You're right that it's a "sliding" scale, but I think you're being a bit ridiculous to suggest that any significant number of users would stop using a crypto that ups it's block target from 1 minute to 2 or 3 or 4.

I think smooth's point is that a transaction is either fast enough for real time, point-of-sale purchases, or it isn't. Beyond that, the differences don't mean much.

For those who haven't seen it, Vitalik Buterin wrote an interesting article on what it would take to achieve ultra fast block times in a PoW currency: https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/

Check out the economy thread from Monero's early days to see discussion regarding tail emission: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.80

This is untrue. If you use MyMonero, just backup your viewkey and spendkey, and you will always be able to recover your funds.

Nobody replied to my previous comment and whether it can be reasonably implemented:

Can/would it be possible to be able to append the payment ID to the send address, so the sender doesn't have to remember to include it?

So if my XMR address is "myaddress" I can simply give out myaddressCustomer1, myaddressCustomer2, etc, and when someone sends money to those addresses it will automatically use the additional characters as the payment ID.

That would make the issue of Payment ID the responsibility of the receiver/vendor/merchant and not the sender.

There have been talks in the past about the ability to simply append the payment ID to the address when sending a transaction. If that can be done in the future, then the merchant/receiver just needs to generate a unique payment ID of their own and append it to the receiving address they display to the user.

Are you saying dark/dash isn't a fork of Quark?

It appears our "off-topic" monero thread wasn't relevant enough for the "off-topic" section of BCT, and was deleted. Perhaps we should start another one in the alternative cryptocurrency section?

And why is that? Because a very, very small number of people trade it around at a higher price?

Nobody in "public" really even understands what bitcoin is. There's certainly no compelling reason for them to adopt it right now.

Yep, pretty useless. Of course I have grand visions of the future just like the rest of us, but cryptocurrency hasn't reached the point where it offers anything of value to the average joe. But, as I stated in my last comment, that could change at any moment.

Watching the price and beating out other coins is fun for sure But we'll never get closer to real-world adoption until we start thinking outside of our circle. Even the great Bitcoin isn't really doing that.

Summary to keep this on topic: A useful application to improve outside accessibility will move the price much more than depending on investors within the cryptosphere. I do believe there are some things on the horizon that fit that description.

That ship hasn't even been built. All cryptos are pretty useless at this point, and Bitcoin being the #1 useless crypto-tech in an ocean of useless crypto-tech doesn't really say much. If my brother wanted a bitcoin (which he doesn't, because it's fucking useless), he'd have to spend an hour on Coinbase verifying his identity and his phone number and his bank account information etc., before then having to wait 4 more days to actually receive his bitcoin. Such disruption.

Pretty much any alt can leapfrog Bitcoin overnight the moment it offers a useful service that makes the coin accessible to common people.

Until then, lets not delude ourselves into thinking we've done anything even remotely valuable for the rest of the world.

What idea is that? You mean an off-topic Monero thread on BCT? You create and I'll follow!

Still waiting for Manamina's reply to my previous argument...

The monero.cc forum has an off-topic board

His statement is reasonable because there was a time when every single troll post in the XMR thread went along the lines of:

"Evan is implementing ring signatures into dark. You guys are so fucked."

Evan has a history of saying anything and everything to get support on his side. In this case, he promised something he couldn't reasonably deliver.

Me neither. Try not to quote me out of context. I didn't say the issues were "unresolvable." I said they "are unresolvable short of DASH abandoning the bitcoin codebase and adopting a more opaque block chain."

I highly doubt that will ever happen, as evan considered it once and went another direction (probably because he'd have to rebuild everything from scratch). He certainly won't dive down that rabbit hole now that he has instantX and other features already in place.

My point was that these issues are unresolvable short of DASH abandoning the bitcoin codebase and adopting a more opaque block chain.

Is that quote from Peter Todd? I'm pretty sure this issue has already been addressed/resolved in MRL-004 (but devs should correct me or verify).

Let me rephrase: Due to the nature of a transparent blockchain, there will always be associations with addresses, even if your concerned association is eliminated. People won't mix because they don't think they need to, or maybe they aren't aware of some illicit trade 80 transactions up-chain. Because of this, we will still see increasing use of blockchain analysis and increasing discrimination against transactors that leads to fungibility issues. The only way to eliminate this concern is through an entirely opaque block chain.


Okay. Then in my opinion, yes, it's probably fit for purpose right now. But as demand for blockchain analysis services increases, major fungibility issues will start to pop up. Of course this won't be provable until it actually happens.

Actually, I commented on it myself upthread. A large amount of transparency reduces the anonymity set and thus reduces fungibility. Coins must be cryptographically identical to be fungible. Otherwise you will eventually run into issues where coins without some degree of taint could be considered suspicious. Here's the quote:


Next:


You are asking questions that (you know) nobody has an answer to. "Assuming the NSA has enough resources to bring down drk/dash, how much money/resources would someone else need?" Nobody knows, which is why you should stick with the best freakin tech available (ie. not dash).

Also, a lot of us (perhaps not you) are interested in monetary privacy for the specific reason that we don't want NSA-level organizations spying on everything we do. Your "anyone other than NSA" question is pointless to those of us in that category, because they are exactly the type of adversaries we're concerned about. Sure, all crypto projects are vulnerable at this point, but some have a much more "optimistic" future than others.

This should also answer your "fit-for-purpose" question. You still haven't defined exactly what "fit-for-purpose" means, but the answer is unquantifiable regardless. If you're willing to trust an inferior solution that you think is "good enough" (while being full aware of all the other shady practices surrounding this project), then there's really nothing more we can do to convince you otherwise.

Majamina, all of your questions have been answered many times. It is clear that nothing we say can possibly convince you that DASH is not "fit for purpose" (whatever that means). Nothing will ever be proven to your satisfaction, no matter how many red flags we point out.

At this point, the quality of the anonymity tech should be the least of your concerns. However, that is all you're interested in talking about. You've already agreed DASH's privacy is inferior to Monero's... so what exactly are you really trying to accomplish?

This thread has been quite an eye-opener for me, as I've learned there's been a hell of a lot more going on with DASH than just a shady premine and inferior tech. It makes me sad, Majamina, that you are so determined to go down with this ship.