XMR vs DRK

[Joshuar]

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.

Yes, some day in the future a new type of money may not need cryptography, but (miss context much) your fellow drk supporter was talking directly about cryptocurrencies not being dependent on cryptography which as you just wrote, "So asking if any feature within a cryptographic digital currency requires cryptography is nonsensical because the currency itself requires cryptography already."

Thank you for making my point.

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?  You can misquote / mislead people for the sake of trying to market xmr?

seriously, xmr is the most toxic community in crypto.  the worst part is, the trolls genuinely believe they are pious and non-greedy!

this is the same as what happened to blackcoin, the community went full tard when other coins with real value started rising...just sayin

I can say first hand that it's the opposite. When I was in Darkcoin, I would constantly try and find ways or rather "excuses" to justify the coin's many flaws, such as the scam-like instamine, inevitable masternode centralization, more vectors of attack masternodes bring up, sub-par anonymity compared to other coins, and etc...Wasn't fun.

Toknormal was also wrong on most of his statements thus far, so.

so you moved out of DRK into XMR a while back and now you are angry...don't take it out on us please

Hmm? I hold/sell darkcoins, or rather DASH(s) still. I just don't see any future in the coin, but I do trade it semi-regularly. I'm just saying that even when I was a "supporter" of Dash/DRK(I was blinded by my investment), I still recognized that there were things that Dash/DRK is simply sub-par in(Use of external masternodes to provide "anonymity") and couldn't get past(The scam-like instamine), compared to other cryptocurrencies.

Before you dumped in October at 0.005 were you aware that a single DRK coin was divisible by 100,000,000?

Did I dump, or did I not buy back in and recently sold at .019, waiting to buy back in when it drops further for another pump? The difference is that I now value Dash as nothing more than short-term trading.

The denominations are almost irrelevant, hardly anyone in Bitcoin even uses a satoshi or bits outside of daytrading altcoins. You don't even use anything less than 1 Dash, so no point in even bringing it up.

[1715543674]

1715543674

[1715543674]

1715543674

[1715543674]

1715543674

[1715543674]

1715543674

[illodin]

Would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when the NSA researchers are talking about this thread in their weekly meeting.

Lol yea right. Monero might be on the radar of someone in the deep state. But they are not going to be talking about this thread in a meeting. Thats silly.

Agreed, This thread is nothing but fluff. Those meetings are light years beyond this dribble.

In reality, the only worth this thread has is to give a chuckle while having a morning coffee.

I guess I forgot the smiley.

"those boys really need to get the tinfoil hats on", or "lol they're thinking they can hide anything from us lol" take your pick.

[andytoshi]

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?

Can you (or Tok) point to a part of a cryptocurrency which isn't cryptography?

[gmaxwell]

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]

Money does need cryptography, how do you think you do online banking without everyone stealing it?

Online banking uses SSL -  a transport technology, not a monetary medium. It's an encrypted messaging system which 'carries' the message to be decrypted at the other end.

Digital signatures and hashing on the other hand do not carry the message along with it. They simply generate a hash that uniquely identifies that message which is very different from encrypting it. I realise that the word 'encryption' and 'cryptology' is pretty nebulous and that people use it loosely to cover both technologies but I was using it in the stricter sense to make the point that Dash's approach to fungibility is consistent with Bitcoin's.

That doesn't mean that other approaches aren't viable, but constantly bashing it for not using a cryptographic based method is kind of meaningless unless your prepared to dismiss the rest of its design goals as well - which is conserving the Bitcoin blockchain characteristics, compatibility, etc etc. Thats a whole different argument with its own merits. Obviously if your prepared to reset the goalposts from top to bottom in order to suit the single priority of obfuscation then you might have an advantage in that department.

You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH.....

You seem to confuse trading volume with liquidity. In that discussion we were talking about liquidity and I made the point that liquidity was a question of amount of monetary value available - not the number of coins. It therefore corresponds directly to marketcap and I pointed out to you that in that respect Dash had roughly 5 times that of Monero currently. Trading volume (which you keep bringing up in these debates) is a different thing, that's just how much of the currency was traded in a given 24hour period normalised against a common currency (usually Bitcoin).

....to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet....

Every link that I've ever come across when attempting to download an OS/X wallet ends up at either bitmonerod or simplewallet or both of them paired. I bought my first Monero on the old cryptonote exchange back last Summer and so am not unfamiliar with it. Feel free to show me what I'm missing but for a project that prides itself in security it sure seems to not care much about the biggest security hole of them all - the wallet. Apparently it's "not enough of a priority" and has been left to 3rd parties to sort out. If thats the case then good luck in hitting on one that hasn't got 10 back doors in it. To me, this is what a wallet download page should look like - clear, unambiguous, comes from the project and the only single page on the entire web that's endorsed as genuine:

https://www.dashpay.io/downloads/

[Joshuar]

Money does need cryptography, how do you think you do online banking without everyone stealing it?

Online banking uses SSL -  a transport technology, not a monetary medium. It's an encrypted messaging system which 'carries' the message to be decrypted at the other end.

Digital signatures and hashing on the other hand do not carry the message along with it. They simply generate a hash that uniquely identifies that message which is very different from encrypting it. I realise that the word 'encryption' and 'cryptology' is pretty nebulous and that people use it loosely to cover both technologies but I was using it in the stricter sense to make the point that Dash's approach to fungibility is consistent with Bitcoin's.

That doesn't mean that other approaches aren't viable, but constantly bashing it for not using a cryptographic based method is kind of meaningless unless your prepared to dismiss the rest of its design goals as well - which is conserving the Bitcoin blockchain characteristics, compatibility, etc etc. Thats a whole different argument with its own merits. Obviously if your prepared to reset the goalposts from top to bottom in order to suit the single priority of obfuscation then you might have an advantage in that department.

You've sprouted a lot of inaccurate statements recently, from the lie over the volume of XMR and DASH.....

You seem to confuse trading volume with liquidity. In that discussion we were talking about liquidity and I made the point that liquidity was a question of amount of monetary value available - not the number of coins. It therefore corresponds directly to marketcap and I pointed out to you that in that respect Dash had roughly 5 times that of Monero currently. Trading volume (which you keep bringing up in these debates) is a different thing, that's just how much of the currency was traded in a given 24hour period normalised against a common currency (usually Bitcoin).

....to thinking bitmonerod was a wallet....

Every link that I've ever come across when attempting to download an OS/X wallet ends up at either bitmonerod or simplewallet or both of them paired. I bought my first Monero on the old cryptonote exchange back last Summer and so am not unfamiliar with it. Feel free to show me what I'm missing but for a project that prides itself in security it sure seems to not care much about the biggest security hole of them all - the wallet. Apparently it's "not enough of a priority" and has been left to 3rd parties to sort out. If thats the case then good luck in hitting on one that hasn't got 10 back doors in it. To me, this is what a wallet download page should look like - clear, unambiguous, comes from the project and the only single page on the entire web that's endorsed as genuine:

https://www.dashpay.io/downloads/

The 5th time you've said something entirely wrong today. So according to that logic, all of Bitcoin's 3rd party wallets(Of which some are really beautiful, Multibit, Electrum, Armory etc), also show that having a wallet isn't enough of a "priority"?. The success of a system isn't just what the developers do, especially in an open-source environment, it's what the community does as well. That's the entire purpose of Satoshi making Bitcoin open-source, so if the community wants, they could create infrastructure around Bitcoin without relying on centralized authority, quite the opposite to Dash's/DRK's centralization; Evan/others instaming Dash, masternode centralization, changing the name without the community's consent/vote, and also creating the "spork switch".

Yesterday I caught you in a lie or could be a another misunderstanding, again(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10908170#msg10908170), where you on your own post showed Monero having more liquidity than Dash on March 10th, yet was saying that Dash always had more liquidity. This is the definition of Liquidity: The degree to which an asset or security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price. The # of coins and subsequent price per coins determine the marketcap, therefore the # of coins in cryptocurrency has is important in determining it's liquidity. You also seem the confuse the fact that not of all Dash's coins are available on market, more than 50% of all Dash/DRKs are stuck in masternodes. Also, until you start using more denominations regularly, then there's no point in arguing over that fact. Let's not talk "ifs". And, finally, trading volume per day is basically the liquidity of that coin in that specific period of time. A coin with a volume of $100,000 per day, has better liquidity, than a coin with a volume of $100 per day.
 
It seems you're trying to use subtle manipulation and hoping others won't catch on.

[vokain]

^^The tactic, I learned, is called "Gish galloping", but perhaps labeling such behavior as "tactic" is giving the trolls too much credit.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.

[BlockaFett]

^^The tactic, I learned, is called "Gish galloping", but perhaps labeling such behavior as "tactic" is giving the trolls too much credit.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.

is that from the Monero handbook

[othe]

No,
from rationalwiki.org;

DASH - Where reading comprehension doesn't matter.

[vokain]

^^The tactic, I learned, is called "Gish galloping", but perhaps labeling such behavior as "tactic" is giving the trolls too much credit.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own. They may be escape hatches or "gotcha" arguments that are specifically designed to be brief, but take a long time to unravel. Thus, galloping is frequently used in timed debates (especially by creationists) to overwhelm one's opponent.

is that from the Monero handbook

Another concept I had the fortune of learning from Moneroans is Cunningham's Law

Cunningham's law states "the best way to get the right answer on the Internet is not to ask a question, it's to post the wrong answer."

The concept is named after Ward Cunningham, father of the wiki. According to Steven McGeady,[1] the law's author, Wikipedia may be the most well-known demonstration of this law.[2]

[BlockaFett]

angry

actually Monero devs have been working on the GUI, just the important parts:



Also back in September they said GUI release was a 'Primary goal', as stated on Wikipedia.  That's only 7 months late then.

(Weirdly, this was removed on Wikipedia earlier today, now it's a 'secondary goal' apparently, hey hoe.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryptoNote#Monero_.28XMR.29

[Joshuar]

angry

deliberate fallacy

I'm sure you know that there are 5 wallets/accounts or GUI's(and web wallet) for Monero, but trolls gotta troll I suppose...

https://getmonero.org/getting-started/choose

[GTO911]

Monero people are teaching 15 year old fools here, People like you shouldnt post here

[vokain]

Monero people are teaching 15 year old fools here, People like you shouldnt post here

Either way I'm thankful and learned a thing or two

[illodin]

Tok said cryptography 'wasn't a significant part' of cryptocurrencies.  He didn't say they don't require them, so what was your point?

Can you (or Tok) point to a part of a cryptocurrency which isn't cryptography?

Darkcoin's Darksend is not cryptography. Source: Monero fan camp.

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.

So Darksend is actually cryptography after all, thanks for confirmation.

[BlockaFett]

angry

deliberate fallacy

I'm sure you know that there are 5 wallets/accounts for Monero.

https://getmonero.org/getting-started/choose

yup.  all 'third party'.  I already quizzed 'smooth' on it.

if XMR users want to use a mouse, 'just go get a wallet from someone else'.

Looks to me like another example of how charlatan XMR devs can't be bothered to even meet their own timescales.  Instead they are busy trolling, asking for donations (or not knowing where past donations went), editing Wikipedia to cover up their non-delivery.   oh and preaching how cryptographic proof implies system security and blurb on how XMR "isn't about the money" to the faithful while some group is manipulating the price on poloniex every day.  And trying to cover up the fact they cut and paste a sh*t load of NSA tech from multiple sources. apart from that, XMR is all great

(guys seriously, i know you love XMR and this whole thread is setup to show that, but doesn't this all show you that something is dodgy here, really?)

[wpalczynski]

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.

Could you share a few thoughts on what you think about the tech behind Monero?

[Joshuar]

angry

deliberate fallacy

I'm sure you know that there are 5 wallets/accounts for Monero.

https://getmonero.org/getting-started/choose

yup.  all 'third party'.  I already quizzed 'smooth' on it.

if XMR users want to use a mouse, 'just go get a wallet from someone else'.

Looks to me like another example of how charlatan XMR devs can't be bothered to even meet their own timescales.  Instead they are busy trolling, asking for donations (or not knowing where past donations went), editing Wikipedia to cover up their non-delivery.   oh and preaching how cryptographic proof implies system security and blurb on how XMR "isn't about the money" to the faithful while some group is manipulating the price on poloniex every day.  And trying to cover up the fact they cut and paste a sh*t load of NSA tech from multiple sources. apart from that, XMR is all great

(guys seriously, i know you love XMR and this whole thread is setup to show that, but doesn't this all show you that something is dodgy here, really?)

As I told Toknormal, you're also impying that anything by 3rd parties shows some type of incompetance? So Bitcoin's entire infrastructure shows it's incompetance? Do you realize that these things are supposed to be open-sourced, decentralized? Oh no, because Dash/DRK was closed-source for most of it's lifetime, has a scam/dishonest instamine that's partly covered up(It's not on the wikipedia page), has a guy named Masternode and Otoh who directly manipulate the prices worst than anything I've seen before in Crypto, has masternodes that ultimately centralize the network and provide an irrelevant "feature" that Bitcoin already superbly provides(Coinjoin), has a developer that changed the name from Darkcoin to Dash without a vote or anything democratic, and who also owns a "spork switch" which further centralized Dash/DRK.

Shall I name more? As I said before, those things among others, is why I left Dash/DRK as a "supporter" and never looked back. It's simply a centralized, dishonest scam "pump and dump".

[vokain]

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.

Could you share a few thoughts on what you think about the tech behind Monero?

There's a search function you know
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615514.msg6812066#msg6812066

[GTO911]

Somebody just deleted their post