Given that rational investors are well aware that when maximalists chant, "Decentralized! Censorship resistant!" in their quest to distance themselves from shitcoins, they also point out that if those are the value proposition for a cryptocurrency, then Monero is more valuable.

Fungibility is a critical requirement for money; however Bitcoin's problem is far more basic. Before one can concern oneself whether a transaction can be traced destroying fungibility one has to be able to make the transaction in the first place. Monero has a solution for this far more basic problem also.

Suddenly Zechariah realises that threadposting indeed is important, and decides to incentivise everyone who post to the thread after this post, with CK, as follows:

Hi!

I'm a new DASH user
I saw the presentation by amanda at anarchapulco and it really was looking nice!
Instant transactions, private transactions, a return on your savings. Also the vault seems a cool system to protect my money.

I have some questions:

1) Will it be safe to use my account on a lot of devices as long as my money is in the vault ?

2) I bought 380 DASH. It's a lot of money for me, but I don't want to miss this opportunity !!
I bought at 34 USD, so I already have a nice profit
It's still on poloniex, but can someone tell me how to get the savings account?


I hope I'm not too late to the party and dash will continue to go up  
Thanks amanda for opening my eyes to this wonderful opportunity !!

It is if you're the bank who's endorsing its value.

Since "everyone in the world" is who endorses Bitcoin's value - that's who gets to view it.

Encrypt that at your peril

(P.S. Contrary to the faulty propaganda you like to put about, anecdotal knowledge of transaction participants # contractually defined money. You need encryption to protect the latter because it's nominated. You need mixing to protect the former because it's un-nominated but not backed & therefore must remain transparent. If you get that principle the wrong way round then you end up with Monero which is why you're having to cite 3rd-party backed trusted monetary media in your defence).

I/we don't give a shit on how work your unscalable shitcoin!

Context:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg16728080#msg16728080

That doesn't exactly help you very much.

The idea of a transparent blockchain is to deter such conflicts in the first place since any party making a claim to have altered the blockchain state will have that claim arbitrated on by the entire userbase, not just by me.

Therefore, Poloniex can make any claim they like as to what state change they've made and that claim is instantly testable, not just by keyholders but by non keyholders also. Furthermore, that applies not only to the positive case but the negative (absence of state change) case as well - no 'assumptions' needed.

Encrypted blockchains are designed to keep everyone else out of the loop except the sender and receiver. Thats what makes them ok as an encrypted messaging system but valueless as a monetary asset in their own right (an unbacked one at least) since bearer tokens don't distinguish ownership from possession. The encryption is therefore redundant and only serves to obscure (and potentially corrupt) their authenticity as you've already illustrated by demonstrating that the co-operation of 3rd parties (keyholders) is required to fully verify that a claimed state change did in fact occur.

So easy to ask counterparty when you are buying drugs with an anonymous dealer on DN

Anyway the interesting in the image is : "NOBODY IS USING IT! (ndlr: xmr).

/OffTopic

dnaleor stay on topic please, this is the dash forum, not the monero forum

Nice. A Cryptocurrency who's blockchain state can only be verified through recourse to third parties.

Good luck with that

Yeah that's totally gonna scale, not. Problem is you can't really prove anything for sure. For example, that would be a nightmare for people or businesses that want to use a single address, like a laminated QR code etc. The only solution is to generate a new monero address for every transaction. That would work and fix the trust issue but the whole scheme does not scale.
 
That is why tok keeps preaching about the value of transparent blockchain tech like btc and Dash, it scales.

Yeah that's totally gonna scale, not. Problem is you can't really prove anything for sure.

Are you serious ?

This has nothing to do with 'faulty users'. By any satisfactory auditory definition, a transaction is successful when one address balance has been depleted and another credited. (I realise there are other ‘geeky’ definitions that involve transaction IDs but thats not what matters to users and it's not what would matter to any self respecting professional auditor who had to endorse the value of an address balance as a whole rather than a collection of 'discretely verified TX ID's').

In the abscence of a trusted 3rd party arbitor, you therefore need to see the movements at both address balances. The sending and receiving.

Furthermore, the parties that need to see it are:

1. The sending participating party (to verify they’re liability is cancelled)
2. The receiving participating party (for obvious reasons)
3. Non-participating keyholders (because they are exposed to the value of the blockchain based asset and have an interest in the public confidence of the blockchain integrity)
4. Non-participating, non-keyholders (because they are expected to supply goods, services and other currencies in support of your blockchain asset's exchange rate).

You would not want to eat a piece of fruit out of a bowl of rotten apples, even if one of them looked ok. In Bitcoin (and Dash for that matter), everyone sees the whole fruitbowl and everyone has access to the same information without condition or recourse to a third party.

The reason Bitcoin’s blockchain is anonymous but transparent is because there IS no 3rd party arbitor to resolve disputes. Blockchain transparency therefore makes the asset resistant to confidence attacks through rumour, dispute, aspersion and theft. It also gives transacting parties huge protection by supporting the interests of veracity in anecdotal accounts of failed transfers, whether they be due to mis-addressed funds, lack of confirmations, deception, hacks or otherwise.

The problem with the Cryptonote approach (who’s original conception was intended to support trusted party backed ‘credit money’ anyway b.t.w.) is that the participating parties are *on their own* mate. Nobody can see a thing and they’re each dependent on the other’s co-operation for verifying the transaction. If Poloniex say my deposit ‘went through’ and no funds turn up and don’t supply me a TXID or viewkey I’m stuffed. Nor do I have recourse to “the rest of the world”. Take a look at the last 6 years of Bitcoin forums. They’re littered with discussions about addresses, transactions where something went, where it didn’t go.

Thats what gives a blockchain confidence and confidence is what supports its value. If all you have is one end of the transaction or a poxy TXID that you have to beg for, then you’ve a recipe for catastrophe. A while back I said that encryption was the "cancer of cryptocurrency". I didn’t mean that from the point of view of technical failure, I meant it from the perspective that ANY kind of obfuscation in an unbacked asset is corrosive to confidence and it’s only a matter of time before all it’s good for is a temporary payment rail thats valueless.

The reason these coins have no future isn’t because they don’t have good tech. It’s because ‘encrypting stuff’ is dirt cheap these days and doesn’t add any value. (Sticking a gold bar or a diamond in a safe might cost you a small premium, but the price of the safe, not the price of the gold).

On the contrary, when it comes to cryptocurrency, “encrypting stuff” positively detracts form its potential value because we’re talking about a bearer token which draws its worth from authenticity, not obscurity.

How much evidence of that do you need ? If not the above posts (which will be the tip of the Iceberg if people start using it in earnest), try this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg17896089#msg17896089

If Poloniex say my deposit ‘went through’ and no funds turn up and don’t supply me a TXID or viewkey I’m stuffed. Nor do I have recourse to “the rest of the world”. Take a look at the last 6 years of Bitcoin forums. They’re littered with discussions about addresses, transactions where something went, where it didn’t go.

toknormal style

Hey buddy, what if the dash masternode network voted on whether or not to host a Sybil attack on monero? We could command the network to host 4300 monero nodes and then go from there. How does that sound?