XMR vs DRK

[BlockaFett]

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.

i dont think fluffy is really qualified to comment on masternodes to be honest but just my opinion.

if you are genuinley interested in investing in DASH and worried about masternode security, just consider that right now there is ~$12m DASH running masternodes around the world, if its so easy to take them Fluffy and troops are saying, then why hasn't 1 DRK been taken from one yet.

[generalizethis]

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--these numbers are disputable.

Then to obtain 1,950 maternodes (which have an incentive to attack each other to 1000) today will cost >$9m buying over 40 days (if you believe everything I type as gospel) if you were 100% of the volume so not that easy (or if you are attacking they are spread over 30 countries (3 holding over 70%) 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,(I believe but cannot prove which is why cryptocurrencies shouldn't depend on humans for security, because many do not use best practices and it's dumb to assume most people are--even when it's in their best interest--hence why systems that depend on more on protocols than humans are inherently stronger than those that do not).

FTFY

This idiocy of insisting that people use best practices (because it is in their interest--lol; they have time to manage and time is money and doing things right takes time, but whatever...where was I...) fails to acknowledge game theory or reality. Monero is changing the minimum mix-in because too many people were using low mix-ins and lowering the anonymity of the network--they found this themselves and found a solution, Evan should do the same with masternodes.

[Joshuar]

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.

i dont think fluffy is really qualified to comment on masternodes to be honest but just my opinion.

if you are genuinley interested in investing in DASH and worried about masternode security, just consider that right now there is ~$12m DASH running masternodes around the world, if its so easy to take them Fluffy and troops are saying, then why hasn't 1 DRK been taken from one yet.

Again, back in 2014 there were cases of masternodes being compromised by attackers, so yes more than 1dash/drk(More than 1,000 actually) has been compromised/stolen so far.

[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?

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.

'Those are conspiracy theories that anyone can come up with, and has no bearings in fact'

You are aware that a conspiracy theory can be factual aren't you?

[BlockaFett]

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.

i dont think fluffy is really qualified to comment on masternodes to be honest but just my opinion.

if you are genuinley interested in investing in DASH and worried about masternode security, just consider that right now there is ~$12m DASH running masternodes around the world, if its so easy to take them Fluffy and troops are saying, then why hasn't 1 DRK been taken from one yet.

Again, back in 2014 there were cases of masternodes being compromised by attackers, so yes more than 1dash/drk(More than 1,000 actually) has been compromised/stolen so far.

can i go now, this is really weak attack point you resorted to now and its boring?

EDIT: and....gone Cheesy

[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.

'Those are conspiracy theories that anyone can come up with, and has no bearings in fact'

You are aware that a conspiracy theory can be factual aren't you?

OK here's the logic. (A) conspiracy theory can be factual. However, (Those) conspiracy theories were not/false. If you want to go into the near-troll "realm", then there was a post by a user in 2014 saying that Dash was compromised/infiltrated by the government. So on the basis of that, according to your logic, I can now declare that Dash was made by the government.

See where that gets you?

[Joshuar]

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.

i dont think fluffy is really qualified to comment on masternodes to be honest but just my opinion.

if you are genuinley interested in investing in DASH and worried about masternode security, just consider that right now there is ~$12m DASH running masternodes around the world, if its so easy to take them Fluffy and troops are saying, then why hasn't 1 DRK been taken from one yet.

Again, back in 2014 there were cases of masternodes being compromised by attackers, so yes more than 1dash/drk(More than 1,000 actually) has been compromised/stolen so far.

can i go now, this is really weak attack point you resorted to now and its boring?

EDIT: and....gone

Oh It's not an "attack", I was just correcting what you wrote.

[nsimmons]

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.

This is a lie. The bug allowed the exploiter to collect a disproportionate amount of the block reward. Anonymity was not broken, never has been.

STOP LYING!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9121458#msg9121458

[DeboraMeeks]

i dont think fluffy is really qualified to comment on masternodes to be honest but just my opinion.

if you are genuinley interested in investing in DASH and worried about masternode security, just consider that right now there is ~$12m DASH running masternodes around the world, if its so easy to take them Fluffy and troops are saying, then why hasn't 1 DRK been taken from one yet.

From his posts it is clear that he is very passionate but also extremely knowledgeable. I appreciate interacting with you, blockafett, but you have a lot of posts that are critical and insulting to the point of rudeness, so I think your approach is very opposite to his.

I'm glad you indicated it is just your opinion, as I am inclined to listen to someone who is actually doing something productive, and it takes two minutes to confirm that he has contributed to Monero development. I wish I could verify your contributions to the Dash codebase.

I must go as I am going out for the evening but the last thing I want to say is that I don't think the argument anyone should be making is that Darkcoin is vulnerable to theft. That is not the problem. If I just wanted protection from theft I would use Bitcoin, but I want something with absolute fungibility. I thought Dash was that, but now that my eyes have been opened and I am able to perceive the situation more rationally I am not convinced that Dash is well designed (otherwise gmaxwell and andytoshi would have said so).

I am not going to be running to Monero right now, but I will look in on it again in 6 months. My time with Dash is unfortunately over, and now I must Dash out the thread and Dash into the shower. Au revoir!

[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.

This is a lie. The bug allowed the exploiter to collect a disproportionate amount of the block reward. Anonymity was not broken, never has been.

STOP LYING!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9121458#msg9121458

Excuse me? Here's the article: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/darkcoin-finds-fixes-darksend-privacy-bug/
https://dashtalk.org/threads/darksend-security-bulletin.2963/

Here's what Dash's developer said: We ask that everyone stop using Darksend for the time being until we’re able to push out a fix to an issue Aswan found. This issue comes from the way fees are paid in Darksend with the combination of the way the client tries to denominate the same amount each round. The result is the possibility to trace a transaction through Darksend. To fix this issue, we will add a mixing stage to Darksend that only mixes fee’s and we’ll have the client mix random amounts each session. -Eddufield/Dash's Developer


If you're going to troll, please don't make up lies. This is the 2nd time you've attempted to lie on me as well.

[Joshuar]

Anonymity was not broken, never has been.

ofc it wasn't, there is no real anonymity in DASH/DRK. How do you break smoke?

Dashs/Darkcoins developer even said it himself: We ask that everyone stop using Darksend for the time being until we’re able to push out a fix to an issue Aswan found. This issue comes from the way fees are paid in Darksend with the combination of the way the client tries to denominate the same amount each round. The result is the possibility to trace a transaction through Darksend. To fix this issue, we will add a mixing stage to Darksend that only mixes fee’s and we’ll have the client mix random amounts each session.

So, the anonymity was broken(Even as you say, it is sub-par to other anon-schemes, (RS/ZC).

https://dashtalk.org/threads/darksend-security-bulletin.2963/

[GreekBitcoin]

'Those are conspiracy theories that anyone can come up with, and has no bearings in fact'

You are aware that a conspiracy theory can be factual aren't you?

Now that is what i call a retarded response.

Yes a conspiracy theory can be factual just as much the opposite one can also be factual. Therefore conspiracy theories are just conspiracy theories. Not facts.

Oh and didnt you know? Life itself is a conspiracy. Basically it's all a scam and nothing is real!

[toknormal]

Oh and didnt you know? Life itself is a conspiracy. Basically it's all a scam and nothing is real!

Well, this certainly is a rip roaring thread.

Everybody is passionate about their various technologies, coins, devs, pet loves / hates, to the moon, to the floor. I have been called a liar, everyone's been called a troll and life is a scam.

Bitcointalk at its best 

[MikeCorleone]

Well, this certainly is a rip roaring thread.

Everybody is passionate about their various technologies, coins, devs, pet loves / hates, to the moon, to the floor. I have been called a liar, everyone's been called a troll and life is a scam.

Bitcointalk at its best 

Dude you got pwned. Take a break from Bitcointalk for a while. Your reputation is even muddier than the Shadow fanboys.

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.

[toknormal]

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.

[vokain]

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.

[Brilliantrocket]

I don't think toknormal should have much reason to doubt himself, considering he was called one of the most astute members of this entire forum by Anonymint, who is himself a genius when it comes to math and cryptography.

[smooth]

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.

You should really just stop digging. There are some good resources online to learn about cryptography if you are actually interested, including a free course from Stanford. Otherwise, continuing to write nonsense about it you are just making yourself look stupid (which I don't think you are generally, but not particularly well informed about this topic).

[Joshuar]

I don't think toknormal should have much reason to doubt himself, considering he was called one of the most astute members of this entire forum by Anonymint, who is himself a genius when it comes to math and cryptography.

Hmm, well for a few things, he purposely lied about the history of XMR/DRK's liqudity, he doesn't/didn't know what liquidity was(He said that volume of the cryptocurrency had nothing to do with liquidity, which is entirely wrong), he thought cryptography didn't have much to do with cryptocurrencies, and finally assumed that bitmonerod was a monero wallet(It's not).

[toknormal]

He said that volume of the cryptocurrency had nothing to do with liquidity

I said trade volume. Not "volume of a cryptocurrency".