XMR vs DRK

[Joshuar]

If anything, Monero usually has higher volume and better liquidity than Dash/DRK when they're not getting pumped by Otoh/Masternode. #logic Blockafett, use it.

I think I'll just let you burry yourself in your own clueless arguments.

You should be the Absolute last person to talk about clueless. You previously stated that Cryptocurrencies don't use much cryptography, to which you were embarrasingly corrected on. Then you lied earlier about Dash always having had more liquidity than Monero, to which I quoted one of your old posts where you showed Monero having more liquidity than Dash for that day. Then you thought that bitmonerod was a Monero wallet.

It's either you're purposely trolling, you're trying to manipulate the argument with subtle lies and inaccuracies, or you are hilariously misinformed. I'll even quote everything again incase you forgot all the nonsense that you've said earlier:

It just experienced a pump. Monero's was higher than Dash's before that.

No. It was not.

Monero's market liquidity has never been anywhere near that of Dash.

Right now, according to http://coinmarketcap.com, Monero's liquidity in the $USD market is only 20% of that of Dash. In the BTC market, Monero only has 21.9% of the liquidity of Dash.

Lol lie much? You yourself posted a little graphic a few weeks ago(Look below) of Monero's trade volume in comparison with Dash's and Bitcoin's at the time, to which Monero's was higher, now you're claiming otherwise.

Right now, yes, because it's in the middle of a pump. Previously no. On poloniex Monero would regularly(Almost, if not everyday) do 300+btc volume(When Bitcoin's price was over $400 per coin).

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.

[GingerAle]

(again, not trolling - this should be a BIG RED FLAG. but i feel like I am probably banging my head against a brick wall again...)

i believe the feeling is mutual.

and I won't go through the effort to post a pic that indicates that 72% of DASH market activity is on Cryptsy, because the market valuation of a technology has nothing to do with its ability to achieve its goals...

oh wait except that with DRK that is the case because as the valuation increases it becomes impossible for new masternodes to pop up, and in the event of a flash crash, individuals could be convinced to cash out.

[majamina]

OK so DASH is coming in for a lot of criticism here, but leaving all the instamine stuff and general potshots aside, there have been some important technical criticisms that have not been followed through.

XMR guys are very vocal about DASH being, well, shit, so should really back these claims up otherwise the criticism sounds unfair/uninformed.

First we have a criticism of DASH not being fungible. I posted this example earlier in response to these claims, no comeback so far:

- 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?

Next we have the issue of Darksend, Masternode Blinding and the probabilities of tracing transactions. The numbers I posted were criticised as being misleading, since they only stand up for 1 round of Darksend. I couldn't make sense of this so asked more questions....again no comeback:

Let us say I face an attack that will work against 1 round of Darksend but will fail against 2 rounds of Darksend. This could be the Sybil example I quoted above. If the attacker has also partially compromised the masternode network, then I need a sequence of 2 un-compromised Darksend rounds for protection from this attack. In this example sequence 1 will not work

1) Honest Malicious Honest Malicious Honest Malicious

but sequence 2 will work

2) Malicious Honest Honest Malicious Malicious Honest

because of the bold part. So it is the probability of the sequence of n honest masternodes in the chain that matters, and this is much lower than the probability of a single honest masternode in the chain.

OK I've considered this and I'm not sure it's a fair representation of how Darksend works.

1 round of Darksend with blinding uses 20 random masternodes. With more than 1 round, round 2 uses a different set of 20 masternodes and so on, resulting in the astronomical probabilities.

Your example is showing 6 MNs and 50% of them are malicious, but we were talking about 15% of the network being compromised. Therefore only 3 of 20 nodes are likely to be malicious and your sequence doesn't work.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood your example.

Also, I'm not sure we have the full picture on masternode blinding here. See vague description from Evan below.


Masternode Blinding

Recently a paper by 3 researches at Saarland University came out describing a new technique, while there are some serious problems with the approach they take, the concept of blinding the users they use is novel. In CoinShuffle, each output is sent to the next peer in a circle, one at a time. The new peer adds an output, shuffles and then sends the list again. We can do this and actually improve upon it.

To implement blinding, each user would connect to one completely random masternode and say "Send masternode X this output/value for mix N" and pass a single output. That output would be passed to the leading masternode. It would take access to all masternodes used to know who did what, which is as solid as M rounds mathematically (M = number of outputs). This is great because all users can submit all inputs at once. So it's super fast compared to CoinShuffle and even more secure.

Finally, there is the issue of the Masternode network security and whether DASH, in general, is fit-for-purpose. DASH opponents are repeatedly saying that the Maternode network is flawed, has lots of attack vectors, means DASH is centralised etc. However, nobody has answered the simple question of whether ANY adversary short of NSA/guv could compromise the network, and therefore why is the network not fit-for-purpose?

So come on opponents, now's your chance to really press the advantage and convince me/others that DASH is fatally flawed.

[BlockaFett]

(again, not trolling - this should be a BIG RED FLAG. but i feel like I am probably banging my head against a brick wall again...)

i believe the feeling is mutual.

and I won't go through the effort to post a pic that indicates that 72% of DASH market activity is on Cryptsy, because the market valuation of a technology has nothing to do with its ability to achieve its goals...

oh wait except that with DRK that is the case because as the valuation increases it becomes impossible for new masternodes to pop up, and in the event of a flash crash, individuals could be convinced to cash out.

guys, Dash volume is spread over all the big exchanges.  You cannot manipulate the DASH price using one exchange.   XMR price is set daily by Poloniex and that's it - big exchanges volume is 0.  Poloniex is controlling the XMR price 100%, and who is controlling that?

[toknormal]

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.

They are not 'stuck' there any more than my Euros are 'stuck' in my bank account earning interest (or 'paying interest' if your in the wrong country).

They can be moved to market just as easily as any other coin can. The fact that some parts of the Dash money supply can earn interest through supporting the network is by design.

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.

Well, true, but it would be good if the developers did 'something'.

I'm not even sure if there are any Monero developers and if there are I sure have no clue what they do (other than scurrying all over bitcointalk and reddit for hours a day bashing Dash and defaming it's def who's probably one of the most creative and productive people in this industry).

[Joshuar]

It seems like all that's happening here now is the monero supporters are correcting the dash supporters on the lies and inaccurate statements they constantly make. Wow...

[majamina]

It seems like all that's happening here now is the monero supporters are correcting the dash supporters on the lies and inaccurate statements they constantly make. Wow...

The thread seems to be losing the plot. If we can stop all the potshots and compare the coins' technical features in a reasonable fashion we might get somewhere.

[Joshuar]

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.

They are not 'stuck' there any more than my Euros are 'stuck' in my bank account earning interest (or 'paying interest' if your in the wrong country).

They can be moved to market just as easily as any other coin can. The fact that some parts of the Dash money supply can earn interest through supporting the network is by design.

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.

Well, true, but it would be good if the developers did 'something'.

I'm not even sure if there are any Monero developers and if there are I sure have no clue what they do (other than scurrying all over bitcointalk and reddit for hours a day bashing Dash and defaming it's def who's probably one of the most creative and productive people in this industry).

By stuck you know that it means it's not on the market available to trade. No matter how easy it can become "un-stuck" is irrelevant.

Throughout the time Monero's been in existence, the developers have been working on it with little compensation, they have research labs, they study before implmenting changes, which is how things are supposed to advance. Unlike Dash where Evan adds anything in an effort to hype and pump the coin(Which led to various forks, rollbacks, and just utter chaos) in the network. Don't say otherwise because I experienced it firsthand, anyone else can go in the Dash thread for a few months and see that's what's happening.

I also find this odd: " Why dont you go and ask Evan/Dash developer why he didn't relaunch Dash/DRK after the instamine scam where he and a few others mined over 2million Dash/DRKs on a linux only release, then cut the block reward and coin supply by over half to instantly make those instamined coins more valuable, all while at that time, Dash/DRK had no future goals was just a random Bitcoin clone? You should maybe do that instead of trolling."

[G2M]

G2M - that was a really great post, thank you.

Well he assumed that masternodes are sending and receiving coins, which isn't the case. I didn't try to read and understand the rest of the post because it was built on false premise.

I assure you it isn't time wasted, as the premise of the argument was not 'whether or not masternodes are compromised', it was 'whether or not the transaction was traceable given the ability to compromise private keys'.

The transaction was traced from my send to address to my send from address, regardless.

Really, if you're going to even waste time responding to me at least read the post. Ya just gotta keep up man.

Also, I copied and pasted it in there, so about the part where I said bam I made a big bold edit. Sorry.

ADD: I deanonymized my transaction based on the unique number of denominated inputs in the transaction. That's sure to mean something.

[BlockaFett]

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.

They are not 'stuck' there any more than my Euros are 'stuck' in my bank account earning interest (or 'paying interest' if your in the wrong country).

They can be moved to market just as easily as any other coin can. The fact that some parts of the Dash money supply can earn interest through supporting the network is by design.

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.

Well, true, but it would be good if the developers did 'something'.

I'm not even sure if there are any Monero developers and if there are I sure have no clue what they do (other than scurrying all over bitcointalk and reddit for hours a day bashing Dash and defaming it's def who's probably one of the most creative and productive people in this industry).

By stuck you know that it means it's not on the market available to trade. No matter how easy it can become "un-stuck" is irrelevant.

Throughout the time Monero's been in existence, the developers have been working on it with little compensation, they have research labs, they study before implmenting changes. Unlike Dash where Evan adds anything in an effort to hype and pump the coin. Don't say otherwise because I experienced it firsthand, anyone else can go in the Dash thread for a few months and see that's what's happening.

I also this odd:" Why dont you go and ask Evan/Dash developer why he didn't relaunch Dash/DRK after the instamine scam where he and a few others mined over 2million Dash/DRKs on a linux only release, then cut the block reward and coin supply by over half to instantly make those instamined coins more valuable, all while at that time, Dash/DRK had no future goals was just a random Bitcoin clone? You should maybe do that instead of trolling."

how much $ did you loose buy dumping DRK for XMR?  and losing those $ didn't make you angry to come and troll DRK now that it's the top alt coin and you picked the wrong coin? c'mon....

[Joshuar]

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.

They are not 'stuck' there any more than my Euros are 'stuck' in my bank account earning interest (or 'paying interest' if your in the wrong country).

They can be moved to market just as easily as any other coin can. The fact that some parts of the Dash money supply can earn interest through supporting the network is by design.

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.

Well, true, but it would be good if the developers did 'something'.

I'm not even sure if there are any Monero developers and if there are I sure have no clue what they do (other than scurrying all over bitcointalk and reddit for hours a day bashing Dash and defaming it's def who's probably one of the most creative and productive people in this industry).

By stuck you know that it means it's not on the market available to trade. No matter how easy it can become "un-stuck" is irrelevant.

Throughout the time Monero's been in existence, the developers have been working on it with little compensation, they have research labs, they study before implmenting changes. Unlike Dash where Evan adds anything in an effort to hype and pump the coin. Don't say otherwise because I experienced it firsthand, anyone else can go in the Dash thread for a few months and see that's what's happening.

I also this odd:" Why dont you go and ask Evan/Dash developer why he didn't relaunch Dash/DRK after the instamine scam where he and a few others mined over 2million Dash/DRKs on a linux only release, then cut the block reward and coin supply by over half to instantly make those instamined coins more valuable, all while at that time, Dash/DRK had no future goals was just a random Bitcoin clone? You should maybe do that instead of trolling."

how much $ did you loose buy dumping DRK for XMR?  and losing those $ didn't make you angry to come and troll DRK now that it's the top alt coin and you picked the wrong coin? c'mon....

I have lost $0, how much gained is not your "business". As I said earlier I still hold Dash/DRK, but I value it with having no "longterm" success, so it's only for semi-regular trading.

[DeboraMeeks]

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?

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.

I had been quietly amassing a little pile of Dash, but these two responses have crystalized the debate for me. BlockaFett got asked a question by a highly respected Bitcoin researcher and he is too afraid to answer, choosing instead to deflect and try point out Monero's failings (especially when the continuous shout of 'gui' is crap, I can see several options on the Monero website). toknormal got smacked down by a Bitcoin core developer for saying things I can only describe as childish rubbish.

I don't know if I'll ever buy Monero but I do know that Dash is perfectly described by gmaxwell in the post above: a lot of harmful garbage and dysfunctional software. My Dash is going to be sold over the next few days. I refuse to a cryptocurrency where the fanboys imagine that cryptography is uneccessary. What a stupid thing to say.

I suggest the Dash boys go read a book on crypto before they come back to this thread. They're embarassing themselves and they're embarrasing Evan Duffield. There's a very, very small chance Evan can come into this thread and respond to andytoshi and gmaxwell and redeem Dash from the mess these idiots have made...but I'm not holding my breath.

[BlockaFett]

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?

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.

I had been quietly amassing a little pile of Dash, but these two responses have crystalized the debate for me. BlockaFett got asked a question by a highly respected Bitcoin researcher and he is too afraid to answer, choosing instead to deflect and try point out Monero's failings (especially when the continuous shout of 'gui' is crap, I can see several options on the Monero website). toknormal got smacked down by a Bitcoin core developer for saying things I can only describe as childish rubbish.

I don't know if I'll ever buy Monero but I do know that Dash is perfectly described by gmaxwell in the post above: a lot of harmful garbage and dysfunctional software. My Dash is going to be sold over the next few days. I refuse to a cryptocurrency where the fanboys imagine that cryptography is uneccessary. What a stupid thing to say.

I suggest the Dash boys go read a book on crypto before they come back to this thread. They're embarassing themselves and they're embarrasing Evan Duffield. There's a very, very small chance Evan can come into this thread and respond to andytoshi and gmaxwell and redeem Dash from the mess these idiots have made...but I'm not holding my breath.

Deborah...that's not fair because I didn't see that post..i will reply now

[majamina]

My Dash is going to be sold over the next few days. I refuse to a cryptocurrency where the fanboys imagine that cryptography is uneccessary. What a stupid thing to say.

So you think these fanboy guys are stupid, then base your investment decisions on what they say. Seems a bit strange...

[BlockaFett]

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?

the dev team, the website, any part of the wallet not doing a cryptographic function, the buyers, the masternode operators, the network transport, whatever isn't going into a cryptographic function.

...but i see what you mean.  (I think) Tok was coming from a business point of view to try to rebalance the fact that on the XMR thread devs like Fluffy keep banging on about XMR is secure due to cryptographic proof and even sites examples like Tor and SSH - which forgets the other half of cryptocurrency security which is the implementation (heartbleed etc)

[BlockaFett]

Deborah...that's not fair because I didn't see that post..i will reply now

Lol go make a run for your dash, I can almost see the "reply", the fact is you just ignored gmaxwell (the creator of coinjoin that darkcoin/dash con artists slammed into a btc clone, and shitted on with an instamed) post like dash shills does with other inconvenient facts.

^ no, i didnt read it lol. reply above

[majamina]

It seems like all that's happening here now is the monero supporters are correcting the dash supporters on the lies and inaccurate statements they constantly make. Wow...

From my point of view we have a lot of potshots, market manipulation hearsay, ad hominem attacks, irrelevant discussion about whether cryptocurrencies contain cryptography and all sorts of other crap.

Still missing are answers to some critical technical questions and any conclusion on whether the coins are fit-for-purpose.

[DeboraMeeks]

My Dash is going to be sold over the next few days. I refuse to a cryptocurrency where the fanboys imagine that cryptography is uneccessary. What a stupid thing to say.

So you think these fanboy guys are stupid, then base your investment decisions on what they say. Seems a bit strange...

I never said they are stupid, I said that what they said was stupid.

It's like the run-up to an election, you support a candidate and you think he's not entirely stupid. In a debate just before the election his supporters make signs and go on interviews saying that they don't think the opinion of the people is important, and they fully support the presidential candidate making all the decisions. The candidate keeps quiet. Eventually former presidents come forward to point out how disconnected this thinking is from reality and how dangerously close it is to supporting a dictator.

Would you keep the faith, and just ignore what is becoming more and more apparent?

[G2M]

It seems like all that's happening here now is the monero supporters are correcting the dash supporters on the lies and inaccurate statements they constantly make. Wow...

From my point of view we have a lot of potshots, market manipulation hearsay, ad hominem attacks, irrelevant discussion about whether cryptocurrencies contain cryptography and all sorts of other crap.

Still missing are answers to some critical technical questions and any conclusion on whether the coins are fit-for-purpose.

I just tried to answer it for you, in the post where I deanonymized my own transaction by taking note of the unique number of denominated inputs and outputs I created when I used darksend.

If that were to be a standard way of viewing the blockchain, then the transaction can be associated with the original receiving address.

If that receiving address was from a dice site (just an example), and I wanted to sell for USD, the USD seller could complete the sale or not based on that information alone. I could also be taxed on that information.

The fact that I could be taxed, yet possibly have no way to sell that DRK (I think coinbase just gives you some time to withdraw it, in bitcoins case), would create a situation where DRK is worth something to some people, yet worth nothing to others. Therefore by extension, could have large implications for fungibility.

[BlockaFett]

My Dash is going to be sold over the next few days. I refuse to a cryptocurrency where the fanboys imagine that cryptography is uneccessary. What a stupid thing to say.

So you think these fanboy guys are stupid, then base your investment decisions on what they say. Seems a bit strange...

I never said they are stupid, I said that what they said was stupid.

It's like the run-up to an election, you support a candidate and you think he's not entirely stupid. In a debate just before the election his supporters make signs and go on interviews saying that they don't think the opinion of the people is important, and they fully support the presidential candidate making all the decisions. The candidate keeps quiet. Eventually former presidents come forward to point out how disconnected this thinking is from reality and how dangerously close it is to supporting a dictator.

Would you keep the faith, and just ignore what is becoming more and more apparent?

XMR would be better off doing comparison with SDC...DASH has left the 'Anon coin' space already, it's now about instant fungible transactions, hence the price rise.  I think it's fantasy to compare the 2 at this stage or expect DRK dev's to down there tools and get into a troll argument designed to let XMR try to catch up to DRK since it sped off...which is all this thread is really IMO.