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.
I almost agree, except that I would also include illegal activities to the list of Darksend (and XMR) being sufficient to. Obviously I don't know, but I doubt your local police or even state police or IRS can just go to NSA and ask them to help out with their case concerning some drug dealer or tax evasion. Much less your neighbor, employer, or your insurance company. There's no way to know what the hell is going on. We get tiny glimpses is all, often inaccurate or incomplete, possibly misleading information that was deliberately leaked for reasons that are hard to fathom. The iceberg principle applies, strongly. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/ |
|
|
|
Well, it's been a while since I read a WALL OF TEXT FULL OF ACCUSATIONS! What I see is 2 devs having a fight and a BTC600 fund raising pack going down the drain... Bye bye VIA.  Have not read so I do not know the substance but note that one of the parties apparently feuding is involved with darkcoin/dash: but I guess I need to reply to some of the diatribe coming from Masternode who I will refer to as Ed from here on (director of the Darkcoin Foundation he is so proud of). masternode's reply for balance: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=699278.msg10727735#msg10727735 |
|
|
|
(context above, no need to quote on every single post). No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit. Here is when you called me a dumb shit. I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster. So you basically called him a dumb shit too:
I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper. Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL. Well I think you misunderstood what I said smooth. What I was simply trying to say was what ryno said. That they chose anonymous tokens instead of "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" because they are building towards a certain direction. I accidentally left out the words "to ring sigs", when I mentioned it, which probably confused you. Except that the above quoted phrase "outputs on the ShadowCash chain" is exactly "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" (ShadowCash chain outputs are spent using ring sigs). It's a bunch of double talk imo. SNARKS aren't fully ready and trustless yet from what they have said so they are waiting for the tech to advance. They are striving for a goal of anonymity, and SNARKS look very promising, and could play a role in the future. There could be other solutions instead as well, and ryno said they are not limiting themselves to ideas. Hope that clears things up. I will be exiting this thread now. Please carry on, again we have same goal of anonymity and privacy. Its better to work with each other than against each other.
Thank you for the input here. |
|
|
|
(context above, no need to quote on every single post). No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit. Here is when you called me a dumb shit. I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster. So you basically called him a dumb shit too:
I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper. Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL. |
|
|
|
First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.
Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior. shady as shit.
Indeed I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding. The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper. So the explanation is that they made the exact same accidental error twice, including a footnote for the thing they copied but not referencing it in the text? While at the same time referencing things like zerocoin (somehow they didn't forget that one), which have minimal relation to the actual technology used, but a lot of value as something that can be hyped? I'm not buying (coins or story). shady as shit.
No the explanation is that they have better things to do than write perfect whitepapers. The code speaks for itself. The zerocoin reference is obvious to anyone reading the whitepapers on tokens. They are building towards a direction where they would like to go in the hopes of being able to slot in zkSNARKS. Funny how before you called me a dumb shit for saying that there are similarities between the minting of tokens in ShadowCash as well as Zerocoin. Yet now you are admitting their is "minimal" relation. So which is it? No relation or minimal relation? You called me a liar before for saying there was relation. So now you are saying you only disagreed on the amount of relation? Interesting. Obviously you are a FUDDer trying to protect yourself from competition. It doesn't make people want to buy your coin. I'm commenting on the pattern of behavior with respect to the peculiar omission of a very interesting subset of footnotes not being referenced in the text, twice. The "oops, sorry, mistake" defense is very popular in crypto circles. Sometimes it is perfectly honest. Sometimes it is not. People will have to make up their own minds. As far as the technology, direction, etc. people can evaluate that best by looking at the actual project, not what you or I have to say about it. As for calling you a dumb shit, here's the context: As quoted by rynomster the lead SDC dev:
more pumping nonsense about "better anon" vaporware.
As implemented today there is no there there. All you have are outputs, which can be used in ring signatures. If and when they implement something different in the future such as zerocoin we can discuss that. this is non-sequitur For it to be a non-sequitur it would have to be incorrect. It is not. whats the ref?
Try this, dumb shit: |
|
|
|
First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.
Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior. shady as shit.
Indeed I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding. The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper. So the explanation is that they made the exact same accidental error twice, including a footnote for the thing they copied but not referencing it in the text, even after this was pointed out to them the first time? While at the same time referencing things like zerocoin (somehow they didn't forget that one), which have minimal relation to the actual technology used, but a lot of value as something that can be hyped? I'm not buying (coins or story). shady as shit.
|
|
|
|
Premined, Instamined, coins have no future. Had Bitcoin been instamined to the extent that the actual block reward and coin supply was highly diminished through centralized acts of the developer/s, it would be even far less popular than it is today(Quite possibly dead even).
Probably just reimplemented by something that would replace it, like maybe LTC would have actually passed it instead of just coming within a factor of 20. satoshi wrote something about this with licenses. Paraphrasing: If you make something closed source you encourage an open source reimplementation. If you do GPL you encourage the same with an MIT-style license. So why not just start with an MIT license and avoid all the unnecessary reimplementation. Same with premines. This is one of my concerns with the fast-ish Monero emission curve BTW. If we get too far into it without a lot of adoption then some clone or reimplementation will replace it (assuming that still is worthwhile at the time), although maybe the tail emission helps with that somewhat. Not really an issue if you're more interested in the technology than investment though. |
|
|
|
First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.
Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior. shady as shit.
Indeed |
|
|
|
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.
There is a huge middle ground here. Like for example, your neighbor or business competitor pays a competent private investigator. Currently that means they probably are going to get into a lot of your information that you normally think of as private. Any system like this that becomes popular will spawn a cottage industry of compromising it if there are weak spots. |
|
|
|
whoa! i guess if Peter Todd said it, it must be true! look, i like Peter for the most part, but his specialty is stirring the pot. Every one of his statements is true. It isn't that the split of hash across pools is fake, it is that there is absolutely no way to know, and the incentive to lie is both there and has increased. It's quite silly to pretend this isn't a concern. The security model of mining is based on any actor's share being small. Small doesn't mean <=50% or even <20%, its more like 2% or maybe 0.2%. |
|
|
|
I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which XMR goes to zero. I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which XMR sees a dip below 0.0014 for more than a few hours (dumping case) or days (major technical issue case), for that matter. Not just now, but forever. What do you imagine that could do it, short of a full-on criminalization of the technology? Any technical issue will be fixed in short order, if not by core, then by others. Even full-on criminalization will be a short-term hurdle, when I2P integration is effective. To say it probably will go to zero seems ludicrous to me.
Most cryptos if not all will go to zero eventually. Will monero be one of the MAYBE 2-3 that survive? Possibly. It's better to think this way than be blinded like some of the other coin fans(you know who I mean) that today think they are taking over the world. I do think it has a much (like multiples) higher chance to not go to zero than most other coins, and I'm basing that on an assessment of the project more than anything else. Still multiples of a small number is a small number so... |
|
|
|
I find it difficult to imagine a scenario in which XMR goes to zero. I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which XMR sees a dip below 0.0014 for more than a few hours (dumping case) or days (major technical issue case), for that matter. Not just now, but forever. What do you imagine that could do it, short of a full-on criminalization of the technology? Any technical issue will be fixed in short order, if not by core, then by others. Even full-on criminalization will be a short-term hurdle, when I2P integration is effective. To say it probably will go to zero seems ludicrous to me.
I don't imagine an instant collapse. More likely is a slow slide to zero as it goes nowhere, largely due to market as opposed to technical factors. This could include failure to achieve critical mass at a time when the market perceives this to no longer be plausible, leading to a downward spiral of liquidity and capitalization. There also could be some partial instant collapses, such as the release of a coin based on zerocash or a Bitcoin ring signature sidechain. Possible reasons: 1. Bitcoin-style cryptocurrency not seen as useful (enough) by the market. Leads to same sort of downward liquidity spiral as above, but for the entire cryptocoin universe (except maybe other platform concepts such as Ripple, fiatcoin, etc.). 2. Private cryptocurrency is not seen as useful by the market. Ditto. 3. Bitcoin is perceived private enough or becomes more private (incl. sidechain) 4. Zerocoin is perceived as trusted enough (both in terms of setup and cryptographic maturity) 5. Dark/dash is perceived as private enough (and/or is improved). Requires Dark/dash to also not collapse into a financial smoldering wreckage, or other non-privacy-related failure. 6. An unknown black swan technology replaces Bitcoin, and is perceived as private enough or has a private version. 7. An unknown black swan technology replaces Monero's ring sigs, etc., and is perceived as private enough or has a private version. Monroe does not adopt/adapt, or fails to do so quickly enough. I'm sure there are more. But overall, I'm fairly convinced that failure to "take off" at some point will lead to the liquidity implosion into irrelevance (maybe not literally zero for very long time, but eventually that). |
|
|
|
sure, you are trying to retract from making this implied threat of legal action against me: if you write a post accusing someone of slander when there is no slander, that is libel. Unless you want to continue doing that, you should stopunfortunately you typed it already EDIT: even how you selectively snip out anything that might put you in a bad light, you are a classic scammer lol "Implied" threat is your imagination, or perhaps guilty conscience. There was no threat. there isn't a lawyer on the planet that would say that that wasn't an implied legal threat, so you obviously no nothing about lawyers  Smooth's lawyer would say there was no threat and your's would say there was I imagine, but that's their job.  Heh, exactly. In any legal case there are two parties and two lawyers; three of them always win. |
|
|
|
If one needs 1000 coins to host a Dark/Dash MasterNode then it must limit the growth, particularly as a currency.
But if say the number of coins was changed to 100 then one musty wonder what that would do to the price of Dark/Dash, with so many coins being freed up
It seems to be a delicate course to navigate, but perhaps I'm missing something?
If you adjust the colleteral from 1000 to 100 DASH per MN, in my oppinion that wouldn't lead to "freed" coins, they will just x10 there masternodes, and nothing changes for them (we have 10 times more masternodes but everyone gets paid a tenth of it also, so if you just use the 1000 drk to open 10 MN nothing realy changes.) This is also possible. Quoting myself above and leaving out the incendiary P-word it seems like it should work and proving that it won't is difficult because we don't know the exact mechanism of failure in advance.
Now we see another answer to the question of how honest masternodes might not be profitable (see bold in first quote above). I'm pretty sure there are other possible outcomes, a list that does not include one where people successfully get a 10% risk free return. |
|
|
|
Can you summarize your responses. I'm interested but I don't want to listen to an interview. |
|
|
|
We need the glengarry leads. We need the good leads!
It takes BRASS BALLS to sell Monero!  |
|
|
|
I also emailed everyone I (personally) know about Monero in November when MyMonero launched. Offered them free monero if they signed up but nobody did it. Now I followed up again the other day, and this is the only response I got. (from a a smart professional person) "I'm moving to the desert to do drugs and leaving all technology behind." Monero is still a difficult pitch for the average person that doesn't care about privacy, doesn't use bitcoin yet, etc. Investors are needed for Monero. I am convinced in the world exists money enough to buy up the Monero and rise the marketcap significiantly. The problem is to find those people. A good way to make money is to try to find local rich people's contact details and start contacting them (not explaining things in technical jargon but in the language of average Joe), then find the right people and sell them coins with markup which is your salary. You might get nice hourly wage in this way by the way. Just tell them you are not accepting less than 30 000 usd investments per person.  This is kind of a morally depraved way of going out about this, just because it reeks of solicitation, an ugly situation to put someone in. If and only if you are dealing exclusively with sophisticated investors then I don't see a problem with it. |
|
|
|
See above.
Hint: that is only true if you denominate returns in DRK
The term Ponzi scheme refers to a very specific type of scam. One where current investors' gains are paid from funds contributed by new investors. Are you somehow involving inflation? I'm using the term in a broader economic sense. Note, however, that the literal defintion applies in some ways when you realize that the value of a coin where new coins are being created will not decline automatically by a given inflation rate. It will decline instantly to zero if no new capital is being added. EDIT: somewhat does not apply to PoS coins where the new coins go to existing coin holders; those are closer to merely being inflationary. so in what sense are *you* using the term when you accuse DRK of being a 'ponzi scheme'? How do people become ponzies when buying DRK? If you are trying to help DRK investors as you say maybe you could give some specifics? The original question was about the profitability of masternodes, and that depends on assumptions that are not consistent with a non-ponzi (using the term broadly) investment. If you are buying DRK speculatively, that's a different matter. In that case it just has to go up for you to make money, and then you sell at the right time, sure. However, the fact that the masternodes are a big part of the system at this point means they can't be ignored in analyzing the entire picture. That can be applied to any coin production. No it can't because "any coin" does not rely on paying a high (or even positive) yield to masternodes to (supposedly) incentivize their proper operation. All coin production produces a yield to incentivize producers that is the foundation of Crypto  Miners lose their return if they violate the rule that mining is intended to incentivize (to simplify, by mining on other than the longest chain). Masternodes do not lose their return if they spy on people, and probably not if they do some other malicious things too. Not the same. if you have no idea what you are talking about Or it could be that. |
|
|
|
See above.
Hint: that is only true if you denominate returns in DRK
The term Ponzi scheme refers to a very specific type of scam. One where current investors' gains are paid from funds contributed by new investors. Are you somehow involving inflation? I'm using the term in a broader economic sense. Note, however, that the literal defintion applies in some ways when you realize that the value of a coin where new coins are being created will not decline automatically by a given inflation rate. It will decline instantly to zero if no new capital is being added. EDIT: somewhat does not apply to PoS coins where the new coins go to existing coin holders; those are closer to merely being inflationary. so in what sense are *you* using the term when you accuse DRK of being a 'ponzi scheme'? How do people become ponzies when buying DRK? If you are trying to help DRK investors as you say maybe you could give some specifics? The original question was about the profitability of masternodes, and that depends on assumptions that are not consistent with a non-ponzi (using the term broadly) investment. If you are buying DRK speculatively, that's a different matter. In that case it just has to go up for you to make money, and then you sell at the right time, sure. However, the fact that the masternodes are a big part of the system at this point means they can't be ignored in analyzing the entire picture. That can be applied to any coin production. No it can't because "any coin" does not rely on paying a high (or even positive) yield to masternodes to (supposedly) incentivize their proper operation. |
|
|
|
It boggles my mind that Evan didn't design the protocol around micropayment channels, where every full node could be incentivised to mix transactions or vote on InstantX transactions or whatever. It would make the anonymity set so much larger.
Perhaps he thought it's better to make sybil attacks harder. It's basically free to launch as many full nodes as required. He may have thought that (I'm not sure I buy it) but it doesn't work, because there is still no irrevocable cost incurred for bad behavior. If masternodes are profitable then the bad ones are more profitable as the good ones. In a competitive market this will mean that only the bad ones are profitable. The argument about "losing the value of your coins" doesn't work because it make a few false assumptions including that cheating leads to total collapse and the inability to hedge with derivatives. Both of these and certainly the second only apply in an immature cryptocurrency toy, not in a scaled up system. Are you talking about DDoS attacks? No I'm talking about masternode spying. Ok. Let's assume DRK/DASH gets big, and has a value of $100. (Just an arbitrary number, way below a number where a business model that tries to spy information could be profitable.) 5,000 masternodes, 60% of the block reward goes to masternodes (assume year is 2016), block reward = 5 DRK, 17,280 blocks/month => each masternode earns 10 DRK/month => $1,000 / month. So, the starting point is $1,000 / month for each masternode, and every node is honest. Also let's assume $100 / month for hosting expenses. How will the honest nodes become unprofitable when some of them start turning dishonest? Also, what is this data that is spied? And note, I'm not trying to confront/challenge your predictions, I'd just like to see it from all the angles. Let's assume hypothetically that holding DRK is riskless. In that case you have a riskless investment that has a return on equity of about 10%. Since that is obviously absurd, something must be wrong with this analysis. It's often hard to argue with people about ponzi schemes because it seems like it should work and proving that it won't is difficult because we don't know the exact mechanism of failure in advance. The talked ROI is indeed not an ROI, because everyone has invested dollars at the beginning, these figures going around are not a "return of investment", masternode payments are in DRK and DRK<->Dollar changes. (and your investment was in dollar, so these percentage figures of masternode drk returns are absolutly pointless in the relation to your initial invest because you cant know the price of drk in the future.) So in the end the 10% has not to be absurd, the price of DRK has just to adjust. And voila it could be also a negative ROI. So how would this help in answering illodin's question? you said Since that is obviously absurd, something must be wrong with this analysis.my point is that you're right and the missing point is that the masternode ROI is not in dollar, so the initial roi can also go negativ in dollars, and there are no false promises it won't so i can't see any ponzi in it. You are getting fixated on the ponzi question which was a tool of analysis. His question was So, the starting point is $1,000 / month for each masternode, and every node is honest. Also let's assume $100 / month for hosting expenses. How will the honest nodes become unprofitable when some of them start turning dishonest? Care to answer that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
