@othe you are losing your time discussing with this troll (Brilliantrocket), I did the same mistake on the rpietila altcoin thread, this troll just keeps repeating the same thing again and again, he is a troll or a completely retarded.
Well, someone who is "completely retarded" has made better gains than you'll ever see in your life. And in the end that's what it all comes down to. I started posting on page 35 of the 2600 page Darkcoin thread. Let's just say, my life has never been better  Good for you, now stopping bashing Monero on the Monero threads please. Unlike some others , I have the courtesy to stay out of your main thread. However, I feel that creating ten plus threads on this forum is arrogant. And I have a passionate distaste for arrogance. |
|
|
|
@othe you are losing your time discussing with this troll (Brilliantrocket), I did the same mistake on the rpietila altcoin thread, this troll just keeps repeating the same thing again and again, he is a troll or a completely retarded.
Well, someone who is "completely retarded" has made better gains than you'll ever see in your life. And in the end that's what it all comes down to. I started posting on page 35 of the 2600 page Darkcoin thread. Let's just say, my life has never been better |
|
|
|
No you arenīt interested, all you do is flaming against it over and over with the same crap and you are damn learning resistant on that.
And I'll continue flaming it until I see a fix to the issues that I find important. In my opinion, Monero is like a piece of coal. Practically worthless in its current form. With the proper pressure, coal can be compressed into a diamond. Lets face it, you are just a blinded Darkcoin fanboy. While you ignore all issues i mentioned on DRK you come here and blub the same stuff over and over again. The fact is, there is no pruning in Bitcoin, theres no pruning in Darkcoin and there is none in Monero. So feel free to annoy the other 2 mentioned projects with that and set Monero on ignore as you are certainly not interested in it anyway. CN based coins can easily scale to a high transaction volume, its far from its limit, so is Bitcoin. Read the Bitcoin scalability page, the disksize for a fullnode is the LEAST issue, network propagation etc are one of the problem. As already said 1000x times normal people will use an SPV Wallet like they are doing with Bitcoin, and for a fullnode operator the Blockchainsize doesnt matter as diskspace is cheap, yes you heard correctly, diskspace is already pretty cheap in the year 2014 - and btw. running a masternode is not. However, it will be kinda impossible for the Masternode stuff to "scale" to even Bitcoin levels. We're all blinded by fanaticism for what we're invested in, to an extent. You'd be lying if you said you don't see it with Monero proponents. As stated by astute observers, Darkcoin is compatible with various pruning schemes, namely the mini blochain, that CN isn't compatible with. So Darkcoin provides solid anonymity (I know you'll dispute this, but please reserve your zeal for when the bounties appear), and it can scale roughly an order of magnitude better than CN. I'm banking on the fact that 99% of people don't care if their anonymity is provided by ring signatures or magic pixies, as long as transactions can't be traced. So if Darkcoin can't be traced, and it scales an order of magnitude better, it will become the standard. I am technically interested, barely an investor. The miniblockchain sheme doesnt provide more than an SPV client. I already explained you 1000x times the scaling issues have barely todo with DISKSPACE. But Monero and Darksend will produce bigger transactions simply because there are more in and outputs compared to a standart Bitcoin tx. Diskspace here is not the issue - the bandwith is one of the issue. See Gavin Andresens latest proposol for a possible fix. I agree on the fact people wonīt care about how privacy is archived, still they care if the anonymity is good. A big plus for Monero that every transaction will be anonymous, no one will have to care about using sth called "darksend" they wonīt even understand, there will be no stuck coins from "premixing" or however you guys call it. Every tx is anonymous and instantly send out, i can easily send 10k XMR around with a mixing of 100 or more, just yet without waiting. Without caring about the technical aspects of how it works. Perfect for users. Please provide additional information and technical facts how the "masternode" stuff will archive an order of magnitude better scaling if it isn't even instant. I would take a look myself, but reversing closed source binaries is a pain and not worth the time and i am also strictly against security by obscurity, that never worked out. Premixing is a one time, relatively short process. Leave your wallet open, it gets anonymized, you don't think about it again. I've tried it on the testnet and was satisfied that it would not be an issue for practical use. If you want to understand why bloat is important, read through the posts of Anonymint. He has quite a few posts, but believe me, it's worth it. Just skip through the economic/political stuff and find the ones relative to bloat. I've made my position clear, and I'm tired of pointless arguing. |
|
|
|
No you arenīt interested, all you do is flaming against it over and over with the same crap and you are damn learning resistant on that.
And I'll continue flaming it until I see a fix to the issues that I find important. In my opinion, Monero is like a piece of coal. Practically worthless in its current form. With the proper pressure, coal can be compressed into a diamond. Lets face it, you are just a blinded Darkcoin fanboy. While you ignore all issues i mentioned on DRK you come here and blub the same stuff over and over again. The fact is, there is no pruning in Bitcoin, theres no pruning in Darkcoin and there is none in Monero. So feel free to annoy the other 2 mentioned projects with that and set Monero on ignore as you are certainly not interested in it anyway. CN based coins can easily scale to a high transaction volume, its far from its limit, so is Bitcoin. Read the Bitcoin scalability page, the disksize for a fullnode is the LEAST issue, network propagation etc are one of the problem. As already said 1000x times normal people will use an SPV Wallet like they are doing with Bitcoin, and for a fullnode operator the Blockchainsize doesnt matter as diskspace is cheap, yes you heard correctly, diskspace is already pretty cheap in the year 2014 - and btw. running a masternode is not. However, it will be kinda impossible for the Masternode stuff to "scale" to even Bitcoin levels. We're all blinded by fanaticism for what we're invested in, to an extent. You'd be lying if you said you don't see it with Monero proponents. As stated by astute observers, Darkcoin is compatible with various pruning schemes, namely the mini blockchain, that CN isn't compatible with. So Darkcoin provides solid anonymity (I know you'll dispute this, but please reserve your zeal for when the bounties appear), and it can scale roughly an order of magnitude better than CN. I'm banking on the fact that 99% of people don't care if their anonymity is provided by ring signatures or magic pixies, as long as transactions can't be traced. So if Darkcoin can't be traced, and it scales an order of magnitude better, it will become the standard. Sure, you guys will bleat about how ring signatures are cryptographically superior to Darksend. And no one will care. Good luck explaining the difference to people who can barely figure out how to use a wallet. The majority of lay people I've spoken to can't understand how Bitcoin works, nor do they care. The average person couldn't care less about the intricacies of how the result is delivered, but rather only that is is delivered. |
|
|
|
When a few months go by without a significant improvement to usability, interest will wane.
There is this crazy little thing called a brand new written-from-scratch-with-extensive-usability-testing GUI that was revealed last week to rave reviews and while a release date has not been announced more than a few months not a very good guess. Personally, I'm watching Monero very closely. Seems unlikely given that you didn't know about the GUI. I'm less concerned with a GUI and more concerned with bloat. A GUI is a trifling thing compared to that. You want applause for delivering the most basic thing that a cryptocurrency could have? When I said usability, I meant real world practicality. Even if you guys released a perfect GUI tomorrow, I wouldn't shift my investments just for that. Bloat is irrelevant for years and you know it. The blockchain is currently growing at about 5 MB per day, or 1.5 GB per year. That is nothing. As usage increases, this rate of growth will also increase. If Monero grows twice as fast as Bitcoin then it will be the current size of Bitcoin in terms of volume and 5-10 times the current size in terms of blockchain. That is not now, not next year, but 3 years from now. That is entirely manageable. Moreover, most users will likely be using thin clients and web wallets. If your claim is that full nodes running in datacenters and on VPS (and probably some enthusiasts at home) won't be able to handle a 100-200 GB blockchain in 3 years you have completely lost it. Also, the GUI is hardly the most basic thing. It is probably the more carefully and professionally designed GUI that has even been developed for any coin. What other coin GUI has was developed using formal usabililty testing? Certainly not the 99% that are copy-paste Bitcoin-qt clones, and likely few if any of the other 1% either. Like I said, we all have our standards. It's my belief that Darkcoin will prevail over CN , unless there was a fix to the bloat. I'm interested in the ability to scale to a high transaction volume rapidly. As I've explained in other threads, I do not think CN in its current form can prevail over Darkcoin, simply due to the fact that people care for practical solutions, not necessarily elegant ones. HOWEVER, if CN had no bloat, I do believe that it could compete with Darkcoin. That's all. Obviously you guys will disagree with my premise, but to each their own. When I said I'm watching Monero closely, I should have said, I'm watching closely to see if the issues I care about are addressed, not to check if the developers are breathing. I expect you guys will get a GUI out, nothing surprising there. Because Anonymint (an astute observer, in my opinion) has stated that CN cannot be pruned I do not expect for the bloat to be fixed. That doesn't mean it can't happen. So I will watch. |
|
|
|
No you arenīt interested, all you do is flaming against it over and over with the same crap and you are damn learning resistant on that.
And I'll continue flaming it until I see a fix to the issues that I find important. In my opinion, Monero is like a piece of coal. Practically worthless in its current form. With the proper pressure, coal can be compressed into a diamond. |
|
|
|
When a few months go by without a significant improvement to usability, interest will wane.
There is this crazy little thing called a brand new written-from-scratch-with-extensive-usability-testing GUI that was revealed last week to rave reviews and while a release date has not been announced more than a few months not a very good guess. Personally, I'm watching Monero very closely. Seems unlikely given that you didn't know about the GUI. I'm less concerned with a GUI and more concerned with bloat. A GUI is a trifling thing compared to that. You want applause for delivering the most basic thing that a cryptocurrency could have? When I said usability, I meant real world practicality. Even if you guys released a perfect GUI tomorrow, I wouldn't shift my investments just for that. |
|
|
|
Speaking of which; when do I go HERO?
I've been posting literally 12-16 hours per day for over 1 year and just cause I didn't post for a few weeks last Christmas when they changed the rules I've been stuck trying to get back up to where I was last year.
So how much longer do I have before I reach hero, anybody know?
Damn, nearly 6k posts and you're still not hero? High standards. |
|
|
|
The worst thing is when people invade the coin you're interested in and post FUD. I really don't understand that, how anyone thinks it actually works and we don't see through all your bullshit. It is a feeble effort!
Sometimes people are genuinely trying to protect others from getting suckered or making poor investment decisions. I know it sounds crazy, but there are actually people who care about other people out there. They are usually drowned out by the scammers and clowns, so they are hard to spot. I personally would never "FUD" a coin in order to buy it at a cheaper price. Given the abysmal state of the alt world at the moment, its a suicidal tactic that will only speed up the inevitable demise of said coin. Let's face it: most coins are shit, and the rest are scams. The remaining 1% are actually trying to do something that is useful for the rest of humanity, but you can't pick them out if you think Monero is one of them. What's wrong with Monero? It may not be the best, but I can appreciate the devs' work. |
|
|
|
LTC is getting destroyed... Time to make way for Monero  I'm no fan of LTC, but I seriously doubt it's going down just yet. |
|
|
|
Yet, I believe that it will not stay even this cheap for long. A week perhaps.
On what basis? Hopes and dreams? At this point it's 100% speculative. Without a constant supply of patsies, the price would tank rather quickly. I think many Monero investors are in a state of delusion regarding timeline. The majority of people are rather impatient. When a few months go by without a significant improvement to usability, interest will wane. Not necessarily a bad thing, there are uptrends and downtrends for every asset. Personally, I'm watching Monero very closely. I'm certainly interested, but the endless shilling and permanently affixed rose colored glasses that so many of you guys seem to wear do not look good from the outside. I know you guys believe in the project, but fanaticism is not the best way to attract supporters at this stage. |
|
|
|
"In reality, humans display a systematic bias towards cooperative behavior in this and similar games, much more so than predicted by simple models of "rational" self-interested action."
That doesn't apply in non-cooperative games (which is what masternodes create). If you're really interested in the game theory that shows why this is a bad idea, you can start here: http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~stoddj/BE/IntroGameT.htmWhat you really want is Nash equilibrium, but that's when a system comes to rest, not before. In the case of masternodes, those with the fastest access to resources and the most devious minds would initiate a systemic collapse. This could occur after quite a period of equilibrium, as the bad actors wait for price appreciation in order to ensure the barrier to entry for competitors is obliterated. They would launch an attack on masternode after masternode, obliterating them from the network. Those good actors with fast access to resources will also react, but it would only take a short time before they reason that one or more of the remaining masternodes must be operating in bad faith, and the best way to deal with this is to launch an attack of their own. Once sufficient numbers of masternodes have shut down and dumped their coins due to the cost prohibitive nature of defending against these attacks, a very small group (I'd hazard less than 10) will be left with a Nash equilibrium, knowing that they survived each other's onslaughts and were unable to take each other down permanently. That sort of attack makes utterly no sense in the context of Darkcoin. Daily emission is 2880 coins, 20% of which goes to masternodes. At most an attacker could stand to gain 576 coins per day. If such an attack occurred, the Darkcoin price would tank quickly. So for the sake of a small number of soon to be devalued coins an attacker would compromise the value of their much larger investment (coins held in masternode)? Not to mention there's a high temporal and monetary cost for such an attack! While theoretically possible, similar to the sybil attack on MNs, such a move would be counter to the interest of the attacker. Keep grasping at straws, it's fun to watch. |
|
|
|
Definitely Monero. They have a pile of aluminum blocks, and yet act like they have a race car. As with any community , they're not all bad, but the bad apples seem to be the most visible. Just look at this forum. They create tens of redundant threads, and for what purpose?
Have you had the email yet? Asking for Monero? Sent by David Latapie, together with a Twitter link. PM spam? Haven't had the pleasure. |
|
|
|
|
Boolberry. I only invest in coins that could reasonably be mistaken for fruit.
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely Monero. They have a pile of aluminum blocks, and yet act like they have a race car. As with any community , they're not all bad, but the bad apples seem to be the most visible. Just look at this forum. They create tens of redundant threads, and for what purpose?
|
|
|
|
Not sure if you saw that, as it addresses some of the same criticisms you just brought up.
I saw it, it doesn't. It's layering on top of a fundamentally broken system. The solution is to drop the idea and opt for something that is cryptographically sound and not open to Sybil attacks. Time will determine which system is broken and which is sound. As Anonymint said, if it works in spite of the "duct tape" , that's all that matters. Your solution may be more elegant, but outside of a small circle of programmers, no one cares. 99.9% of users will not appreciate anything outside of functionality and a nice GUI. Also you know damn well that Monero is not going to be immune to sybil attacks. You've had that discussion with Anonymint, do I need to fish it out? The general conclusion was that Darkcoin and CN are roughly equivalent in terms of attacks. Darkcoin's masternodes add an additional, but highly ineffective and impractical attack vector, yet Darkcoin can be pruned and CN cannot. |
|
|
|
Unless I have to register on the forums of DRK and ask there, I would like to get some input from Evan or some developer on this. There are two things that concern me:
1. Outputs can still be linked to addresses. If you send 20 DRK and it sends all these other outputs along with it to obfuscate, the 20 DRK still ends up in someone's address. That this can be observed on the blockchain means that analysis is easy, and we all know how often people leak addresses associated with their wallet (eg. posting it up for giveaways etc. etc.) This is an immutable problem in any Bitcoin-forked cryptocurrency that exists, as the solution (stealth addresses computed w/random data) has to be enforced for every transaction from the genesis block. If you enforce it halfway through you're stuck with old outputs that don't use stealth addresses, which makes it exceedingly complex to ensure the anonymityset is not at-risk.
2. Masternodes are an Achilles' heel. Let us say that there are 10 000 masternodes on the network. Their IP addresses and the port they operate on is, by necessity, known to the network. Let's assume that an attacker controls 5 masternodes of the 10 000. Let's also assume that each of the masternodes on the network is on a dedicated server (none of them use a VPS, because a VPS could be trivially owned by the host operating system) and each of these servers is on a 1gbps unmetered, dedicated port (clearly not the case right now, but I'm talking about a future time). How hard would it be for an attacker to knock the other 9995 masternodes off the network, leaving theirs as the only accessible masternodes (and thus not only earning them all the fees, but giving them perfect insight into transactions moving within their controlled group)? Well, NTP amplification attacks have let attackers launch 400Gbps attacks against a single machine from a sole 2mbps connection. SNMP has a theoretical 650x amplification factor. All an attacker needs to do is max out the unmetered port in an obvious attack, and the datacenter will have to react. Even straight up LOIC-style / botnet SYN floods to the port that the masternode has open will lead to the the DC null-routing traffic to that box, typically for 6 hours whilst they wait for the attack to stop. Mitigating this is an extremely difficult and expensive operation for each masternode to individually undertake, and not all DCs will even be able to provide DDoS mitigation at this level. An unsophisticated attacker using extremely traditional tools can knock all of the masternodes off the network except those they control. This is a threat to anonymity.
Incidentally, the other problem with masternodes that nobody seems to have thought of is that the limited number of them will mean they're in direct competition with each other. It is in a masternode operator's financial interests to make life difficult for the rest of them - DDoS attacks, reporting the box to the datacenter, anything that can knock a single competitor off the masternode network means more fees for the remaining masternodes. This is different to PoW mining where, for instance, knocking the pools offline doesn't mean you'll get more transaction fees, as miners always have backup pools. I'm not sure how sustainable this is as a system if it unmistakably pitches operators against each other to fight for fees. Given the cost and capital required to own a masternode, it's appreciable that this will happen as a natural result of wanting to maximise masternode profits.
Anyone considering this FUD or something is an ignorant idiot. This is just objective input from another developer who obviously has high knowledge. Very good questions. I'm excited that we're starting to see some higher level questions again. 1.) Payee addresses are arguably the less important aspect of privacy. As the sender, it's more important to protect your identity. The other side can simply be addressed by generating a new change address per payment. Between the two of these the system would be completely anonymous. Also, after receiving payment, your client will prepare the funds again, increasing their anonymity. 2.) There's not a perfect solution to this yet, but Masternode operators have an interest in getting more darkcoin and keeping their existing inventment as valuable as possible. By attacking the network, they would cause harm to their investment. Also, the client is resistant to DDOS attack currently and masternode operators are instructed to close all other ports and have some kind of DDOS protection. As a longer term solution, we could not broadcast the IPs of masternodes, but an identifier. Users could then say they want to broadcast to that masternode, but not actually connect to it. This would hide the identities and create a much more robust system. Not sure if you saw that, as it addresses some of the same criticisms you just brought up. |
|
|
|
Once the arrests start we'll have a different conversation. People thought Bitcoin provided "enough" anonymity till DPR got arrested. Although I don't suspect we'll get to that stage, as masternode operators will turn on each other and destroy each other to increase their profits. It is a great setup for mutually assured destruction.
Bigger blockchain means that fewer people run nodes. Especially when the blockchain is an order of magnitude bigger. I could be mistaken on the payment ID's, but I distinctly remember it being raised as an issue in the Monero thread, with consensus towards removing them. I'll do some digging later. Masternode operators turning on each other? That doesn't sound like a realistic problem, additionally if it were a problem, it would be self correcting by incentivizing more nodes. How would they turn on each other? DOS? March wants its problem back. Node hacking? Remember that you can't steal the coins held in a MN. ( Unless you're a moron and you don't use the clearly safer cold storage setup). |
|
|
|
If you're referring to payment ID's , you should know they have been identified as a security risk, look through the Monero thread. Blockchain size does matter, if no one runs nodes, your network becomes centralized and easier to attack. Combining inputs only establishes that they belonged to one person, it does not establish where those funds originated. So no, it wouldn't unmask you. And once the funds were anonymized by the recipient's wallet, you couldn't tell where they went. As far as coin control, the client will select anonymized funds automatically, there will be no risk of unmasking yourself through the inadvertent use of unmixed funds. Not sure why you think premixing is horrible, I've tried it on testnet and it's actually pretty awesome. Everything is being built with a general user in mind. It all happens automatically and seamlessly, no technical skill required. Either way, it will be out later this week, you can try it out if you're so inclined (or if you're as excited as I am, head over to the testing thread https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc4-testing.1830/page-89. Based on my experience, I think people will be pleased. To your last point, if you can't scale properly, you'll simply lose out to those that can. Once people try to trace Darkcoin transactions and fail, it will become accepted as a standard. Good luck trying to explain your advantages a year or two after a standard has been established. First mover advantage is huge, and you guys aren't getting it Even if you do have advantages, they won't be game changing. I'll grant you that the CN solution is more elegant, but that's utterly meaningless because it all happens under the hood, and the vast majority of people don't care. People use what works, which as you'll find out shortly, is Darkcoin. |
|
|
|
Please add Cryptonote to your poll. Ironically it's the only real anon coin yet it's not in the poll.
Actually I'd say that CN coins are more of a gimmick. They can't scale to real world usage. DRK can. Anonymous payments in CN based coins are instant, in DRK not. Wow DRK scales so good. Actually, Darksend+ pre-anonymizes the coins in your wallet, so when you're going to send them, it's instantaneous. Sending doesn't need mixing anymore. Darksend is compatible with mini-blockchain, so if it proves to be stable, Darkcoin can start using it. CN can't. This is a big deal. It's the difference between a coin that stays a proof of concept versus one that can actually scale to mass usage. It doesn't matter how anonymous your coin is, if it can't scale, it'll be anonymous from no one knowing about it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
