XMR vs DRK

[othe]

G2M is correct. If you're able to do two-way mapping of hash functions, then everybody is collectively screwed independent of XMR v. DRK or on-chain v. off-chain.

OK gotcha.

I wonder why people go on about the off-chain benefits....doesn't sound like any benefit at all in this case.

I think bitcoindark with their still not useable "Teleport" crap have invented that non-sense.

[G2M]

G2M is correct. If you're able to do two-way mapping of hash functions, then everybody is collectively screwed independent of XMR v. DRK or on-chain v. off-chain.

To be fair here, I'm pretty sure that information came directly from you, fluffy, and othe across a few different posts in the first place.

After doing reading, it made a lot of sense.

[toknormal]

heck people aren't even forced to use darksend

Well I see that as the advantage actually. Nobody was "forced" to melt down their gold everytime they performed a transaction, but it was the fact that they optionally could that made it master of money.

Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue

Why ? At what level is the fungibility issue "defeated" in your opinion ? When its no longer useable ? When the entire basis of crypto that makes it accountable, popular and accessible has disappeared ? 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. An approach to enhancing fungibility that's consistent with that paradigm is therefore going have obvious merit. By burying the whole system in cryptography your creating something that bitcoin isn't - an encrypted messaging system - a new paradigm whose practical differences in terms of day to day use are far greater than improvements in fungibility it purports to solve. If you really believe in it you should argue it on that basis rather than trying to eek out an n'th degree anonymity advantage on a 'nothing else matters' basis.

[GingerAle]

heck people aren't even forced to use darksend

Well I see that as the advantage actually. Nobody was "forced" to melt down their gold everytime they performed a transaction, but it was the fact that they optionally could that made it master of money.

Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue

Why ? At what level is the fungibility issue "defeated" in your opinion ? When its no longer useable ? When the entire basis of crypto that makes it accountable, popular and accessible has disappeared ? 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. An approach to enhancing fungibility that's consistent with that paradigm is therefore going have obvious merit. By burying the whole system in cryptography your creating something that bitcoin isn't - an encrypted messaging system - a new paradigm whose practical differences in terms of day to day use are far greater than improvements in fungibility it purports to solve. If you really believe in it you should argue it on that basis rather than trying to eek out an n'th degree anonymity advantage on a 'nothing else matters' basis.

I just wanted to quote this in case you deleted it

[wpalczynski]

heck people aren't even forced to use darksend

Well I see that as the advantage actually. Nobody was "forced" to melt down their gold everytime they performed a transaction, but it was the fact that they optionally could that made it master of money.

Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue

Why ? At what level is the fungibility issue "defeated" in your opinion ? When its no longer useable ? When the entire basis of crypto that makes it accountable, popular and accessible has disappeared ? 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. An approach to enhancing fungibility that's consistent with that paradigm is therefore going have obvious merit. By burying the whole system in cryptography your creating something that bitcoin isn't - an encrypted messaging system - a new paradigm whose practical differences in terms of day to day use are far greater than improvements in fungibility it purports to solve. If you really believe in it you should argue it on that basis rather than trying to eek out an n'th degree anonymity advantage on a 'nothing else matters' basis.

I just wanted to quote this in case you deleted it

What a gem.

I'd like to know what the crypto in cryptocurrency stands for?


Toknormal, if you please.

[toknormal]

Toknormal, if you please.

Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zgkmQ-jQJHk#t=302

[Joshuar]

heck people aren't even forced to use darksend

Well I see that as the advantage actually. Nobody was "forced" to melt down their gold everytime they performed a transaction, but it was the fact that they optionally could that made it master of money.

Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue

Why ? At what level is the fungibility issue "defeated" in your opinion ? When its no longer useable ? When the entire basis of crypto that makes it accountable, popular and accessible has disappeared ? 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. An approach to enhancing fungibility that's consistent with that paradigm is therefore going have obvious merit. By burying the whole system in cryptography your creating something that bitcoin isn't - an encrypted messaging system - a new paradigm whose practical differences in terms of day to day use are far greater than improvements in fungibility it purports to solve. If you really believe in it you should argue it on that basis rather than trying to eek out an n'th degree anonymity advantage on a 'nothing else matters' basis.

I just wanted to quote this in case you deleted it

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/How_bitcoin_works

- There are several cryptographic technologies that make up the essence of Bitcoin.

[majamina]

- Of course it is; Only with encryption you can defeat the fungibility issue, DRK doesn't make it more fungible, you mix dirty coins with other dirty coins the same as a BTC mixer or darkwallet, after a while most coins will be tainted and you have the same problems as BTC or even worse.

That's a very interesting statement.

There are no dirty coins, right? Just inputs and outputs on dirty addresses? The fungibility in DRK comes from the mixing process, e.g.

- DirtyWallet has unspent inputs on address A.
- Inputs are spent via mixing with darksend rounds.
- Now DirtyWallet has unspent inputs on change addresses B,C,D.
- These are then spent via outputs to CleanWallet.

Due to the mixing process and the impossibility of re-assembling a complete transaction chain, there is no provable association in the blockchain between DirtyWallet's original inputs and the new unspent inputs in CleanWallet.

Funged?

[wpalczynski]

Toknormal, if you please.

Here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zgkmQ-jQJHk#t=302

So crypto stands for what?

[othe]

Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters

Hahahaha fuck my life dude, nearly spit beer over my keyboard.

[toknormal]

Here's another myth he scotches that people on this thread like to pound away on - the idea that architectural 'centralisation' equates to political centralisation. That distinction is never made by those who bang on about masternodes being 'centralised' (which they are not in the least).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zgkmQ-jQJHk#t=238

I really wish some of the arguments made against Dash in this thread were more convincing because for anyone rotating out of Dash into a Cryptonote, they'd be able to acquire at least 5 times the relative money supply holding than what they currently have. It isn't as if there's not an incentive.

I suppose it's a glass half full / half empty argument in the end.

It's not a question of masternodes vs no masternodes - most cryptos run some kind of 'full node' that's essential to the running of a healthy network. It's about a dual mode, service oriented technology that consistently delivers solutions to difficult problems where a mono-mode network needs a sledghammer to crack a nut.

[othe]

I suppose it's a glass half full / half empty argument in the end.

Its more a brain half full / half empty issue.

[G2M]

Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"

Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"

[generalizethis]

Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"

Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"

This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.

I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?

[BlockaFett]

Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"

Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"

This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.

I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?

it's a common myth in XMR circles that crytpographic proof means the system is secure or am i wrong?

(before you start with the insults / hubris to hide your intellectual inferiority complex, this is a trick question)

[toknormal]

Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"

Money has never needed 'cryptography' or any kind of meta-layer obfuscating technology to implement a fundamental monetary property (such as fungibility). Any monetary medium that works will have self-generating fungibility - like the cash drawer or gold's low melting point.

If I melt down 10 gold coins to make a gold bar and then use that in a transaction, I'm not "hiding" the fact that I'm making the transaction. The fungibility does not come from any form of encryption, but rather from the fact that gold coins could be combined from 10 distinct "inputs" into one indistinct "output".

It's an inherent part of cryptocurrencies that that is possible - which is why they make an almost perfect monetary medium. Darkcoin / Dash levers that property without changing the fundamental characteristics of the blockchain. I'm not saying that a cryptographic approach like cryptonote isn't interesting or potentially useful in many cases, but I'm saying it's not necessarily the optimal solution to bitcoin's fungibility problem from a monetary point of view.

[generalizethis]

Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"

Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"

This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.

I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?

it's a common myth in XMR circles that crytpographic proof means the system is secure or am i wrong?

(before you start with the insults / hubris to hide your intellectual inferiority complex, this is a trick question)

Do you need cryptography to make a digital currency fungible to the degree that coins are fungible? Fungible to the point that one is as good as another and cannot be discriminated against in a transaction?

[BlockaFett]

Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"

Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"

This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.

I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?

it's a common myth in XMR circles that crytpographic proof means the system is secure or am i wrong?

(before you start with the insults / hubris to hide your intellectual inferiority complex, this is a trick question)

Do you need cryptography to make a digital currency fungible to the degree that coins are fungible? Fungible to the point that one is as good as another and cannot be discriminated against in a transaction?

impossible to answer.  there may be digital currencies in the future that don't use cryptographiy.  so how to answer, is that a trick question?

what about my question?

[generalizethis]

Again, you don't need to answer for the future, just the present: Do you need cryptography to make a digital currency fungible to the degree that coins are fungible? Fungible to the point that one is as good as another and cannot be discriminated against in a transaction?


*your question doesn't pertain to what I am or was talking about--and you know it.

[BlockaFett]

Argument: "It's not even cryptographically secure"

Counter-argument: "We don't even need cryptography!"

This is how greed corrupts one's head into a mush of self-confirming biases based on pseudo-sense. What's sad is that it probably makes perfect sense in his head and he thinks everyone else is crazy.

I'll just ask (mostly for entertainment and not seeking a reality based solution): how does one create a fungible cryptocurrency without cryptography?

it's a common myth in XMR circles that crytpographic proof means the system is secure or am i wrong?

(before you start with the insults / hubris to hide your intellectual inferiority complex, this is a trick question)

impossible to answer.  there may be digital currencies in the future that don't use cryptographiy.  so how to answer, is that a trick question?

what about my question?

Again, you don't need to answer for the future, just the present: Do you need cryptography to make a digital currency fungible to the degree that coins are fungible? Fungible to the point that one is as good as another and cannot be discriminated against in a transaction?


*your question doesn't pertain to what I am or was talking about--and you know it.

ok, so my answer would be that if we accept the hypothesis that all digital currencies require cryptography (which I don't), then by definition all cryptocurrencies will require cryptography to function. So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already.