...
All of which are horrible features, especially the illegal Masternodes, the broken math of the InstantX, and the illegal unregistered securities of DGB.
And when did he announce and deliver any USERSHIP.
These are just divagations to take money from speculators.
Edit: originally I was contented to no comment negatively on Dash (and this was before I knew about the fraud) and I figured to each his own. But when I see so many clueless speculators who can't assimilate all the necessary due diligence information, then we have a problem with illegal unregistered investment securities.
There is a significant regulatory risk with Dash especially with Masternodes voting on how to spend the newly created coins, and confirming transactions. My take is that the lead agency in the United States here would be FinCEN rather than the SEC. The critical question in my mind is are DASH Masternodes MSBs? The other thing to keep in mind here is that there are approximately four times as many banks and credit unions in the United States as there are Dash Masternodes, so by that measure alone the US banking system is more decentralized than Dash. The capital requirements to set up a Dash masternode 1000 Dash is a much higher proportion of the Dash M0 money supply than 40,000,000 USD (The amount of capital needed to set up a bank in the United States) is of the USD M0 Money supply. |
|
|
|
Nice going ignoring my previous points. Alright you wanna play shitcoiner, let's play: I chose these words extremely carefully, which you failed to recognize. Let's change emphasis a little to make it clear... Mandatory anonymity at the expense of efficiency & usability was a terrible idea. At the expense of efficiency & usability... which doesn't happen in Evolution. whenever Dash Evolution comes out in 2 -5 years? lol. When our devs say: 1-2 years it's 6-9 months. When your devs say: 1-2 years it's 6-9..... years. What has Monero achieved in 2015 btw? Oh right: Fixing bugs Here's DASHNice official GUI btw. How much does your butt hurt?Next, please. You still have not answered my question: Is mandatory mixing a good thing or a bad thing? As for ignoring your posts I am focusing on the bold part of your post. It was bold for emphasis when it was posted. Optional anonymity has the clear advantage here There is no need to get into a font shouting match here. As to what Dash and Monero have accomplished it depends one one's priority. If flashy marketing is the priority then by all means pick Dash, if building a solid foundation is the priority then pick Monero. I pick Monero and frankly when I see see flashy marketing with little substance to back it up, I run as fast as I can. |
|
|
|
First we have CryptoNote has just ONE selling point.
Without anonymity it's just a terrible Bitcoin clone. Imagine Bitcoin with such a bloated and slow blockchain...
Why would anyone choose ring signature anonymity when on-demand mixing is much more efficient and bloat-avoidant? The adopting masses have no real-life use case were every single transaction must be anonymous. I don't give a flying fuck if the government knows that I bought a freaking hamburger at CrapDonald's with crypto. Optional anonymity has the clear advantage here. The user decides on his own terms which transaction is no one's business. No need to bloat our blockchain with millions of anonymous beer purchases. Improving a working and proven system like Bitcoin is always better than trying to reinvent the wheel.
Mandatory anonymity at the expense of efficiency & usability was a terrible idea.
...
... but then we have ...
DarkSend is becoming default in Evolution rendering mixing obsolete anyway.
...
So which is it? Is mandatory mixing a good thing or a bad thing? Or did Dash come to the realization that Monero was right all along and decided to implement mandatory mixing in Evolution whenever Dash Evolution comes out in 2 -5 years? |
|
|
|
|
Dash leaving for the most part Cryptsy for Poloniex was for me a very powerful indicator that Cryptsy is in trouble.
|
|
|
|
Why does any coin need to replace Bitcoin? as I see it they all can work together.
... because the current adoption level of Bitcoin is hard coded into the Bitcoin protocol. It is called the 1 MB blocksize limit. |
|
|
|
There is another Bytecoin innovation that is not mentioned here namely Adaptive Blocksize Limits. This works by applying a penalty to the block reward in order to increase the blocksize, and very effectively addresses the blocksize debate in Bitcoin. The problem is that the implementation of Adaptive Blocksize Limits in Bytecoin is fundamentally flawed. What happens to the block reward penalty when the block reward runs out or becomes minimal? There is no penalty and effectively the blockszie becomes infinite and with no scarcity in the blocksize miner fees will fall to zero creating a situation where there is no incentive to maintain the Proof of Work network. Monero solved this very serious problem by having a tail emission. This is just one example of the myriad of technical problems in Bytecoin that Monero has solved. As with a host of other issues mentioned before the original release of Bytecoin was likely rushed to market when it was far from ready. The Monero project has tuned this into a viable crypto currency. As for why Bytecoin was rushed to market before it was ready it is anyone's guess. I will take a stab at this and say that one possible reason was the release of Darkcoin/Dash. Edit 1: Bytecoin may well become a good example of what could go terribly wrong in Bitcoin if one blindly increases the blocksize. We must keep in mind that those that are reluctant to increase the blocksize in Bitcoin are also making some very valid points. Edit 2: Take a look at the chart for Darkcoin/Dash up to its peak in May 2014 of 0.0274 XBT. https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/cryptsy/drkbtc That could easily fuel the greed of the Bytecoin developers who also decided to wildly outdo the Darkcoin/Dash instamine with a massive approximately 82% premine/ninjamine. |
|
|
|
...
If any of these Altcoins were even slightly better than Bitcoin it would be reflected in it's market price.
What's Monero worth ? Close to a buck ?
What is Bitcoin worth $450 bucks ? ..case closed. ..that says it all right there.
There was a point in time just over six years ago when Bitcoin traded for under one tenth of a penny. |
|
|
|
Can anyone understand what Fuserleer wrote? None of makes any sense to me.
Fuserleer can't you do more clear technical writing than that? Surely it makes sense to you, but it reads like gibberish to me. You don't even define what an endorsement is and does. You just assume all these things in your head are in our head. I can't extract it from your prose.
I would wait for an actual working implementation in FLOSS code that can be peer reviewed together with a proper technical paper that is also subject to peer review. |
|
|
|
...
LOL the problem with your argument is that you assume everyone is going to premix what they want to send ahead of time.
We live in the year 2016 and time is money.
72 hours to mix 1000 dash through DARKSEND isn't very impressive when there are alternatives that take a second or a few seconds.
Mixing Dash is actually very simple and it does not take 72 hours. Mixing Dash is actually very simple.
1) Sell Dash for XMR on Poloniex
2) Send XMR to own XMR address
3) Send XMR to a second XMR address with a mixin of say 5
4) Sell XMR for Dash on Shapeshift.io
Voila! Mixed Dash. No need to wait for weeks or worry about masternode blinding.
Edit: When sending the XMR to Shapeshift.io also use a mixin of say 5
|
|
|
|
...
Monero's anonymity is already developed. Ct just makes it more awesome.
Multi signature is what smooth said, and is not really about privacy, but about human trust.
Multi signature is actually very important because it opens the door to a host of applications present in the Bitcoin blockchain, that were not possible before in Monero. The beauty of this is that these applications can now benefit from the transaction fungibility and privacy of Monero. It is a really cutting edge technology in a PoW crypto currency. |
|
|
|
If you are looking for a community that is at the cutting edge of innovation in a proof of work crypto currency, Then I would suggest Monero. For example: We just funded a project towards the implementation of confidential transactions and multi signature transactions with Cryptonote ring signature anonymity. Not only is this extremely cutting edge but the project was funded by the community in approximately 9 hours indicating the strength and dedication of the community. https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required/2450/ring-ct-c-crypto. The paper on which this work is based is available here https://www.overleaf.com/read/qzgytbyyxvyf. This is a community focused on building a cutting edge fungible and private crypto currency that also addresses the blocksize scaling issues in Bitcoin. The emphasis is on doing things right where mathematical rigor and peer review, take precedence over marketing. Whichever coin and community you chose I do urge you to spend some time beforehand by doing you own research. This is what I chose to do before becoming a part of the Monero community. |
|
|
|
...POW ensures permissionless behaviour
PoW doesn't insure permissionless nor decentralized if mining is inherently centralizing. There are many reasons that Satoshi's design is centralizing. One is for example that mining is profitable, thus there is a competition to drive difficulty higher and higher such that EACH transaction costs ~$10 in electricity (which is currently paid by mining the investors as professional miners who have loans from the oligarchy+banksters mine with huge farms near hydropower at $50 per BTC cost and sell all that they mine). Even if no debasement was paid to miners, they have a monopoly on transactions added to blocks, so they can charge what ever transaction fees they want if they control 51% of the hashrate. It begs for a oligarchy on mining to develop (which is the direction it appears to be headed and normally government steps in with regulation to aid the oligarchy). And increasing the transactions per block also forces centralization, thus furthering a trend towards oligarchy control, so saying cost per transaction will fall as transaction rate increases is only true if the resultant oligarchy decides to go for market share first (perhaps as a longer-term strategy of 666 enslavement and world government trend). Also since mining is only done for profit, then pools are required to deal with huge variance of winning a block for typical (non oligarchy) miners. Pools centralize mining, even if we argue that miners can switch pools, the government can more easily target the pools even if miners switch since by definition there will never be as many pools as miners (not even close). There are many flaws in Satoshi's design which make it entirely broken from my view. I can't support Bitcoin (nor Monero). I support things that I feel enthusiastically could work out well for mankind and be successful. Bitcoin will succeed only because it is fitting in well with the existing oligarchy's (e.g. Peter Thiel) plans for world domination (and that includes that an illusion of decentralization will persist long enough for the centralization to finally take hold). It seems like you have hit an impasse, but without knowing the details of the problem
I had thought so, but I think I explained in this thread how to break the impasse I thought I had hit. But I reiterate I will go over all the details when I am offline to see if I haven't missed something in my thought process while I am writing here online. First I do agree that Satoshi's design is flawed for the following two reasons: 1) Mining cannot be paid for entirely by fees, so a tail emission is a must. The reason is that a fee market cannot properly develop in the absence of a block subsidy. One has either a fixed blocksize with a mining oligarchy and infinite fees or an infinite blocksize where competition between miners drive fees to zero. 2) In order to have a permission less system on needs an opaque blockchain where censorship is impossible or at least very expensive. There is a cost to censorship which has already been demonstrated in Bitcoin. It is manifested in the opposition to an increase in the blocksize by those miners that are based in China. The reason for this is the latency introduced by the Great Firewall of China puts a centralized data centre in China at a significant disadvantage with respect to say a residential connection in Canada. The irony here is that if Bitcoin had allowed for larger blocks earlier on this situation would not have developed since the Chinese ASIC manufacturers would have been forced to sell their devices for export leading to a much more decentralized Bitcoin mining situation. The lesson from Bitcoin is that a small blocksize can actually lead to mining centralization by accommodating censorship rather than the other way around. The second factor of PoW that must be taken into account is PoC (Proof of Cold). The key is that in a situation where electricity is used for space heating the marginal cost of mining is zero; however the heat is only valuable if it is decentralized. The key here is that one can easily distribute electricity but not heat forcing decentralization. This in effect gives the small player a very significant cost advantage over the large centralized operation. The reality is that it is very premature to dismiss a true second generation PoW coin such as Monero over what are very valid failures in the original Satoshi design. As with many technological innovations the first generation is not the one that eventually gains prominence. |
|
|
|
... For everyone: Contact me privately for every details. As an example of the message I will send: Please confirm:
You have 10 votes, you paid 10 XMR and for renewal you paid one-tenth, which is 1 XMR. Total is 11 XMR. Since half went to dev and are non refundable, this means I will send you back 5.5 XMR (modulo transaction fees). Please state privately your XMR address.
I case you ask, I have my own ledger of who paid how much. Thanks David. |
|
|
|
I titled the thread Monero vs Boolberry Chess Challenge and CryptoNote technical discussion because Monero was white in the first game.
Should I change the title to Boolberry vs Monero Chess Challenge and CryptoNote technical discussion now that colors are reversed or leave it alone?
I want to avoid confusion about who is what color but am not sure if changing the title would help or hinder that goal.
Yes, changing the order makes sense to me now that Boolberry is white and Monero is black. |
|
|
|
... as if the blocksize issue alone was not enough to worry. |
|
|
|
|
ArticMine 1000 votes.
My thoughts on this is that we should start with the premise that David has done nothing wrong and has the required amount of XMR on hand. Whether the XMR were segregated is not the critical issue since there was no explicit requirement for this; having said this it is simply bad practice to not segregate the funds. It is also appropriate for the remaining MEW executives to ascertain as to the status of these funds and require proof that these funds exist. These actions are simply prudent management and should not be construed as evidence or suspicion of wrongdoing. If there is no response or an inappropriate response to above requests then it does become at least suspicion if not evidence of wrongdoing, it also becomes appropriate to take action and the MEW members deserve to be made aware of the situation.
Edit: Has David been officially contacted about this?
|
|
|
|
ArticMine 1000 votes. Proposal for the orderly dissolution of the MEW. That the MEW be dissolved and the corresponding funds be refunded to each member as follows: Members shall have 15 days from the date of the end of voting to provide: 1) An XMR address and transaction ID for refund. or2) The name of a Crypto Kingdom character account to be credited with the funds. Any remaining unclaimed funds after the 15 day period has elapsed shall be credited as follows: Crypto Kingdom account MoneroHouse 50% Crypto Kingdom account Town 50% This proposal allows each member to identify how their portion of the funds will be allocated and provides a balanced approach for disposition of the unclaimed funds. For those unfamiliar with Crypto Kingdom, the MoneroHouse account is used to support Monero development. Edit: Those wishing that their portion of the funds go to Monero development could choose 1 and provide the Monero donation address. 46BeWrHpwXmHDpDEUmZBWZfoQpdc6HaERCNmx1pEYL2rAcuwufPN9rXHHtyUA4QVy66qeFQkn6sfK8aHYjA3jk3o1Bv16em . Those wishing to donate to Crypto Kingdom can choose 2 and specify "Town" as the Crypto Kingdom character account. This will minimize administration time and transaction fees |
|
|
|
|
There is one important difference here. In the Monero civil war over emission both options were actually viable from technical and economic point of views over the long term. In the Bitcoin civil war over blocksize none of the options presented are viable technically or economically over the long term
Edit: In the article by Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen I cited previously the problem is correctly identified however no solution to the problem is presented.
|
|
|
|
...
My bet is with a 50/50 hedge. Buy the sector, not the firm.
I can't do the BitcoinObituary thing, when all it's done so far is exhibit antifragility at every opportunity and enjoys a first mover advantage involving 6 years of demonstrated success.
My intuition is transparent and opaque ledgers both have roles to play in disrupting/replacing fiat and the BIS shitlords who print it.
I know it is tough. I felt the same way for quite a while, and even today I still hold a token amount of Bitcoin and run a full Bitcoin node, on the core network. The hard reality is however that I cannot ignore facts and must put emotion aside. The strongest bet for a transparent ledger may be Dogecoin since it has a tail emission already in place and consequently could implement a Monero style adaptive blocksize without seriously disrupting its social covenant. What troubles me with Bitcoin is that the long term is not handled, so a strong hands hold / average down strategy may not work. |
|
|
|
... Your DASH community also loved to defend and cheerlead for Cryptsy. How's that working out for you?  They left. Poloniex is now the most liquid exchange for Dash. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/dash/#markets. In fact a major warning sign for Cryptsy involved a major Dash whale. Edit: This has been the case for a while before the closure of Cryptsy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
