It appears this thread's OP is now deleted.

You are missing an arrow....

care to draw it in to the upside? 

Lol thanks for the laugh. 

The "large number tx outputs" owned by a single entity would need to be in the 80% range to have any sort of effect on unraveling transactions/history.

Meaning the attacker would need to own 80% of all of the transaction outputs. (I can't remember the exact %) but it is all probabilities when you do the math.

Let's just say "a large percent of the total transaction outputs" would need to be owned by the attacker.

To keep up such a large set by one person they would need to be constantly making transactions forever to keep pace with current demand for transactional/speculative demand for monero from then (early 2016) until now...and much farther into the future to keep that 80% as still 80%.

So the attack would be an ongoing thing and not only that, it wouldn't be guaranteed as if the monero user base grows that attacker would need to either compromise many other people's transactions by brute force (via government intervention) and even then there is no guarantee that the attack would be successful.

The attacker can be viewed as a person running after a bullet train but as the train starts to accelerate more and more the person running on foot gets further and further from catching the train.

This is how I view the scenario of such an attack at this point in time.


...

It was mitigated by requiring users and all transactions to use a mixing minimum of 2. This makes the attack much more difficult as the more mixing used the more information is required to unravel a transaction (or transactions) and their respective histories.

The more layers deep these mixed outputs get in new transactions the harder it is to unravel because more information is always required the larger the mixing set of transactions get over time.

Kind of like layers of transaction obfuscation over time.

The big difference is that Evan claims Dash wasn't premined and also that he didn't mean to instamine it.

Bill Gates, Mark Z, etc all made it clear that what they would be selling would be "premined"

Evan didn't do that at the beginning...

he pretended it wasn't a problem...

if it isn't a problem then I guess that news will go away eventually right? 

It has been 3+ years so far...but eventually right ? lol

Yup there will always be people opposing a HF, even one that isn't contentious.

You want people's opinion but don't want to discuss if it is a scam coin or not

You appear to already have a bias just by that statement. Kinda pointless if you are only going to listen to people who would rather not discuss if dash is or is not a legitimate coin.

0.105

You are welcome to try. If I end up noticing duplicate addresses (or incomplete addresses) for previous requests I will likely ignore them.

I have no control over if the coin gets to the person requesting it given they are shipped USPS first class mail.

Generally the smart money doesn't tell their plans.

You probably would have been better if you did your plan prior to posting this.

Now others are looking at it and may make a move before you.

No you don't have to do anything.

Just enjoy the coin/holo 

In either scenario it is never a good idea to keep all of your eggs in one basket even in your most ideal situation.

If he wants to sell his XMR stash, let him.

But I do not think anyone should be given a title of "VIP investor".

That's like a form of centralizing your mindset on a person/personality like Dash does with Evan.

Not a good thing to have.

Based on what exactly?

Anything is possible, but what compels you to make such a statement that would give higher probability than 50/50 that your comment would come true?

IMHO I prefer that monero not have a (or the perception of a) "VIP investor".

How can you sue if the people making the changes have 0 control over what the users choose to use going forward?

Sounds like someone is worried about their business model going forward. Who can blame them...but threatening to sue on those grounds is going to be one of a kind.

Your statement may become obsolete in the months to come as more "greater fools"'buy at higher and higher prices.

You may not know this but once upon a time I mined Bitcoin and was able to sell all of my equipment. I was nowhere near 5% of the network.

The nature of mining is something that has to be taken into consideration (both the pros and cons) before one decides to enter the industry.

If the risk analysis was not done properly or a contingency plan not put into place prior to entering the mining race, that can't be a reason to get any special treatment from the ecosystem as a whole should the effects of how things pan out (one way or another) unfolds.

We must remember that Bitcoin is so new that there are going to be many pitfalls. One of which may be malinvestment or failure to consider all possible outcomes in a risk analysis.


People tend to throw money at investments and business ventures many times without considering the risks.

I would disagree with this.

People who have invested into bitcoin as a store of value or have built their business around bitcoin have a vested interest as well.

Just because a miner has a more difficult time moving on to another business venture etc does not mean that they are the only ones.

One could argue that a bitcoin miner could sell off their equipment/assets and move on to other ventures/alt-coins/etc.

Not really an absolute type of statement I would agree with there.