There will be no rename in the foreseeable future
What if we all just unanimously decide to call it flarb instead of monero? Whatcha gunna to do about it? Huh? That's the spirit! If you don't like the name, then come up with something better and get everyone to start using it. But I agree, I doubt that will happen any time soon, if ever. BRB, registering flarb.org |
|
|
|
https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people --more devs than you can shake an angry troll stick at, and they're volunteers not paid by an instamine, but go on trying to sell your concern pericope like a two bit trial lawyer. Also, if they believe x-dark-dash is a fraud, they have every right, and I applaud them for it, to call it so. Your concern trolling is very appreciated--you obviously put a lot of time and effort into it. Buddy, I have more XMR than you, I guran-fucking-tee it. And I'm actively bringing new investors in, so please stfu about concern trolling. It's true that I have Dash as well, but my only concern is to see the development of the best technology. I just think that devs should be coding, not arguing with idiots on a forum. Unless you are certain how much XMR he has, how can you guarantee it? ... It would be easier if XMR wasn't so gosh-darned anonymous  |
|
|
|
So yes there is ideology behind this coin : privacy, liberty, freedom, try to make the world less directed by "power" and more with the heart...
I hope that changing the name will not make the ideology behind it change too, otherwhise it will failed.
There's no ideology in something that nobody uses. The ideology's in the design, not the name. Vertoe is justified in leaving over not being consulted but less so over 'ideology'. It's not a rock song that's being built here it's electronic money. The name can easily be compromised without any loss of principle but the functionality can't. So Evan has got his priorities right in that regard. no. i left because i disagree darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity. it never was but i ignored it as long as darkcoin was following the same path i was following. the path to total financial privacy. and thats why i am so upset about how this currency is lead by a single person. darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid. evan duffield. the rebranding using a detergent name was just a step forward in creating something like apple or paypal. fuck this i tell you. what we need is a trustless, decentralized and anonymous currency. darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person. and this reaches deep into the code base. the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing. the extended darkcoin team was the same with even a lower place to sit on that pyramid. and what was the darkcoin foundation again? right, something to reserve some rights on some names and collect money. who nominated and voted for the foundation board? who does even know who are these guys? how did we learn about the foundation? from local news papers! the team listings kept counting names of people nobody ever noticed before. and they never committed anything visible to the community or the repository. and i was spending 25 hours a day monitory everything that happened in the darkcoin community for more than a year. the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity. i will get out and and will contribute to something decentralized and anonymous. i always hoped darkcoin could fill that void. i cant blame anyone to stay with this project. you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be. if you disagree with my statement above, i dont care, but answer that simple question: what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning? good luck Interesting post. Coming from a dev as well. Can anyone really defend darkcoin after a statement like that? |
|
|
|
Why dont we rename Monero to Darkcoin now that it is available just for the lols This genuinely made me laugh |
|
|
|
Nicolas van Saberhagen is a rare name that is hardly ever mentioned anywhere on the Internet. An attentive reader could pick out letters NSA in the name.....
Open and shut case! The NSA intentionally created an altcoin scam in a sea of altcoin scams KNOWING a group of unpaid devs would eventually fork the project and fix everything but the super decret back-door code, and spend the next X years polishing the code base (but still not noticing the secret back door code) and popularizing the currency in their free time. Them NSA folk are a clever bunch. |
|
|
|
No money works unless you can demonstrate that you spent it (if you so wish) and to whom. P.S. What your favourite wallet looks like....  ... a piece of garbage (like what it holds) Expert rebuttal. I suppose the dollar bills in my pocket don't work either then? After all, I can't "demonstrate" their expenditure  Oh, and I like our modest wallet. Without it folks like yourself would have nothing left to troll us about  EDIT: By the way, that's not even the wallet. Troll harder. |
|
|
|
Keep in mind that with Monero, it would be extremely difficult for law enforcement to know you even have a wallet, let alone which wallet they'd need to demand a viewkey from (thanks to stealth addressing). This becomes even more unlikely operating behind tor/i2p.
Nice ! If your holed up in a forest waiting for the end of the world, use Monero. If you want to be part of the human race and use regular *visible* digital cash that's private & untraceable - use Dash ! I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say, but if you're implying that a transparent ledger will somehow yield superior fungibility, then it's an argument you will lose. |
|
|
|
|
Keep in mind that with Monero, it would be extremely difficult for law enforcement to know you even have a wallet, let alone which wallet they'd need to demand a viewkey from (thanks to stealth addressing). This becomes even more unlikely operating behind tor/i2p.
|
|
|
|
I don't get viewkeys.
Like for example, what if law enforcement can legally demand you hand over a viewkey for an account you were using for anonymity, then they can go back and view everything? Anyone who knows the tech can explain because I never saw viewkeys before?
I believe it's essentially read-only access to your wallet. Of course, you can simply choose to not give out your viewkey in the same way you wouldn't give out your private key. Even if law enforcement did "demand" it, there's nothing stopping you from sending your funds to a new wallet with a non-disclosed viewkey (it wouldn't sacrifice anyone else's privacy). |
|
|
|
|
At the same time, higher mixins, despite the increased privacy, look suspicious on their own. If everyone is using a mixin of 4, and someone decides to use a mixin of 200, they're kind of painting a target on their back.
|
|
|
|
Thats why I didn't invest in XMR. Because it's run by a couple of trainspotters who don't understand money.
If you're communicating nuclear secrets then you want your message encrypted for sure.
On the other hand if your exchanging money then you want your transaction as *transparent as possible* while using a monetary medium that's as *fungible* as possible.
...
You can't have fungibility and transparency at the same time. Sorry. All units have to be cryptographically indistinguishable, and having a large amount of transparency in the ledger only serves to reduce the anonymity set (and reduce the fungibility as a result). Monero is currently the most fungible crypto in existence. Maybe some day if zerocash works out it's kinks it will take monero's place. Darkcoin isn't a contender in that regard (though it's privacy tech can be debated). |
|
|
|
Well, people like me appreciate the analysis.
Then analyse this: I added two numbers together to produce a result of 8. Which two were they ? (Clue: I mixed them - no cryptography involved, so should be easy for you ) It will be easy if I put a gun to your head and force you to tell me. Hence the masternode centralization concern. |
|
|
|
Well that's not the concern. The concern is an adversary spying on a small but significant portion of masternode activity (say 15%). Your one tx might have an astronomically low probability of being revealed, but other transactions on the network won't be so lucky.
yes they will, that's how probability works if there is an unbelievably tiny probability or catching a DS transaction with 15% of the network, you will catch an unbelievably tiny number of transactions....i.e. none in any sensible timeframe. You will still catch transactions. If you fire a gun into a large crowd, someone will get hit, even if everyone's individual probability is low. A robust anonymity solution will make it just as costly to unmask one solution vs any other. OK, let's see. (DISCLAIMER: I'm not a mathematician, I just fucked around in a spreadsheet....feel free to rip this to shreds and I will eat humble pie) If I fire a gun into a crowd the probability of hitting someone is either 1, as you suggest, or very close to 1. If I compromise 15% of the masternode network (per your example) and, for the sake of argument, everyone is mixing with 4 rounds of Darksend, the probability of tracing a transaction - i.e. having a complete set of data for a transaction is: 1.22265E-66 Let's say there are 1 million transactions in 24 hours, so multiply that figure by 1 million and we get: 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000122265 This is how many complete transactions we are likely to sample in one day at 1m tx/day. So divide that into 1 to find out how many days are required to (probably) assemble a complete transaction: 817898000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Assuming my calculations are correct (see disclaimer) and I was a betting man, I'd go with firing the gun into a crowd Of course this doesn't take into account possible extrapolation techniques that fluffy referred to, but does address your point on probability (probably, again see disclaimer ) That probability depends on every transaction using 4 rounds of mixing (not likely), as well as assembling a 100% complete transaction, which isn't necessary for an attacker to draw hasty conclusions. It would be nice to know what are the average or most comonly used mixing rounds in a darksend, and calculate probability based on that. Or, even better, calculate attacker probability based on the minimum allowable amount of mixing, to establish a "worst case scenario" or baseline probability. |
|
|
|
|
These probability calculations are misleading because they are from the perspective of the individual transactor as opposed to the attacker.
Evan is basically saying "The networlk isn't secure, but there's so fucking many of you that the chances of your transactions being traced are slim. Here's a really low percentage to distract you: 0.000000000000001%. Wow!"
|
|
|
|
Well that's not the concern. The concern is an adversary spying on a small but significant portion of masternode activity (say 15%). Your one tx might have an astronomically low probability of being revealed, but other transactions on the network won't be so lucky.
yes they will, that's how probability works if there is an unbelievably tiny probability or catching a DS transaction with 15% of the network, you will catch an unbelievably tiny number of transactions....i.e. none in any sensible timeframe. No, that's not how probability works. If you fire a gun into a large crowd, someone will get hit, even if everyone's individual probability is low. The attacker's probability of hitting something is much higher. A robust anonymity solution will make it just as costly to unmask one transaction vs any other. |
|
|
|
Well that's not the concern. The concern is an adversary spying on a small but significant portion of masternode activity (say 15%). Your one tx might have an astronomically low probability of being revealed, but other transactions on the network won't be so lucky.
yes they will, that's how probability works if there is an unbelievably tiny probability or catching a DS transaction with 15% of the network, you will catch an unbelievably tiny number of transactions....i.e. none in any sensible timeframe. You will still catch transactions. If you fire a gun into a large crowd, someone will get hit, even if everyone's individual probability is low. A robust anonymity solution will make it just as costly to unmask one solution vs any other. |
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm mistaken: these are probabilities for tracing a specific transaction.
What are the probabilities of being able to trace any non-specific transaction?
good point. thinking out loud.....if you captured all the activity of 75% of the MNs for a whole day, somewhere in that dataset is all the information you need to piece together 1 complete transaction.....go find it  Well that's not the concern. The concern is an adversary spying on a small but significant portion of masternode activity (say 15%). Your one tx might have an astronomically low probability of being revealed, but other transactions on the network won't be so lucky. Meanwhile the NSA*cough*I mean our adversary, is just collecting these unmasked transactions and saving them in a giant database for some time in the future when they might want to extort the revealed parties. Suddenly those probabilities don't look as good, because the cost of revealing non-specific transactions may be very low, and adversaries can simply "cast a net" and collect their victims. |
|
|
|
|
Correct me if I'm mistaken: these are probabilities for tracing a specific transaction.
What are the probabilities of being able to trace any non-specific transaction?
|
|
|
|
I still don't understand what these "probabilities" illustrate? Either a transaction can be traced or it cannot. What exactly are the probabilities of?
If you compromise a masternode and spy on it's activity, you can theoretically start to piece together all the required information to trace a Darksend transaction back to a user's wallet. Since nodes are selected randomly for Darksend, you would need to compromise the correct nodes to do so. These are the probabilities of you having compromised the correct nodes and therefore being able to decode the transaction. Okay that makes sense. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
I still don't understand what these "probabilities" illustrate? Either a transaction is traceable or it isn't. What exactly are the probabilities for?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
