I don't understand how anyone could not interpret the instamine to be a scam:

1) Evan tells everyone to go to sleep, and that he "definitely" won't launch without notice.
2) He launches a couple hours later, while everyone is asleep. Linux only btw.
3) Over a million coins are mined in 8 hours.
4) Soon later the block reward is dramatically reduced to a small fraction of what it was.

I truly can't fathom how anyone could even try to downplay this.
It makes more sense now, because folks want to protect their investment. But it's astonishing that anyone continued to support him at all when this first came to light.

How do you know they can't glean enough data just from domestic servers? Can you specify which masternodes to use while mixing?

It's absurd because you don't know how many MNs they need to compromise. You're assuming it's a lot, but it depends on what information they're trying to get and how much. Who says they need to unmask the entire network, when they can just pick off a few people here and there to send a message? The only identity they need to reveal is yours. Are you ready to take that risk?

Look, I'm not trying to troll you. I'm trying to say that a government agency with unlimited resources to bribe, seize, extort, or hack can achieve some very "unlikely" things... and if it did happen you wouldn't necessarily know about it. There wouldn't be an anouncement telling everyone that masternodes have been compromised.

In this regard I'm not implying Monero (or any other coin) is safe. XMR has some very elegant anon tech, but I still don't trust it against such an adversary. Maybe in the future with much higher mandatory mixins and i2p I'd feel more comfortable.

TLDR: No crypto is suitable for dark market trade yet. Not zerocash, not monero, and definitely not darkcoin. Don't bet your life on any such tech at this point.

The mere existence of an attack vector is a concern if you're attempting to build a robust system to defend against motivated and deep pocketed attackers.

Even though I believe XMR's privacy implementation to be an order of magnitude more secure than DRK's, I still wouldn't trust XMR against an NSA-level adversary. At least not yet.

Last year the Monero network was hit by one of the most sophisticated attacks ever seen in crypto (at least according to TacoTime). The idea that an NSA-level adversary could not silently compromise masternodes or defeat darksend through statistical analysis is just absurd.

If you're trying to protect your privacy from your neighbor, sure. Darksend is probably sufficient. However, If you're concerned about illegal activity or government level adversaries, no anon tech is ready for that (yet).

TLDR: "good enough" is never good enough when it comes to three-letter agencies. It's gotta be air tight.

1) As fluffypony already pointed out, Zerocash will most likely be better, when the tech is eventually polished. I doubt that will happen for quite a while.

2) Before that happens, we (cryptocurrency pioneers in general) have a responsibility to pave the landscape and make crypto accessible and approachable to common people. This means coming up with better ways of obtaining crypto with fiat (even coinbase is a huge pain in the ass), as well as products and services that will make people actually want to trade with it.

If we do our job correctly and create a world where crypto is ubiquitous and fiat exchange gates are non-existent, adoption of superior technologies (like Zerocash) can wash over the world like a tidal wave. At that point I wouldn't expect any single currency to have a very long lifespan, as improved, more appropriate technologies will always be emerging and entering the market.

I'm actually quite impressed with the somewhat civilized discussion in the last page or two.

My on-topic response: this discussion illustrates that DRK has a number of uncertainties in its design that aren't present in Monero. This is a large part of why I prefer XMR.

I also agree with previous posters that DRK and XMR seem to have different goals, as DRK appears to be transforming more into an investment vehicle within our crypto space. XMR's direction, on the other hand, is admittedly less serving to its traders, but that sacrifice comes with the opportunity for a more robust and decentralized long-term trading solution.

I do find it interesting that after 4 pages of attacks, not one person has even attempted to (reasonably) address smooth's points in the OP.

If you're really concerned you might want to take a look at these papers:

https://lab.getmonero.org/

Oh, and here's what Peter Todd has recently said about Monero:

https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/579092073875308545

That would be true if the game actually lowered the barrier of entry to the crypto market, but I don't believe it does at this time (correct me if I'm wrong). So for now, the game's growth is still limited mainly to the cryptosphere.

However, if users could deposit fiat money with a credit card for the purchase of CKG or whatever the in-game currency is, then pretty much anyone could play it and benefit monero. I'm not in the loop with the game's development, so if this is already possible or planned, then disregard.

EDIT: perhaps new accounts must pay a certain amount to play the game, and their account comes with a fixed amount of CKG that is included with all new paid accounts. I'm looking for legal ways to easily distribute crypto that wouldn't be considered "money transmission." I'm not a lawyer.

I'm only saying that we wouldn't know either way. The fact that nobody is stepping forward with an exploit does not make a system secure.

It's the opposite, actually. Darkcoin/Dash's privacy claims don't have the mathematics to back them up.

It's their responsibility to back up their claims, not ours to disprove them.

Try to put yourself in the position of a malicious attacker. If you have an exploit that you can use repeatedly for personal or financial gain, how quickly would you be willing to announce your discovery?

With that in mind, how important is it for a system that deals with other people's money to be cryptographically secure?

It's quite obvious that quote was taken out of context. Regardless of the reason bitMonero was created, its reward curve was never altered. The same cannot be said for darkcoin/dash.


The history is pretty clearly outlined here:
https://forum.getmonero.org/20/general-discussion/211/history-of-monero

It's not an interpretation.

Paints a nice picture

We might actually see .004 this weekend. Right now it would only take about 100 btc to get there.

Aaaaand we broke 0.003

This may just be the typical weekend pump in anticipation of Monday's news.

SWIFTing money to one exchange to buy one crypto then transferring it to another exchange to buy another? That doesn't sound like an easy and dedicated solution to me. Mom certainly couldn't do it.

I'm talking about a single page app with a big empty field that says:

I want to buy _____ XMR

and a huge button that says:

---> PAY NOW <---

Now that's simple. It's the holy grail. If we could do that, then we could dominate every other cryptocurrency in existence. We can't do it, of course, but we need to start getting creative so we can deliver something close.