across numerous masternodes instead of each round flowing through one node entirely (granted, probabilities still are on the low side of being selected each round to gain meaningful analysis). And yes, the only person you can ever really trust is yourself.
That is why the data will be shared. This if anything creates more incentive for entities such as data brokers (on the commercial side) and intelligence agencies (on the government site) to aggregate data from many masternodes, and shifts power away from individual masternodes even if they are ideologically driven (unlikely in a mature state). After all, if I'm a masternode, my thinking can be that if the data is spread out among many masternodes, there is not much harm in getting some extra money selling mine. In fact the economics suggest that all masternodes will share data with these entities either knowingly or unknowingly. Time will ultimately tell if a scenario you describe plays out. The market is still very much in its infancy to start speculating whether or not it will even reach a marketable environment where the profits generated from selling data offset the costs of potentially undermining the currency at large (thus ruining ones own investment). You are missing the game theory point above. By "blinding" you are removing much of the cost to an individual masternode owner to share data. If anything you would want to make it catastrophic for any individual masternode owner to ever reveal anything, but in fact blinding is doing the opposite. I think the cost of their investment potentially being decreased by leakage to be enough for the average masternode owner to abstain from data sharing, but I can't speak for every owner out there. Further, the usefulness of even fragments of data aren't nearly as helpful as the number of rounds is increased. Unless you have enough corroborating owners sharing what inputs they have per round, you're still at the mercy of probabilities as it relates to having a complete data set for the full beginning to end flow through. Unless you have the pieces that relate to inputs and outputs for the full set of rounds, you're still left with assumptions on whose address belongs to who. Could you draw some meaningful conclusions, perhaps, but hard to quantify without a real world scenario (not to mention blinding isn't even in effect). Not sure why anyone would think it hard to get masternode operators to participate in meta collection when governments can get the world's largest companies to cooperate in similar data collection. If a govenment can bribe a multinational company, they can certainly bribe a node operator. Are you blindly hoping governments won't notice what you are doing and won't figure out how to contact or compromise node operators? |
|
|
|
|
How Darkcoin handled the insta/acidental/fast mine is exactly how they handle anonymity. Go ahead without any forethought, and when they get flak (dear god when it is your broken privacy), work around it until you get to the next bump in the road--and if anyone says anything about yesterday, respond, "They're living the whole way back in June, get with the times, dude."
We should stop helping them out by pointing out flaws. Let them see them when they see them.
|
|
|
|
Can we call darkcoin's mine a "Freudian slip mine." "Oooops, sorry, didn't mean to do that!" |
|
|
|
I saw that, is that really it? I needed to confirm that the price is going up over this ? Everyone has their own view-key of "inconsequential stuff," but the price is Risto's endeavor, not a reaction to any great breakthrough in the DB or a shiny new GUI or any other major announcement. But I thought you knew that, so I'm confused as to why you are confused. But maybe you'll be confused why I'm confused to as why you're confused and we'll create a really confused rip in space-time--which would be pretty kick ass if you ask me. Not DB related and Not GUI related? Then no rational price rise. my conclusion exactly. There was never a rationale drop either, so who cares? BCX makes an empty threat and the price tanks--meanwhile the fundamentals get better: db testing, mymonero, xmr.to, new forum(s)..... Turn about is fair play. If it goes back to pre-timewarp, I'm satisfied in the re-evaluation, and if it goes higher, I'll consider it a factoring-in of the improvements, usability and a nice bonus to liquidity.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
