XMR vs DRK

[majamina]

Please don't bring in denominations, as you can do that math and see how it's liquidity is still affected

please then do the maths and show me how liquidity is still affected....as a DRK holder I'm genuinely interested in this.

3mill(# between instamine which had 4mill coins and current masternodes holding up 2mill coins) * 10(0.1 dash, most reasonable denomination to use)=30million dash taken out of circulation


Then there's the remaining 2.2million dash(there are currently 5.2million dash mined), multiply that by 10 also and you get 22million dash in circulation.


So even if you use the the denomination of 0.1 instead of 1 full dash, youd still have 30million locked up in masternodes/instamine(downplaying that) and only 22million in circulation. Tell me how that isn't a problem when more than half the supply is in masternodes/instamined and less than half is available for purchase? That's what leads to extremely high volatility.

but doesn't DASH denominate to 8 decimal points?

what am i missing other than 50% of 'fucking shitloads' is locked up?

[eizh]

We don't beg for donations, we ask  - the same that bitcoin does.

Unlike Evan we are real men with balls who put their own money into this, without screwing others.

More useless idealism. I wonder how much consolation that will bring if you end up losing to Darkcoin? Nice guys finish last.

There are plenty of now dead shitcoins that played games with supply. Supply tinkering != returns.

A possible corollary of your line of thinking is that someone could copy-paste XMR right now but with an emission-capping hard fork. The investors and the market should then naturally flock to this new chain. I doubt that will actually happen.

[Sapereaude]

a) Your stop-gap solution is not better that a working GUI wallet.

Buddy, I've offered you $500 to demonstrate this. Stating it as fact does not make it so.

I'll give you $1000 if you can prove stop-gape solution is better and by proof I mean, run a poll on bitcointalk with at least 800 votes asking if people prefer your stop-gap solution to a  proper working GUI wallet.

[ArticMine]

The biggest problem with Monero is that it's being lead by people with zero business sense.

If it were a business your opinion on the matter of our "business sense" might count for something, but it isn't and it isn't trying to be one either. You might reconsider your statement in light of that. I have a pretty good idea you have no clue what you are talking about.

It may not be a literal business, but it's a competitive environment that is similar to running a business. Evan is using his experience with finance and investing to not only create an anonymous payment solution, but to create it in a way that most benefits investors. You guys have this false notion that people care about emission schedules. You have very idealistic notions, and that will hurt Monero in the long run. The world is not ideal, and no one will use Monero just because it's the fairest coin.

Evan understands this, and the instamine actually allowed him to fund development, while you guys have to beg for donations because of your stupid ideals. It's a shame, as I will freely admit that Cryptonote is a more elegant solution than Darksend.

It all depends on the time frame. The focus of the Monero project is to build solid fundamentals and yes this does take time and it is done at the expense of short term results. The "official" GUI is behind a whole list of items designed to build those fundamentals.  Darkcoin is the exact opposite the focus is to deliver results now even at the expense of creating a very shaky foundation. Spork is the perfect example of the need to deliver results now.

Long term Monero is the winner, short term the victory belongs to Darkcoin/Dash. I am in this for the long term so I am betting on Monero.

[illodin]

It boggles my mind that Evan didn't design the protocol around micropayment channels, where every full node could be incentivised to mix transactions or vote on InstantX transactions or whatever. It would make the anonymity set so much larger.

Perhaps he thought it's better to make sybil attacks harder. It's basically free to launch as many full nodes as required.

He may have thought that (I'm not sure I buy it) but it doesn't work, because there is still no irrevocable cost incurred for bad behavior. If masternodes are profitable then the bad ones are more profitable as the good ones. In a competitive market this will mean that only the bad ones are profitable.

The argument about "losing the value of your coins" doesn't work because it make a few false assumptions including that cheating leads to total collapse and the inability to hedge with derivatives. Both of these and certainly the second only apply in an immature cryptocurrency toy, not in a scaled up system.

Are you talking about DDoS attacks?

No I'm talking about masternode spying.

Ok. Let's assume DRK/DASH gets big, and has a value of $100. (Just an arbitrary number, way below a number where a business model that tries to spy information could be profitable.)

5,000 masternodes, 60% of the block reward goes to masternodes (assume year is 2016), block reward = 5 DRK, 17,280 blocks/month  =>  each masternode earns 10 DRK/month  =>  $1,000 / month.

So, the starting point is $1,000 / month for each masternode, and every node is honest. Also let's assume $100 / month for hosting expenses. How will the honest nodes become unprofitable when some of them start turning dishonest?

Also, what is this data that is spied?

And note, I'm not trying to confront/challenge your predictions, I'd just like to see it from all the angles.

[othe]

The 2 XMR core devs are here trolling about DRK instead of coding as usual

Plus nearly all XMR is through one exchange: Poloniex

1) you are too stupid to count, but hey we expected that.
2) 60% of your trading is a CRAPTSY and Bittrex (20% - where we are also), hypocrite. Just for your info, feel free to tell cryptsy to add us, so its more fair.

[Joshuar]

Please don't bring in denominations, as you can do that math and see how it's liquidity is still affected

please then do the maths and show me how liquidity is still affected....as a DRK holder I'm genuinely interested in this.

3mill(# between instamine which had 4mill coins and current masternodes holding up 2mill coins) * 10(0.1 dash, most reasonable denomination to use)=30million dash taken out of circulation


Then there's the remaining 2.2million dash(there are currently 5.2million dash mined), multiply that by 10 also and you get 22million dash in circulation.


So even if you use the the denomination of 0.1 instead of 1 full dash, youd still have 30million locked up in masternodes/instamine(downplaying that) and only 22million in circulation. Tell me how that isn't a problem when more than half the supply is in masternodes/instamined and less than half is available for purchase? That's what leads to extremely high volatility.

but doesn't DASH denominate to 8 decimal points?

what am i missing other than 50% of 'fucking shitloads' is locked up?

Do those other 8 decimal points matter now or in the foreseeable future? Will they be used? What are you using now? You're using 1 full Dashcoin. You're not using a "Dashtoshi", so it's irrelevant. Even those who use Bitcoin don't say bits or satoshi often, they use 1 full bitcoin. So, Dash is nowhere close to using those other denominations.

[majamina]

Do those other 8 decimal points matter now or in the foreseeable future?

They absolutely do matter in your flimsy argument, that's for sure!

[Brilliantrocket]

So now you're basically letting it all out, and saying that you just care about making money. Asking for donations is useless idealism to you, so you'd rather instamine instead. Gotcha.

Darkcoin is gonna have a bright future with it's instamine, faulty masternodes, and terrific community spirit. (sarcasm)

I'm a pragmatist. I'm interested in being on the winning side. An instamine is a more effective way to fund development than voluntary donations, so I would actually prefer a coin with an instamine over one without one. Additionally, an instamine creates a large supply of cheap coins, which leads to greater potential profits. If Monero had an instamine, I would have probably invested sooner.

[Joshuar]

So now you're basically letting it all out, and saying that you just care about making money. Asking for donations is useless idealism to you, so you'd rather instamine instead. Gotcha.

Darkcoin is gonna have a bright future with it's instamine, faulty masternodes, and terrific community spirit. (sarcasm)

I'm a pragmatist. I'm interested in being on the winning side. An instamine is a more effective way to fund development than voluntary donations, so I would actually prefer a coin with an instamine over one without one. Additionally, an instamine creates a large supply of cheap coins, which leads to greater potential profits. If Monero had an instamine, I would have probably invested sooner.

Thanks, you make a awful lot of sense choosing dishonesty over integrity. Maybe I should just hop on the next coin that instamines 50% of it's supply and call it a day. What words of wisdom my friend. I now classify Monero as "beyond an altcoin" for being a diamond in the rough, since your words are the same sentiment shared by most in the altcoin space, you just care about shit pumps/dumps. You are exactly the reason why Bitcoiners generally think of altcoins as shitcoins.

[BlockaFett]

The 2 XMR core devs are here trolling about DRK instead of coding as usual

Plus nearly all XMR is through one exchange: Poloniex

1) you are too stupid to count, but hey we expected that.
2) 60% of your trading is a CRAPTSY and Bittrex (20% - where we are also), hypocrite. Just for your info, feel free to tell cryptsy to add us, so its more fair.

1) smooth + fluffypony = 2
2) Cryptsy does not control the drk price because the other 40% is on dozens of ex.  Polo + HitBTC = 97% of XMR vol.

Want me to dig further?  How come Polo are so friendly to XMR and you have a 'permanent presence' there? And how come Cryptsy etc won't touch XMR with a ten-foot pole?

[Sapereaude]

The 2 XMR core devs are here trolling about DRK instead of coding as usual

Plus nearly all XMR is through one exchange: Poloniex

1) you are too stupid to count, but hey we expected that.
2) 60% of your trading is a CRAPTSY and Bittrex (20% - where we are also), hypocrite. Just for your info, feel free to tell cryptsy to add us, so its more fair.

1) smooth + fluffypony = 2
2) Cryptsy does not control the drk price because the other 40% is on dozens of ex.  Polo + HitBTC = 97% of XMR vol.

Want me to dig further?  How come Polo are so friendly to XMR and you have a 'permanent presence' there? And how come Cryptsy etc won't touch XMR with a ten-foot pole?

Lol if craptsy won't touch something, that is like saying even a crack addicted syphilitic whore wouldn't fuck you for a dollar.

[othe]

The 2 XMR core devs are here trolling about DRK instead of coding as usual

Plus nearly all XMR is through one exchange: Poloniex

1) you are too stupid to count, but hey we expected that.
2) 60% of your trading is a CRAPTSY and Bittrex (20% - where we are also), hypocrite. Just for your info, feel free to tell cryptsy to add us, so its more fair.

1) smooth + fluffypony = 2
2) Cryptsy does not control the drk price because the other 40% is on dozens of ex.  Polo + HitBTC = 97% of XMR vol.

Want me to dig further?  How come Polo are so friendly to XMR and you have a 'permanent presence' there? And how come Cryptsy etc won't touch XMR with a ten-foot pole?

1) + othe + davidlatapie + eizh = 5; go back to school
2) It's on cryptsy voting list #1, why did they add it there if they don't touch it? I can answer the other question, Poloniex has the best tech team, they are always the first to add coins who aren't based on Bitcoin and other exotic stuff, Mastercoin etc is just traded there.

[fluffypony]

Yes I realise that the masternodes are trusted, but you would need to compromise an unrealistic number of them to mount this kind of attack.

Yes, consensus across nodes that are trivial to acquire takes time. This is not the same as consensus across nodes that require significant collateral to acquire, no?

For a short con / attack you're right, most attackers aren't motivated enough to launch a full out attack on all the MasterNodes. The deeper concern is how it plays out long-term, and I am of the opinion that this system can only devolve to a handful of major MN operators. I outlined this in a post earlier, so I'll just quote it for ease of reference:

The trick is not to sacrifice your investment.



So obviously you want to double your ROI, which means you have to take half of the MasterNodes out of commission. You don't want to take down all or even most of them, you just want the total number of MasterNodes reduces to 1000. So you do this through a variety of tactics:

1. Report US-based and/or US-owned MasterNodes to FinCEN, the FBI, and the SEC, assist them in shutting them down and seizing the coins held by their operators.

2. Repeatedly DDoS MasterNodes at a particular ISP / datacenter until they change their ToS to not allow MasterNodes.

3. Hack into a portion of the remaining MasterNodes and install a rootkit that watches for Darkcoin source code and modifies it when compiled (or just randomly crashes the daemon if they aren't compiling it themselves). This ensures that these daemons appear to be working to the operator, but they receive so few payments they may as well be offline.

This is all very surreptitious, because 1. looks like The Man has got it in for Darkcoin, 2. looks like the ISP is just being problematic, and 3. is mostly undetectable. You can keep doing this ad infinitum to keep half the MasterNodes offline, and nobody will realise what you're doing. It'll look like the sort of attacks the community expects to come, and they'll rationalise it for you by loudly claiming that 1000 MasterNodes is good enough.

At that stage, since you're earning so much you can begin to collude with a handful of other MasterNode holders to start attacking small blocks of the remaining 1000 MasterNodes, replacing them with nodes you control, so the number of MasterNodes doesn't drop below 1000. You can even setup sockpuppet accounts right now in preparation for this, so that there appears to be legitimacy to the ownership. Within a few years the entire MasterNode network can be controlled by a handful of operators who are profiteering from it. You can then relax on the beach whilst your paid staff reinforce propaganda that running a MasterNode is difficult and expensive, discouraging and attacking any new MN operators.

I'm not saying this is definitely how things will play out, but this is what I perceive will happen because of the balance of incentives.

I must say that I like debating with you, your language is excellent.

Hah hah, well English is my home language, so I'd hope so;)

Fair points, but I think it's reasonable to trust Evan during the early development of the coin - that is priced in as far as I'm concerned....the spork in it's present state isn't a permanent features as far as I know, it's just to allow rapid development.

What exactly would happen if someone got the spork key? They could roll the latest features back to a recent, stable version? Hardly sky falling in territory is it?

It depends. What if the previous stable version is trivially exploitable, and the sporked code prevented that exploit? Or alternatively, what if the spork is on some key piece of functionality, and disabling it kills InstantX globally during a time when hundreds of thousands of people around the globe are reliant on it? I also think it encourages a "we test in production" attitude. Now, frankly, I am quite fond of the "release early, release often" strategy, also known as the "fail fast, fail often" approach, but only as respects general software projects. For a decentralised, trustless cryptocurrency where a broken change can literally cost user's privacy and money I think a LOT more care and consideration needs to be applied to changes, and they have to be thoroughly tested.

On Monero we have extremely thorough test coverage, and yet still there are subsystems like RPC that have no unit tests at all! Test-driven development is hard to enforce, but our coverage is increasing over time. This is the didactic opposite of "just writing code" with the barest functional testing and then hoping it'll work in production.

[BlockaFett]

The 2 XMR core devs are here trolling about DRK instead of coding as usual

Plus nearly all XMR is through one exchange: Poloniex

1) you are too stupid to count, but hey we expected that.
2) 60% of your trading is a CRAPTSY and Bittrex (20% - where we are also), hypocrite. Just for your info, feel free to tell cryptsy to add us, so its more fair.

1) smooth + fluffypony = 2
2) Cryptsy does not control the drk price because the other 40% is on dozens of ex.  Polo + HitBTC = 97% of XMR vol.

Want me to dig further?  How come Polo are so friendly to XMR and you have a 'permanent presence' there? And how come Cryptsy etc won't touch XMR with a ten-foot pole?

1) + othe + davidlatapie + eizh = 5; go back to school
2) It's on cryptsy voting list #1, why did they add it there if they don't touch it? I can answer the other question, Poloniex has the best tech team, they are always the first to add coins who aren't based on Bitcoin and other exotic stuff, Mastercoin etc is just traded there.

I didn't know there were 5 MONERO DEVS on here. That is hilarious

EDIT: if you so idle why don't you apply for job as Drk dev, they are hiring hard working devs!!!  oh, wait,

[Brilliantrocket]

There are plenty of now dead shitcoins that played games with supply. Supply tinkering != returns.

A possible corollary of your line of thinking is that someone could copy-paste XMR right now but with an emission-capping hard fork. The investors and the market should then naturally flock to this new chain. I doubt that will actually happen.

All other factors held the same, Monero would have been better off with an instamine than without one.

[othe]

Yeah we are a team, not a dicatorship, but i grew up in germany, i know how dicatorships will end sooner or later.

All other factors held the same, Monero would have been better off with an instamine than without one.

Nah then bitcoin guys wouldnt touch us with a ten feet pole or how u muricans say that.
Their input is very valuable for us.

[fluffypony]

a) Your stop-gap solution is not better that a working GUI wallet.

Buddy, I've offered you $500 to demonstrate this. Stating it as fact does not make it so.

I'll give you $1000 if you can prove stop-gape solution is better and by proof I mean, run a poll on bitcointalk with at least 800 votes asking if people prefer your stop-gap solution to a  proper working GUI wallet.

Polls can be manipulated. It would be in my interest to manipulate that poll. In fact, I could easily do so by offering $1 for everyone that votes for MyMonero.com, and I'd still come out $200 ahead. I was talking about an actual test, maybe an independent double-blind test across 3 subjects.

[Lebubar]

While DRK devs are working and delivering...  

I didn't know there were 5 MONERO DEVS on here. That is hilarious

[Sapereaude]

a) Your stop-gap solution is not better that a working GUI wallet.

Buddy, I've offered you $500 to demonstrate this. Stating it as fact does not make it so.

I'll give you $1000 if you can prove stop-gape solution is better and by proof I mean, run a poll on bitcointalk with at least 800 votes asking if people prefer your stop-gap solution to a  proper working GUI wallet.

Polls can be manipulated. It would be in my interest to manipulate that poll. In fact, I could easily do so by offering $1 for everyone that votes for MyMonero.com, and I'd still come out $200 ahead. I was talking about an actual test, maybe an independent double-blind test across 3 subjects.

3 subjects lol, wow to even get a basic t-test of this proof you would need at least 30 ppl for a weak application of statistical validity to apply.