XMR vs DRK

[majamina]

ok one more post before sleep

This is not an insignificant point. One of gmaxwell's criticisms of darkcoin/dash using coinjoin (which he invented) is that you can use coinjoin on Bitcoin. There are several different ways of doing that today, and if you use a few of them you are protected from the weaknesses of any of them in the same way that using multiple masternodes protects you from the weaknesses of one. Apparently there is a significant amount of coinjoin going on with Bitcoin right now.

Yeah but think general public. DASH is ramping up efforts on wallet development right now. The aim is to have a super-slick wallet that anyone can use, easily and simply, to get privacy, pay instantly and have serious confidence in their wallet security through 2FA. You just can't expect a wider-adopting public to pull all that together with BTC because it's not native to the coin - the services are disjointed and require too much geek knowledge to integrate.

Sure, this is maybe more inconvenient than using darkcoin/dash with masternodes and support built into the wallet (though I don't really know what people are using for Bitcoin-based-coinjoin so I can't entirely say) but the trade off for that is being isolated from the enormously larger set of Bitcoin users, Bitcoin services, and Bitcoin liquidity.

Now I really don't like using this analogy, but Facebook users aren't isolated from Myspace users - are they? It's even more than that though...DASH uses BTC APIs so all the merchant services already built can work with DASH with trivial effort.

I know you and all the other XMR guys will laugh at the idea that DASH could in any way compete with bitcoin. All I can say is....stranger things have happened.

[1714499827]

1714499827

[Anon136]

come on XMR guys, persuade me to jump ship

I only hope we have persuaded you to hedge. With the difference in market cap a very small percent of ones dark coin holdings can hedge them against monero taking its place.

[generalizethis]

I'm assuming DeboraMeek's female for some reason--dunno, why....

And they say there are no ladies in crypto!

Wish there were more gentlemen.  

[majamina]

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'll be going after any anon coin surely, so in the context of DRK vs XMR this is moot, right?

[toknormal]

Hey, all I said was it's more dangerous to host a masternode than a regular node, for fear of centralization, getting compromised by gov or other authority, having large amounts of nodes shut down by an attacker which would "end" the anonymity, etc

Have a listen to this commentary where he makes the distinction between "politically decentralised" and "architecturally decentralised". Two completely different things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zgkmQ-jQJHk#t=255

It doesn't matter where you host the node - it's how it performs its role within the network's function that defines it 'decentralised'.

Furthermore, you don't 'take over' masternodes by gaining access to the machines they run on. In a decentralised network, the whole damn world has access to them - you don't need to be Amazon or even the NSA. In Dash, it's access to the money supply that you need to take control (the same as with any other crypto) because that's what collateralises those nodes.

[DeboraMeeks]

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes.  Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes.  Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can.   There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

[majamina]

right I should get some sleep, it's getting late.

I'll just quote a snippet from my earlier post again....come on XMR guys, persuade me to jump ship

So come on opponents, now's your chance to really press the advantage and convince me/others that DASH is fatally flawed.

I only hope we have persuaded you to hedge.

I do have a small XMR position, I wouldn't call it a hedge though....more like an ornamental cactus.

[toknormal]

Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own

LoL !

Thats cos in bitcoin you can see everything just by looking at the blockchain 

[vokain]

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.

[DeboraMeeks]

we covered this already too didn't we?  

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

[BlockaFett]

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes.  Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes.  Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can.   There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you?  You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of <we dont know> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me.  And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

[Joshuar]

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes.  Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes.  Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can.   There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you?  You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of <we dont know> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me.  And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

Not true. There are hot and cold wallets, with the option to store the 1,000 Dash/DRK in either. Taking over masternodes could potentially give you 1k coins or not, it depends on if the owner placed the coins in the hot or cold wallets, so you can't say either or in this situation.

[BlockaFett]

we covered this already too didn't we?  

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.  

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable.  In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR? )

[Joshuar]

we covered this already too didn't we?  

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.  

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable.  In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR? )

Again not true, just hours after Dash was open sourced, an amateur coder found an exploit in darksend. Ring Signatures has been around for over a decade. Also having the viewkey gives you nothing, all you would see is the amount of moneroj in the wallet, there would be no way of telling who sent you moneroj or who you sent moneroj to, so that "attack" would only work for Dash and not Monero.

[BlockaFett]

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes.  Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes.  Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can.   There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you?  You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of <we dont know> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me.  And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

Not true. There are hot and cold wallets, with the option to store the 1,000 Dash/DRK in either. Taking over masternodes could potentially give you 1k coins or not, it depends on if the owner placed the coins in the hot or cold wallets, so you can't say either or in this situation.

no one uses hot wallet anymore.  If you had $5000 in a file on a VPS, would you?

[BlockaFett]

we covered this already too didn't we?  

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.  

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable.  In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR? )

Again not true, just hours after Dash was open sourced, an amateur coder found an exploit in darksend. Ring Signatures has been around for over a decade.

....a good example of how Dash devs are open to finding and fixing problems quickly.  When I raised concerns about origins of CryptoNote with links to NSA and Cicada in Bytecoin, the response was 'that was ages ago, anything would have been found by now' whilst the devs are trolling on forums all day....which one would you trust your $ with?

[DeboraMeeks]

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you?  You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of <we dont know> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me.  And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

From this article https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140726142214-262891-pricing-0-day-exploits-in-the-face-of-0-day-defenses

'Typical pricing for a relevant 0-day is $40,000 - $250,000 according to Frei'

Even if you need a few different 0-day exploits for Windows and Linux and maybe a Mac one you are still going to end up spending a lot less. MasterNode operators can't make themselves impervious to a 0-day exploit, as it is unknown by definition.

I saw a post on this thread by fluffy pony that explained the minimum that MasterNode operators would need to do to maintain security, and I agree with him. I think that it is difficult to keep the MasterNode network secure and if it is attacked then it isn't going to be able to withstand it.

[Joshuar]

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes.  Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes.  Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can.   There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

I'm sorry blockafett but I can't agree with you.

If you compromise a Bitcoin node what good does it do you? You don't get paid so you can't steal money, and every node receives the same blocks and the same transactions. That is what makes Bitcoin special, that every node is the same and in consensus. MasterNodes are not in consensus, each of them processes small pieces of a puzzle that other MasterNodes know nothing about. In other words, if there are only 2,000 Bitcoin nodes and you have secret access to 1,950 of them you can't see anything more than you would by just running a node of your own, except for the educated guesses you can make for the originating IP address of transactions. If you have secret access to 1,950 of the 2,000 MasterNodes the entire system is no longer fungible or safe.

Hi. But same for Dash - what does taking over a masternode get you?  You can't get any DRK, and to deanonimize transactions you need 95.00% of all masternodes just for a ~1.65% chance

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries with different companies / security systems / home users to get through first).

About BTC - one incentive for taking over BTC full nodes is surveillance, like the current 5% of nodes that are performing a sybil attack on behalf of <we dont know> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2yvy6b/a_regulatory_compliance_service_is_sybil/

It seems pretty resiliant to me.  And masternode operators take security a lot more seriously than most, believe

Not true. There are hot and cold wallets, with the option to store the 1,000 Dash/DRK in either. Taking over masternodes could potentially give you 1k coins or not, it depends on if the owner placed the coins in the hot or cold wallets, so you can't say either or in this situation.

no one uses hot wallet anymore.  If you had $5000 in a file on a VPS, would you?

You can't say that, those are just assumptions. I could say the exact opposite, that all masternode wallets have the 1,000 Dash on them directly, and that hardly anyone uses the cold wallets.

[Joshuar]

we covered this already too didn't we?  

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?

This is not a good argument.

If you gain 51% of the Monero nodes you would have 0% of both. With Bitcoin maybe you could argue that being able to link a node to a transaction will let you follow the blockchain trail and figure out stuff that node has been involved in, but I also guess that it's a harder link to prove.

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.  

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable.  In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR? )

Again not true, just hours after Dash was open sourced, an amateur coder found an exploit in darksend. Ring Signatures has been around for over a decade.

....a good example of how Dash devs are open to finding and fixing problems quickly.  When I raised concerns about origins of CryptoNote with links to NSA and Cicada in Bytecoin, the response was 'that was ages ago, anything would have been found by now' whilst the devs are trolling on forums all day....which one would you trust your $ with?

Quite the opposite. Dash/DRK had it's code reviewed when it was closed source, yet a amateur coder was able to find a flaw in Darksends coding that allowed for deanonymization, just hours after it was open sourced.

Saying that cryptonote is somehow connected to the NSA is the same as saying Bitcoin is somehow connected to the NSA and that Satoshi Nakamoto was a government entity. Those are conspiracy theories that anyone can come up with, and has no bearings in fact. Using them makes you look like a troll. The same and more could be said for Dash, as someone(a newbie account) came and said that Dash was compromised by the government back in 2014.

[DeboraMeeks]

So therefore 51% attack for deanonimization is pointless for BOTH Dash and Monero.  

The problem with Monero for me, is that during DASH anonimization, the info isn't recoverable.  In Monero it is, with a viewkey, or if someone found a backdoor......so you have to ask, how anonymous do you want?

(are you really not from XMR? )

You just indicated that there was a chance with MasterNodes? I don't think you can compare 'small but measurable chance' with '0 chance'.

Historical information is only unrecoverable if the MasterNodes don't keep logs, and we have no way to confirm they don't keep logs.

I'm into Bitcoin. I started diversifying a bit, and now I'm pulling back into Bitcoin. This thread is just about me explaining what I have realised about Dash that has led me to pulling my investment out. I do acknowledge that Monero seems nice and elegant, and doesn't have problems that Darkcoin has, but it seems premature for me to diversify out of Bitcoin once I've pulled my Dash investment back into Bitcoin. I'll evaluate this again in 6-12 months time.