XMR vs DRK

[othe]

not a single darksend TX has been traced, no matter what gmaxwell or anyone else might say. Trace one or GTFO

Is there a reward for it? Either money or alternatively a bare knuckle fight with evan on neutral ground i.e. an irish pub would motivate a lot of people.

[1714720858]

1714720858

[1714720858]

1714720858

[1714720858]

1714720858

[fluffypony]

wow gmaxwell has spoken out against your project? i had no idea. gmaxwell is a legend. link?

I'll link it in my reply to majamina

[majamina]

Darkcoin's proof:[/b]

...
not a single darksend TX has been traced, no matter what gmaxwell or anyone else might say. Trace one or GTFO
...

dude, there is a darksend whitepaper which demonstrates how it works, the code was reviewed by K Atlas, plus people have been trying to break it (unsuccessfully) since it was launched.

citing my reply to icebreakers ridiculous signature as 'darkcoins proof' is equally ridiculous.

Also, I'd like to say that XMR has great anon, I'm not disputing that....

[majamina]

not a single darksend TX has been traced, no matter what gmaxwell or anyone else might say. Trace one or GTFO

Is there a reward for it? Either money or alternatively a bare knuckle fight with evan on neutral ground i.e. an irish pub would motivate a lot of people.

i think there's a $1000 bounty which someone put up during the trolling on the DRK thread...

man people are so down on Evan, which is sad cos to me he just seems like a good guy who's working hard on his great project....the monero devs come over like bitter fucks, which is a shame cos they have a great project too...

[MasterMined710]

If there is someone here who can defend dark on this particular point:

Can we talk about this instant transaction thing. How does it supposedly work? In the world of crypto there are only 2 ways of doing transactions instantly. A trust based system or centralization. Has dark somehow over turned the metaphorical laws of gravity in the world of crypto or do they use one of those two. If they use one of those two what is the justification?

The masternodes lock the tx, even if a conflicting valid transaction gets mined they reject the block its in.

This opens a nice sort of attack where you can split the network (i.e. isolating MNs from each other)

You would be very welcome in our xmr vs drk discussion thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642

It's fair and open and moderator is only deleting obvious troll posts.

Yawn. That does not make any sense and Sounds like BS to me. If he thinks he can break then break it or STFU.

Sorry i don't have time to read this whole thread and respond to everything but i will say that no coin is NSA proof, let me say that again, no coin is NSA proof. That being said it's probably not a good idea to hitch your wagon to a coin that is a one trick bloated pony that only does anon and will eventually be replaced by zerocash or something else that does it better. You want a coin that can do things like instant transactions and NSA resistant anon transactions and a whole lot more.

In the near future i see Darkcoin/DASH and the 2-tier masternode architecture as being able to do almost everything maidsafe, bitshares, ripple etc can do but on steroids.

[fluffypony]

now I may have missed something - but my understanding is that gmaxwell made these rather bitter remarks, was subsequently invited to review the Darksend code, agreed to do that once it was open source but never actually did....so these outdated remarks are based on the 'idea' of darksend rather than the actual implementation. Hardly a persuasive piece of evidence to present against the current, working anon implementation in DRK.

Those remarks are from...*checks watch*...12.5 hours ago.

Incidentally, the comment that he's replying to there is this comment from Bram Cohen, who you may recognise as the guy who invented Bittorrent -

"The monero/zerocoin approach with serial numbers seems to be a much more solid way of providing anonymity. Short of that I don't see much utility in providing mixing directly in the protocol. - Bram Cohen

Your point being? DRK has working instant transactions on mainnet. Other coins off the BTC codebase don't have this...

That's pure incompetence on their part. The GreenAddress implementation source is available.

This is not a balanced or even credible representation of the Spork feature, as you well know.

How so? A single individual controls a key that can remotely disable code portions on the entire network. I know of no other cryptocurrency with a remote disruption switch like that.

[5w00p]

This is a post so that this thread shows up in Show replies to your posts.

So, IBTL.

[fluffypony]

How many full nodes there are currently? What is the incentive to run one? What if they are DDoS'ed?

Is the bolded part a problem for privacy?

Are we talking about Monero, or in JustusRanvier's proposal?

Bloom filters are specifically designed not to sufficiently compromise privacy. They're used for SPV in Bitcoin, where you tell a full node a range of addresses you're "interested in", and it tells you about any transactions that come in to those. You're going to get a bunch of false positives, but not enough to care about. You can also still maintain a degree of consensus by connecting to multiple nodes and fetching block headers from them, verifying the PoW across the header, and then submitting the bloom filter to a set of seemingly honest nodes you find.

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

You can't Sybil attack JustusRanvier's model, because the micropayment happens per-action and between peers. Running a series of sock-puppet nodes doesn't help you, because your sock-puppets have to provide the same services as a full node to get paid. May as well just run a bunch of full nodes in VMs then (which would massively assist the network if every node was mixing and getting paid for it via micropayment channels).

[majamina]

Those remarks are from...*checks watch*...12.5 hours ago.

Fair comment, I wasn't sure of the timing, as I pointed out in my earlier post.

"The monero/zerocoin approach with serial numbers seems to be a much more solid way of providing anonymity. Short of that I don't see much utility in providing mixing directly in the protocol. - Bram Cohen

I agree, on paper the monero/zerocoin approach is more solid for anon although not without other issues, e.g. bloat. I would say some future Zerocash implementation is the best theoretical anon coin.

Meanwhile, DRK's proposition is 'good enough' working anon and a host of other features based off masternodes, coupled with BTC compatibility for easy merchant adoption.

That's pure incompetence on their part. The GreenAddress implementation source is available.

I still don't know what your point is. DRK has native instant TX today...I think the market is buying this feature. It's a good feature

How so? A single individual controls a key that can remotely disable code portions on the entire network. I know of no other cryptocurrency with a remote disruption switch like that.

Your point being?

Again it's a good feature - the devs can roll back new releases. It doesn't ultimately undermine the trustless nature of the coin, it just provides a level of control for new releases.

DRK has good features, but XMR people just want to attack them and never provide a balanced view. I support both coins and try to have a balanced view....more of that needed here I think if crypto is going to go mainstream.

[smooth]

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.

[iCEBREAKER]

A single individual controls a key that can remotely disable code portions on the entire network. I know of no other cryptocurrency with a remote disruption switch like that.

This just baffles me.  Why on earth would a dev want that kind of vulnerability, centralization, power, and responsibility?

It seems like drawing a target on your back and making yourself a magnet for $5 wrenches, which should greatly concern anyone not protected by mobsters and/or TLAs.

That's probably why nobody else does it.

[Anon136]

So i want to put forward the idea that the price of dark is rising not in-spite of the premine, but precisely because of it. Think of the economic incentives at work for a dev who owns 40% of the currency supply. Think of how much he stands to benefit from improving his product. Or marketing his product well. Think of the funds that he has to spend on that marketing if it begins to create a positive feedback loop.

[majamina]

So i want to put forward the idea that the price of dark is rising not in-spite of the premine, but precisely because of it. Think of the economic incentives at work for a dev who owns 40% of the currency supply. Think of how much he stands to benefit from improving his product. Or marketing his product well. Think of the funds that he has to spend on that marketing if it begins to give a positive feedback.

dude, your thinly-vieled 'neutral debate' BS is plainly exposed by such rhetoric...

[Sapereaude]

Y'all see Monero is like flying cars. They sound great! I mean you don't have to sit in traffic, you can go places faster and aren't limited by roads.

Problem is they can't work and Monero as a currency doesn't work. Right now I can sit my father down help him download the Dark\Dash wallet and have him up and running in a few minutes. Let me reiterate that, in a few minutes he understood it, but also he could go use it. There are plenty of real places that accept dark/dash even the darkmarkets. It works and that's why people are using it, hell that's why people use or adopt anything. That is why we all driving cars instead of flying contraptions.

So I don't give a flying mongoose about any whitepaper or promises until it's easy to use and widespread. Monero has had a year to do this and it not anywhere near either of these goals.

Lastly if the Dark/Dash tech doesn't work then there would be a ton of money made by anybody who could prove that to the cryptocurrency community, so the fact that after months no one has done so is strong proof that the technology is solid.

[ArticMine]

...
How so? A single individual controls a key that can remotely disable code portions on the entire network. I know of no other cryptocurrency with a remote disruption switch like that.

It is called Spork https://www.darkcoin.io/about/what-is-darkcoin/spork/

In response to unforeseen issues with the rollout of RC3, the Darkcoin development team created a mechanism by which updated code is released to the network, but not immediately made active (or “enforced”). Communication is sent out to users informing them of the change and the need for them to update their clients. Those who update their clients run the new code, but in the event of errors occurring with that new code, the client’s blocks are not rejected by the network and unintended forks are avoided. Data about the error can then be collected and forwarded to the development team. Once the development team is satisfied with the new code’s stability in the mainnet environment – and once acceptable network consensus is attained – enforcement of the updated code can be activated remotely. Should problems arise, the code can be deactivated in the same manner, without the need for a network-wide rollback or client update. This innovation allows for far smoother transitions than in the traditional hard fork paradigm, as well as the collection of test data in the live network environment. We set out with the intention of calling this method of updating the “Soft Fork”, but the Darkcoin community quickly dubbed it the “Spork” and the name seems to have stuck.

Now here is something really worth discussing. I was starting to get bored with the Darkcoin instamine discussion. To say that this is dangerous is an understatement. This effectively turns a decentralized virtual currency into a centralized virtual currency and the holder(s) of the private keys that control the Spork(s) would very likely need to register as an MSB in the United States and the equivalent in many other countries.

[Anon136]

So i want to put forward the idea that the price of dark is rising not in-spite of the premine, but precisely because of it. Think of the economic incentives at work for a dev who owns 40% of the currency supply. Think of how much he stands to benefit from improving his product. Or marketing his product well. Think of the funds that he has to spend on that marketing if it begins to give a positive feedback.

dude, your thinly-vieled 'neutral debate' BS is plainly exposed by such rhetoric...

Thats fair. Allow me to rephrase it.

So i want to put forward the idea that, assuming there was infact a premine, the price of dark is rising not in-spite of the premine, but precisely because of it. Think of the economic incentives at work for a dev who owns 40% of the currency supply. Think of how much he stands to benefit from improving his product. Or marketing his product well. Think of the funds that he has to spend on that marketing if it begins to give a positive feedback.

But no i do actually support premines in theory. When done in moderation in think they are a good thing. For the reasons expressed above.

[fluffypony]

I agree, on paper the monero/zerocoin approach is more solid for anon although not without other issues, e.g. bloat. I would say some future Zerocash implementation is the best theoretical coin at present.

Darkcoin has a ton of bloat. In fact, if you compare a set of DarkSend transactions with a Monero transaction at a high mixin of, say, 20 you will notice that Monero's reduced scripting size makes it quite a bit smaller. If Darkcoin users start using DarkSend all the time instead of just occasionally you will experience phenomenal bloat.

I still don't know what your point is. DRK has native instant TX today...I think the market is buying this feature. It's a good feature

Just like GreenAddress it still requires trust, and it's still open to malleability attacks.

Your point being?

Again it's a good feature - the devs can roll back new releases. It doesn't ultimately undermine the trustless nature of the coin, it just provides a level of control for new releases.

I don't think you understand what "trustless" means. Without "trustless"-ness a cryptocurrency is neither safe nor fungible. Bitcoin is being picked up by forward-thinking institutions and corporations because they understand this trustless nature. They would never trust something like this where someone else controls a kill switch, not when they have a trustless alternative.

DRK has good features, but XMR people just want to attack them and never provide a balanced view. I support both coins and try to have a balanced view....more of that needed here I think if crypto is going to go mainstream.

It has reimplementations of features that are already available in Bitcoin, nothing innovative or unique. You can CoinJoin in Bitcoin, you can instantly transact using GreenAddress.it, all available right now. That is not an attack, that is a balanced view. Moreover, the lack of rigour in the implementation is disconcerting at best. Designing decentralised systems is hard (human instinct is to trust "voting" or some form of perceived supermajority, which is almost always easily exploitable). Designing robust decentralised systems from an "assumed malice" perspective is harder still (Darkcoin is designed from an "assumed trust" perspective). Designing anti-fragile systems is an art on its own. Monero is VERY far from being anti-fragile, but every day we work towards it.

[majamina]

So i want to put forward the idea that the price of dark is rising not in-spite of the premine, but precisely because of it. Think of the economic incentives at work for a dev who owns 40% of the currency supply. Think of how much he stands to benefit from improving his product. Or marketing his product well. Think of the funds that he has to spend on that marketing if it begins to give a positive feedback.

dude, your thinly-vieled 'neutral debate' BS is plainly exposed by such rhetoric...

Thats fair. Allow me to rephrase it.

So i want to put forward the idea that, assuming there was infact a premine, the price of dark is rising not in-spite of the premine, but precisely because of it. Think of the economic incentives at work for a dev who owns 40% of the currency supply. Think of how much he stands to benefit from improving his product. Or marketing his product well. Think of the funds that he has to spend on that marketing if it begins to give a positive feedback.

But no i am actually in favor of premines. When done in moderation in think they are a good thing. For the reasons expressed above.

but there wasn't a premine....there is endless moaning and tired debate about 'instamine' if that's what you mean.

i see no evidence that DRK is rising because of any early mining activity though...i think the initial run-up was on delivery of Instant TX, then the branding news....now I think it might be getting a bit of a pump or EVO cleaning injection, who knows....

your posts have a flavour of bias against DRK...which is up to you of course, although at odds with any purported neutrality...

[MasterMined710]

So i want to put forward the idea that the price of dark is rising not in-spite of the premine, but precisely because of it. Think of the economic incentives at work for a dev who owns 40% of the currency supply. Think of how much he stands to benefit from improving his product. Or marketing his product well. Think of the funds that he has to spend on that marketing if it begins to create a positive feedback loop.

lol, so you have proof the darkcoin/DASH dev owns 40% of the coins. and you wonder why no DASH people are wasting their time on this thread. bye bye

[fluffypony]

Problem is they can't work and Monero as a currency doesn't work. Right now I can sit my father down help him download the Dark\Dash wallet and have him up and running in a few minutes. Let me reiterate that, in a few minutes he understood it, but also he could go use it. There are plenty of real places that accept dark/dash even the darkmarkets. It works and that's why people are using it, hell that's why people use or adopt anything. That is why we all driving cars instead of flying contraptions.

I will bet you $500 that a blind test with a non-technical person will have them up and running and working with MyMonero faster and easier than on the DarkDashcoin wallet.

And before you throw a little tantrum, we've openly acknowledged that MyMonero is the stop-gap solution until we have built the foundation necessary to support a core GUI. So let's compare Apples with Packard Bells, shall we?