I do agree with Perseus that the comment was baseless because it did not provide a sound argument, even if a valid statement, and in forgoing so, causes him (and, though to a lesser extent, by unavoidable proxy, Monero) diminished credibility.
Thats exactly what he wants you to think... he is using Monero to shut me up, I already showed that I don't care about my perceived credibility so that was next obvious step, if this was IRL I would be sleeping with the fishes tonight, because thats the nature of his people. I'm really sorry (and only) about going offtopic here, I though he was an obvious troll and people would just ignore. I see every trolling as an opportunity to elucidate  and I think, if you can take the time to post something then you can take the time to post something good. |
|
|
|
I do agree with Perseus that the comment was baseless because it did not provide a sound argument, even if a valid statement, and in forgoing so, causes him (and, though to a lesser extent, by unavoidable proxy, Monero) diminished credibility. Pro tip: http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.htmlquickly: The audience isn't you! Emphasize logos for hostile audiences, as pathos is mostly effective with friendly audiences, and balance the two for neutral audiences. |
|
|
|
Dude you got pwned. Take a break from Bitcointalk for a while. Your reputation is even muddier than the Shadow fanboys.
Yeah. I did get pwned on that point - encryption is a branch of cryptography and it's encryption that he stated was part of cryptocurrencies, not cryptography. And again :p Cryptocurrencies employ cryptography through encryption. The encryption of data through cryptography is the foundation of cryptocurrencies. |
|
|
|
Here's how I see one scenario, you want to destroy a network? Taking out even a few Masternodes based on say, evidence of "facilitating illegal trade" (technically because all trade runs through Masternodes), might incite a system-wide panic amongst all masternode owners, quickly compromising network security, perhaps enough to reduce the amount of Masternodes to a more attainable amount to fully compromise. Monero nodes are a few steps away from this vulnerability because compromising nodes don't compromise anonymity because the anonymity is not dependent on third party mixers, probably even in the case of double-spend attack thresholds (idk), so attacks will be more individualized.
Yeah interesting scenario. We're into regulatory territory here though, and if guv starts shutting down MNs for "facilitating illegal trade" then they're going to be going after any anon coin surely, so in the context of DRK vs XMR this is moot, right? I understand I didn't directly address (sry, been on a 4.7" phone!) your point that at unlimited capabilities this is moot, but i'd just rather not be the low-hanging fruit (esp. since there's a possible 1000DASH prize for taking out each masternode), is all, given TPTB's limited capabilities. I also agree with you that Dash could break into the market first, and better (it has), but with say life-savings amounts and given a self-sustaining economy despite possibly smaller market cap, I'd personally pick the protocol with better security. |
|
|
|
It's not bad like Bitcoin, but the point of vulnerability where Dash can cross the "not fungible" threshold lies in the Masternode scheme. CryptoNote does not have this vulnerability.
sure I agree with that, but nobody has been able to show how anyone less than NSA/guv could take DASH across that line. Okay, the major point still stands, if we're going to upset TPTB's entire financial system with a protocol that allows us to opt out, you're going to want that on-chain anonymity to not have to trust anyone else to ensure your anonymity against said PTB. But we already agreed, several times on this thread, that against TLA/guv adversary all bets are off. All coins is fucked, is what we said. At which point we get back to the still unanswered 'fit-for-purpose' argument. Is DASH providing sufficient privacy for all sub-TLA adversaries? If it is, and it's got loads of other great features (InstantX, BTC API compatibilty, two-factor authentication etc), then it's full of win Here's how I see one scenario, you want to destroy a network? Taking out even a few Masternodes based on say, evidence of "facilitating illegal trade" (technically because all trade runs through Masternodes), might incite a system-wide panic amongst all masternode owners, quickly compromising network security, perhaps enough to reduce the amount of Masternodes to a more attainable amount to fully compromise. Monero nodes are a few steps away from this vulnerability because compromising nodes don't compromise anonymity because the anonymity is not dependent on third party mixers, probably even in the case of double-spend attack thresholds (idk for sure), so attacks will be more individualized. I think even compromising 100% of nodes won't compromise anonymity assuming other safe practices. |
|
|
|
Why your privacy is essential: I don't know if it was so dramatic, as an inherent feature of the Bitcoin protocol is its (perhaps too) transparent blockchain, and as follows... http://cointelegraph.com/news/113207/coinbase-is-tracking-how-users-spend-their-bitcoins"Coinbase has recently been demonstrating why consumer regulation is such a problem. The company seems to be tracking what their customers are buying with Bitcoin and closing any accounts involved in transactions that the company objects to." http://www.coindesk.com/bonafide-raises-850k-build-reputation-system-bitcoin/"Moyer, who started his career doing signals intelligence for the army and later for the NSA, used cash as an analogy for the way bitcoin is right now pretty much anonymous [but right now pretty much not at all]. He said: “You know if I bring you a million dollars of cash there is something wrong. The reason is, you have no way of knowing where that money comes from [but you definitely do with Bitcoin :malicious grin:].”" |
|
|
|
It's not bad like Bitcoin, but the point of vulnerability where Dash can cross the "not fungible" threshold lies in the Masternode scheme. CryptoNote does not have this vulnerability.
sure I agree with that, but nobody has been able to show how anyone less than NSA/guv could take DASH across that line. Okay, the major point still stands, if we're going to upset TPTB's entire financial system with a protocol that allows us to opt out, you're going to want that on-chain anonymity to not have to trust anyone else to ensure your anonymity against said PTB. |
|
|
|
Re: Is Bitcoin good enough; there aren't critically important improvements needed?December 02, 2014, 08:44:32 PM #64 Quote from: franky1 on December 02, 2014, 08:35:49 PM Quote from: jonald_fyookball on December 02, 2014, 08:33:28 PM good points Franky, but to be fair to the OP, that is what the poll is asking: would you switch to another coin? I voted no. i voted no too Good riddence. You continue to post off topic nonsense. For example (and there are many more), without on chain anonymity it is impossible to have robust untraceability and unlinkability no matter what anonymity techniques you do off chain. That you don't understand this, shows you are not technically qualified to blabber ( which we already proved in the thread linked from the OP), but yet you do foam at the mouth any way with lies such as "you changed the title thus you are moving closer to my position". Liar. I changed the title because I realized it was possible to achieve the same level of pool centralization we have now within the proposed anonymity paradigm. Typical ignorant politician, all you know how to do is lie and fool the constituents. You lack technical ability. franky1 I wouldn't want an idiot like you any where near me. I am thus grateful you voted 'no'. Do I need to say it more clearly? You are a Dunning-Kruger blabber mouth dolt who lies and debates disingenuously. The reason the dark coins have failed (if they have) is because they suck. I don't write software that sucks. We can start with the fact that they don't solve any use case (neither does Bitcoin but it did solve the delusion use case and was first). They don't make transactions faster. They have block chain bloat (Monero) or they are subject to Sybil attack on master nodes (DarkCoin). I (as AnonyMint) have long ago stated that from a marketing perspective anonymity alone was not a sufficient use case for a crypto-currency. What you haven't realized is that I proposed a use case that could skyrocket the demand for an anonymous coin. And it is good you failed to realize this. Carry on ignoramus. Nothing for you here. |
|
|
|
Unfortunately Dash has the same fungibility problems no matter how much they try and hide it
How does it? I really want to know but nobody will tell me   i was trying to find your unanswered questions. Can u repost? OK so DASH is coming in for a lot of criticism here, but leaving all the instamine stuff and general potshots aside, there have been some important technical criticisms that have not been followed through. XMR guys are very vocal about DASH being, well, shit, so should really back these claims up otherwise the criticism sounds unfair/uninformed. First we have a criticism of DASH not being fungible. I posted this example earlier in response to these claims, no comeback so far: - Of course it is; Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue, DRK doesn't make it more fungible, you mix dirty coins with other dirty coins the same as a BTC mixer or darkwallet, after a while most coins will be tainted and you have the same problems as BTC or even worse.
That's a very interesting statement. There are no dirty coins, right? Just inputs and outputs on dirty addresses? The fungibility in DRK comes from the mixing process, e.g. - DirtyWallet has unspent inputs on address A. - Inputs are spent via mixing with darksend rounds. - Now DirtyWallet has unspent inputs on change addresses B,C,D. - These are then spent via outputs to CleanWallet. Due to the mixing process and the impossibility of re-assembling a complete transaction chain, there is no provable association in the blockchain between DirtyWallet's original inputs and the new unspent inputs in CleanWallet. Funged? Next we have the issue of Darksend, Masternode Blinding and the probabilities of tracing transactions. The numbers I posted were criticised as being misleading, since they only stand up for 1 round of Darksend. I couldn't make sense of this so asked more questions....again no comeback:
Let us say I face an attack that will work against 1 round of Darksend but will fail against 2 rounds of Darksend. This could be the Sybil example I quoted above. If the attacker has also partially compromised the masternode network, then I need a sequence of 2 un-compromised Darksend rounds for protection from this attack. In this example sequence 1 will not work
1) Honest Malicious Honest Malicious Honest Malicious
but sequence 2 will work
2) Malicious Honest Honest Malicious Malicious Honest
because of the bold part. So it is the probability of the sequence of n honest masternodes in the chain that matters, and this is much lower than the probability of a single honest masternode in the chain.
OK I've considered this and I'm not sure it's a fair representation of how Darksend works. 1 round of Darksend with blinding uses 20 random masternodes. With more than 1 round, round 2 uses a different set of 20 masternodes and so on, resulting in the astronomical probabilities. Your example is showing 6 MNs and 50% of them are malicious, but we were talking about 15% of the network being compromised. Therefore only 3 of 20 nodes are likely to be malicious and your sequence doesn't work. Forgive me if I've misunderstood your example. Also, I'm not sure we have the full picture on masternode blinding here. See vague description from Evan below. Masternode BlindingRecently a paper by 3 researches at Saarland University came out describing a new technique, while there are some serious problems with the approach they take, the concept of blinding the users they use is novel. In CoinShuffle, each output is sent to the next peer in a circle, one at a time. The new peer adds an output, shuffles and then sends the list again. We can do this and actually improve upon it. To implement blinding, each user would connect to one completely random masternode and say "Send masternode X this output/value for mix N" and pass a single output. That output would be passed to the leading masternode. It would take access to all masternodes used to know who did what, which is as solid as M rounds mathematically (M = number of outputs). This is great because all users can submit all inputs at once. So it's super fast compared to CoinShuffle and even more secure. Finally, there is the issue of the Masternode network security and whether DASH, in general, is fit-for-purpose. DASH opponents are repeatedly saying that the Maternode network is flawed, has lots of attack vectors, means DASH is centralised etc. However, nobody has answered the simple question of whether ANY adversary short of NSA/guv could compromise the network, and therefore why is the network not fit-for-purpose? So come on opponents, now's your chance to really press the advantage and convince me/others that DASH is fatally flawed. bump for him I suggest Moneroans ignore the low-hanging, irrelevant fruit (distractions) like Blocka and tok and only address those genuine i.e. majamina but be educated on respective subjects else please admit any ignorance/limitations of knowledge:) |
|
|
|
Unfortunately Dash has the same fungibility problems no matter how much they try and hide it
How does it? I really want to know but nobody will tell me It's not bad like Bitcoin, but the point of vulnerability where Dash can cross the "not fungible" threshold lies in the Masternode scheme. CryptoNote does not have this vulnerability. |
|
|
|
Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters. It works on a system of digital signatures.
It would seem that you actually do not understand what cryptography is in the modern sense. A fundamental nature of information is that it wants to be freely copied everywhere to everyone. That any bit is equal and indistinguishable from any other bit of the same value and that any bit is eventually known to all who care. Cryptography is all that technology by which we hope to confine and constrain the nature of information, to put up fences and direct it to our exclusive purposes, against all attacks and in defiance of the seemingly (and perhaps actually) impossible. Digital signatures are cryptography by any modern definition and utilize the same tools and techniques (for example, a DSA signature is a linear equation encrypted with an additively homorphic encryption), and suffer from most of the same challenges as the message encryption systems to which you seem to be incorrectly defining cryptography as equivalent. Moreover, the use of digital signatures isn't the only (or even most relevant) aspect of cryptography in cryptocurrencies-- e.g. the prevention of double spending of otherwise perfectly copyable and indistinguishable information in a decentralized system is a cryptographic problem which we address using cryptographic tools, and-- like all other practical cryptography-- achieve far less than perfect confidence in our solution. As are more modest ends like interacting with strangers but not being subject to resource exhaustion from them. Far more so than other sub-fields of engineering, cryptographic systems are doing something which is fundamentally at odds with nature and share an incredible fragility and subtly as a result (and perhaps all are failures, we have no proof otherwise). A failure to understand and respect these considerations has resulted in a lot of harmful garbage and dysfunctional software. Could you share a few thoughts on what you think about the tech behind Monero? There's a search function you know https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615514.msg6812066#msg6812066 |
|
|
|
Monero people are teaching 15 year old fools here, People like you shouldnt post here Either way I'm thankful and learned a thing or two |
|
|
|
^^The tactic, I learned, is called "Gish galloping", but perhaps labeling such behavior as "tactic" is giving the trolls too much credit. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_GallopThe Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent. is that from the Monero handbook  Another concept I had the fortune of learning from Moneroans is Cunningham's Law Cunningham's law states "the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer."
The concept is named after Ward Cunningham, father of the wiki. According to Steven McGeady,[1] the law's author, Wikipedia may be the most well-known demonstration of this law.[2] |
|
|
|
^^The tactic, I learned, is called "Gish galloping", but perhaps labeling such behavior as "tactic" is giving the trolls too much credit. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_GallopThe Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent. |
|
|
|
Again nonsense. Cryptonote/Monero is more fungible than coinjoin/mixing, even Satoshi, the creator(s) of Decentralized Cryptocurrency, acknowledged a system like what Cryptonote is today, would be "much better, easier, more convenient" than Bitcoin, which Dash is forked from. You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH, to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet, then to saying that cryptocurrencies don't really use cryptography...Seriously?
genuine question: you say 'more fungible' - how does one define the amount of fungibility? What defines the scale here? : 1.) It must be durable. Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time. 2.) It must be portable. Money hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size. 3.) It must be divisible. Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be 'fungible'. Dictionary.com describes fungible as:
"(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."4.) It must have intrinsic value. This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself. In essence, the less you can differentiate one coin from another, the more fungible. |
|
|
|
I don't know if it was so dramatic, as an inherent feature of the Bitcoin protocol is its (perhaps too) transparent blockchain, and as follows... http://cointelegraph.com/news/113207/coinbase-is-tracking-how-users-spend-their-bitcoins"Coinbase has recently been demonstrating why consumer regulation is such a problem. The company seems to be tracking what their customers are buying with Bitcoin and closing any accounts involved in transactions that the company objects to." http://www.coindesk.com/bonafide-raises-850k-build-reputation-system-bitcoin/"Moyer, who started his career doing signals intelligence for the army and later for the NSA, used cash as an analogy for the way bitcoin is right now pretty much anonymous [but right now pretty much not at all]. He said: “You know if I bring you a million dollars of cash there is something wrong. The reason is, you have no way of knowing where that money comes from [but you definitely do with Bitcoin :malicious grin:].”" |
|
|
|
http://news.diginomics.com/evolution-marketplace-collapse-violates-bitcoin-fungibility/Evolution marketplace is the latest online “darknet” trading market to close its operations. This time however, it wasn’t the authorities seizing the site as with the Silk Road scenario, but by the administrators of the website themselves. The drama that has been ensuing in the aftermath of this collapse, and large scale theft of customer & vendor funds, has been interesting to watch. Hundreds of thousand of dollars worth of bitcoin in the website’s escrow service have been taken by the administrators. The coins were then sent to BTC-e, the money launderer’s exchange of choice due to its location and the lack of information users must submit to use.
Beneath this unraveling of yet another tor marketplace, something very strange has happened. BTC-e has tracked those stolen funds via the bitcoin blockchain, and disallowed the withdrawal of those funds on behalf of any of their users. While their effort to halt the laundering of obviously stolen coins in the thousands is admirable, it is a scary precedent: bitcoin is clearly not perfectly fungible. Each coin has its own unique history of transactions and if a coin comes from a questionable or known fraudulent address, then services can be denied to that specific coin. A coin is not a perfectly identical currency unity, but is as unique as a piece of real property or collectible. The collapse of the evolution marketplace, and the denial of service to these stolen funds via services such as BTC-e demonstrates that bitcoin fungibility is not perfectly viable. Again, Aristotle's definition of money: 1.) It must be durable. Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time.
2.) It must be portable. Money hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size.
3.) It must be divisible. Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be 'fungible'. Dictionary.com describes fungible as:
"(esp. of goods) being of such nature or kind as to be freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."
4.) It must have intrinsic value. This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself. What kind of solution does bitcoin offer for retaining the identicality of its currency, and therefore its fungibility? There are known ‘tumbling’ and ‘mixing’ services, but the effectiveness of these technical applications has been called into question.
The open-source nature of blockchain technology that bitcoin has touted since its inception, makes it so that transactions are entirely transparent and naked to surveillance. There are however, other closed blockchain coins that do offer improved fungibility among their currency. A select few anonymous cryptocurrencies, for better or worse, have been in existence in various forms with different anonymizing properties for the last few years. Darkcoin is one such relatively anonymous cryptocurrency, and is seen as the front-runner in the market currently.
The price of Darkcoin (soon to be renamed Dash [Digital Cash]) has spiked ~30% from $3.30 to $4.50 a coin in the wake of BTC-e halting Bitcoin withdrawals for tainted bitcoins. Darkcoin is unique in that it allows for passive tumbling of your coins that is built into the wallet itself. This passive tumbling mixes your coins with those who running Darkcoin nodes so it serves two purposes: Anonymizing your coins and incentivizing those to run nodes by earning Darkcoins through running anonymizing nodes. Right now Darkcoin has more nodes than Bitcoin with a tiny fraction of the market cap.
Another coin that is a frontrunner for anonymity in cryptocurrencies is Monero (XMR). It is not a Bitcoin clone, and the wallet is only officially available via command line – no graphical user interface is available for this piece of technology yet.
Monero groups all transactions with everyone else who transacted on that block through what is called ‘ring signatures’, and obscures where the coins came from and went, by forcing them to become a part of a group of transactions. This promises a high level of anonymity. Monero is also enjoying a healthy increase in value in recent weeks.
There are highly anonymous currencies which have been on the radar of enthusiasts for a while now, but with exchanges choosing to treat stolen coins differently, and therefore violate perfect fungibility, anonymous digital currencies may be continue to gain traction and attract a viable market share from cryptocurrency enthusiasts. I think Peter Todd summed the situation up best, "Want your bitcoins to be valuable? Then treat them all equally. BTC-e is setting a terrible precedent."
|
|
|
|
CK needs a speculation/discussion thread!
No one's stopping you [but you]. Sure, I might do that if none of the CK heavy hitters do, but I think a thread started by me would generate less interest. Discussion threads work best when fud & excessive bullshit gets deleted, and I might not be the best person to start a CK moderated thread. . Discussion threads work best if they get started :p |
|
|
|
CK needs a speculation/discussion thread!
No one's stopping you. |
|
|
|
Keep in mind that with Monero, it would be extremely difficult for law enforcement to know you even have a wallet, let alone which wallet they'd need to demand a viewkey from (thanks to stealth addressing). This becomes even more unlikely operating behind tor/i2p.
Nice ! If your holed up in a forest waiting for the end of the world, use Monero. If you want to be part of the human race and use regular *visible* digital cash that's private & untraceable - use Dash !  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
