XMR vs DRK

[majamina]

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled without the masternode owners ever knowing, by the government. It's as simple as that.

Dude we are going round in absolute fucking circles.

Are you actually reading all the posts in this thread?

[1714479750]

1714479750

[1714479750]

1714479750

[BlockaFett]

majamina I'm going to play devil's advocate with you, so bear with me here.

No, because your transaction is easily traceable through the blockchain.

Easily? If all I want is to obfuscate I can send it to myself 1000 times through various transaction splitting and recombining, and I can send it it and out of exchanges. I can even setup a BitPay account and pay myself for fake goods. If every step in my self-mixing path has a 50/50 chance of being mine then a mix of 1000 steps plus some exchanges and BitPay is 1010 steps for example. So the chance of figuring out its me is 2 to the power of 1010. Google says that your chance of deanonymising me is 1 in 10 to the power of 304. I saw some 10 to the power of 40 numbers thrown around earlier, so are we safe in saying that Bitcoin can easily be made 7 times more private than Dash?

Well, if you get away with it, then that transaction is 'funged' yes. But 'BitcoinFog' is a trusted mixing service that could be keeping logs, reporting up to your adversary or creating some other shitstorm that you might not care to weather.

MasterNodes are also a trusted mixing service. How do you as a user prove that the MasterNodes you use not keep logs or aren't reporting to some adversary?

yes it does, that is the critical point. If you can mix the coins at will, in a trustless and sufficiently secure manner then there's your fungibility.

Security I'm less worried about, but how are MasterNodes trustless? I know, I know, there's a 1 in 10 to the power of something chance, but then why not just use Bitcoin? If you think that a 35 year old neck-beard living in his mother's basement can secure his MasterNode that is quite worrying. I never thought about it in those terms until a few hours ago. Read this and then tell me if you think that even an advanced MasterNode operator can keep it secure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

I do respect what Evan is trying to achieve but this thread has opened my eyes. Just in the past 24 hours I have read about how British Airways got hacked and Slack got hacked for days, and Nigeria's Electoral Commission website got hacked. If powerful organisations can't secure their servers what makes you think that 2,000 MasterNode operators will be any different?

If powerful organisations can't secure their servers what makes you think that 2,000 MasterNode operators will be any different?

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes.  Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes.  Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can.   There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing. It's as simple as that.

take down by 'the government' lol

Masternodes are in 30+ countries, which government you think is going to take them down exactly?

[Joshuar]

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled without the masternode owners ever knowing, by the government. It's as simple as that.

Dude we are going round in absolute fucking circles.

Are you actually reading all the posts in this thread?

Again, the manipulation. So, you have no problem with Blocka responding to these things, but when I respond you get angry..Makes sense.

[BlockaFett]

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled without the masternode owners ever knowing, by the government. It's as simple as that.

Dude we are going round in absolute fucking circles.

Are you actually reading all the posts in this thread?

Again, the manipulation. So, you have no problem with Blocka responding to these things, but when I respond you get angry..Makes sense.

because we had this convo 2 days ago already?

(masternode distribution)

[Joshuar]

majamina I'm going to play devil's advocate with you, so bear with me here.

No, because your transaction is easily traceable through the blockchain.

Easily? If all I want is to obfuscate I can send it to myself 1000 times through various transaction splitting and recombining, and I can send it it and out of exchanges. I can even setup a BitPay account and pay myself for fake goods. If every step in my self-mixing path has a 50/50 chance of being mine then a mix of 1000 steps plus some exchanges and BitPay is 1010 steps for example. So the chance of figuring out its me is 2 to the power of 1010. Google says that your chance of deanonymising me is 1 in 10 to the power of 304. I saw some 10 to the power of 40 numbers thrown around earlier, so are we safe in saying that Bitcoin can easily be made 7 times more private than Dash?

Well, if you get away with it, then that transaction is 'funged' yes. But 'BitcoinFog' is a trusted mixing service that could be keeping logs, reporting up to your adversary or creating some other shitstorm that you might not care to weather.

MasterNodes are also a trusted mixing service. How do you as a user prove that the MasterNodes you use not keep logs or aren't reporting to some adversary?

yes it does, that is the critical point. If you can mix the coins at will, in a trustless and sufficiently secure manner then there's your fungibility.

Security I'm less worried about, but how are MasterNodes trustless? I know, I know, there's a 1 in 10 to the power of something chance, but then why not just use Bitcoin? If you think that a 35 year old neck-beard living in his mother's basement can secure his MasterNode that is quite worrying. I never thought about it in those terms until a few hours ago. Read this and then tell me if you think that even an advanced MasterNode operator can keep it secure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

I do respect what Evan is trying to achieve but this thread has opened my eyes. Just in the past 24 hours I have read about how British Airways got hacked and Slack got hacked for days, and Nigeria's Electoral Commission website got hacked. If powerful organisations can't secure their servers what makes you think that 2,000 MasterNode operators will be any different?

If powerful organisations can't secure their servers what makes you think that 2,000 MasterNode operators will be any different?

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes.  Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes.  Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can.   There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing. It's as simple as that.

take down by 'the government' lol

Masternodes are in 30+ countries, which government you think is going to take them down exactly?

VPS hosting websites/companies can host those nodes wherever, but it's still under the control or superivison of that one website or company. You're interpreting it wrong as if each country has a different VPS company or website for those nodes when it could be one VPS with the ability to host in 30 different countries.

Say I'm in Canada, I can go to 1 website and host 3 differnet nodes in 3 different countries if I wanted, but they are all under the superivison of that 1 website...Get it?

[majamina]

Again, the manipulation. So, you have no problem responding to these things, but when I respond you get angry..Makes sense.

I do apologise. I've been very level headed on here, for the most part.

It's just that when you regurgitate these arguments that we've covered several times before it's somewhat exasperating.

[BlockaFett]

majamina I'm going to play devil's advocate with you, so bear with me here.

No, because your transaction is easily traceable through the blockchain.

Easily? If all I want is to obfuscate I can send it to myself 1000 times through various transaction splitting and recombining, and I can send it it and out of exchanges. I can even setup a BitPay account and pay myself for fake goods. If every step in my self-mixing path has a 50/50 chance of being mine then a mix of 1000 steps plus some exchanges and BitPay is 1010 steps for example. So the chance of figuring out its me is 2 to the power of 1010. Google says that your chance of deanonymising me is 1 in 10 to the power of 304. I saw some 10 to the power of 40 numbers thrown around earlier, so are we safe in saying that Bitcoin can easily be made 7 times more private than Dash?

Well, if you get away with it, then that transaction is 'funged' yes. But 'BitcoinFog' is a trusted mixing service that could be keeping logs, reporting up to your adversary or creating some other shitstorm that you might not care to weather.

MasterNodes are also a trusted mixing service. How do you as a user prove that the MasterNodes you use not keep logs or aren't reporting to some adversary?

yes it does, that is the critical point. If you can mix the coins at will, in a trustless and sufficiently secure manner then there's your fungibility.

Security I'm less worried about, but how are MasterNodes trustless? I know, I know, there's a 1 in 10 to the power of something chance, but then why not just use Bitcoin? If you think that a 35 year old neck-beard living in his mother's basement can secure his MasterNode that is quite worrying. I never thought about it in those terms until a few hours ago. Read this and then tell me if you think that even an advanced MasterNode operator can keep it secure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

I do respect what Evan is trying to achieve but this thread has opened my eyes. Just in the past 24 hours I have read about how British Airways got hacked and Slack got hacked for days, and Nigeria's Electoral Commission website got hacked. If powerful organisations can't secure their servers what makes you think that 2,000 MasterNode operators will be any different?

If powerful organisations can't secure their servers what makes you think that 2,000 MasterNode operators will be any different?

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes.  Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes.  Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can.   There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing. It's as simple as that.

take down by 'the government' lol

Masternodes are in 30+ countries, which government you think is going to take them down exactly?

VPS hosting websites/companies can host those nodes wherever, but it's still under the control or superivison of that one website or company. You're interpreting it wrong as if each country has a different VPS company or website for those nodes when it could be one VPS with the ability to host in 30 different countries.

you said ' therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing'

i said 'Masternodes are in 30+ countries, which government you think is going to take them down exactly?'

so which government were you talking about?  or now you are saying there is one VPS company running them all?  What are you saying?

[toknormal]

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing. It's as simple as that.

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

[Joshuar]

Again, the manipulation. So, you have no problem responding to these things, but when I respond you get angry..Makes sense.

I do apologise. I've been very level headed on here, for the most part.

It's just that when you regurgitate these arguments that we've covered several times before it's somewhat exasperating.

Ok yes this is boring for me as well, hopefully some third reputable party that's not really involved with the altcoin community with no financial stake in either coins could give a review on the code etc.

[Joshuar]

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing. It's as simple as that.

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

You're a troll, and the worst type(Liars). You've already lied once and said a ton of plain wrong comments showing your misunderstanding of basic concepts.

Masternodes on Dash/DRK and Regular Nodes, such as with Monero, are much different(Masternodes for Dash provide much functions than a regular node, and thus centralization or hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node)

[DeboraMeeks]

ok you genuine so i will reply...

Thank you darling:)

first thing is please bare in mind if you just read 1000 posts from XMR people it's like entering an alternate reality where there is this duel to the death between Dash and Monero - there isn't.

I started buying Dash because I read much more than 1,000 posts on the Dash thread. I have taken the time to read many threads on the Monero thread although I don't think I've read nearly as many Dash threads. Don't think that this thread was my first stop!

Monero was a clone rushed out after DRK along with at least 13 other CryptoNote coins, all cut and paste some code that has very dubious origins - no actual innovation themselves.

My research has demonstrated that is incorrect. Monero was launched by thankful_for_today and it was based on the cryptonote reference code. That is note dubious that is fact. You can verify this easily by going on github (when it isn't under attack) and checking old Monero commits when it was forked versus the cryptonote reference code they have. It is the same and it is not dubious.

Cryptonote was new and exciting so of course there were forks. You say that there were 13 forks like its a bad thing but Dash has 40 or 50 forks. And isn't Dash a clone of Bitcoin? When I look at the code it looks that way, and MapofCoins says it is just a clone of Quark that is a clone of Bitcoin.

DRK rejected Cryptonote in favour of own system based on coinjoin but transposed to a 2nd tier (fullnodes that also provide services), but was closed source so the clones had to use the best tech available at the time - Cryptonote, which they all did including Monero.

That is revisionist history. The cryptonote whitepaper is from October 2013, long before Evan even imagined Darkcoin. Also Evan said he was going to add ring signatures to Dash but never did, so even Evan would admit that the 'best tech available at the time' was cryptonote.

(and I think DRK rejected CN because main aspect of the architecture is that if any backdoor or shortcut is found in the cryptology or implementation, your whole history can be deanonimized anytime in the future just from the blockchain - in basic architectural terms your anonimity is at much higher risk than system like DRK whereby anonymization cannot be reversed without compromising nearly all masternodes at the time of the anonymisation. in the future if a whole is found in any cryptonote implementation, bang, the whole currency dies.  In drk, if wholes are found, they can be patched as they go along which they have been whenever they were found)

You are oversimplifying things, blockafett. I have looked at Monero and cryptonote and you have to crack a 256 bit key to remove the anonymity. If you read the Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_attack it says "Breaking a symmetric 256-bit key by brute force requires 2¹²⁸ times more computational power than a 128-bit key. 50 supercomputers that could check a billion billion (10¹⁸) AES keys per second (if such a device could ever be made) would, in theory, require about 3×10⁵¹ years to exhaust the 256-bit key space."

With Dash you are trusting 1 in 2,000 MasterNodes which is only 2¹¹. I don't think you can imagine how big 2²⁵⁶ is.

What's happening now is that DRK invented Instant transactions (which evolved out of the 2-tier innovation), which is obviously a lot bigger than just an 'anon coin' so the market is taking notice - my own opinion is that all alts are essentially proof of concept, they will nevere work in the full market because no one wants to wait 1-15 minutes to pay for something, espeically at point of sale.  Solving this makes first viable alt to Bitcion because it's something that will really help crypto get out of the underground and into Guy-on-the-street's wallet.

Greenaddress solved it before Evan even thought about it. From what I have read InstantX is the same as the greenaddress system except you have to trust the MasterNodes. I also think that every Dash investor needs to read this article: http://cointelegraph.com/news/113482/jeff-garzik-on-instant-confirmations-hope-is-the-denial-of-reality - "Jeff Garzik on Instant Confirmations: 'Hope is the Denial of Reality'"

Then DRK price rises in accordance, and suddenly wave after wave of XMR post accusing of instamine, centralization, etc comes in day after day - so does XMR look like it's in a position of strength or that it's bitter that DRK is leaving it behind in an Anon coin space, which Drk created, without a paddle?

I'm a Bitcoin holder. I've seen my holdings crash from over $1,000 per Bitcoin to the $240 it is at now. The market is stupid and irrational. I can't trust them to make a decision for me.

So (coupled with the other issues I said about XMR market situation which i won't go into) this is just all smoke and mirrors by XMR to try to show some symetry to boost XMR price and keep it relevant (with non-instant transactions and 'anon coin' branding).  But it's fatal mistake because XMR needs to fight to stay relevant by *developing new features the market wants* which is not something they appear to be doing quite the opposite.

I don't think they have to develop 'features'. I think they have to build on their solid foundation, and maybe in 6 months or a year when I want to get back into this space I'll buy in to Monero. From what I can see the tech is serious and long-term, but I want to give it time to mature.

For new investors to DASH if you are on this thread it comes down to if you buy the accusations of early emission being a deliberate scam and if masternodes are centralized (which for be being there from week 2 is just fluff).

The instamine is real but I take what Evan says as fact. I do believe that there are others besides Evan that mined hundreds of thousands of Dash in the first day. Maybe it will kill Dash when they cash out, I don't know. I also know that MasterNodes are centralised and I bought Dash in spite of it. I'm getting out of Dash partly because of it. Let's not pretend MasterNodes are somehow decentralised as all we are doing is insulting the cryptographers and computer scientists that are smarter than we are and who actually design decentralised systems.

[Joshuar]

majamina I'm going to play devil's advocate with you, so bear with me here.

No, because your transaction is easily traceable through the blockchain.

Easily? If all I want is to obfuscate I can send it to myself 1000 times through various transaction splitting and recombining, and I can send it it and out of exchanges. I can even setup a BitPay account and pay myself for fake goods. If every step in my self-mixing path has a 50/50 chance of being mine then a mix of 1000 steps plus some exchanges and BitPay is 1010 steps for example. So the chance of figuring out its me is 2 to the power of 1010. Google says that your chance of deanonymising me is 1 in 10 to the power of 304. I saw some 10 to the power of 40 numbers thrown around earlier, so are we safe in saying that Bitcoin can easily be made 7 times more private than Dash?

Well, if you get away with it, then that transaction is 'funged' yes. But 'BitcoinFog' is a trusted mixing service that could be keeping logs, reporting up to your adversary or creating some other shitstorm that you might not care to weather.

MasterNodes are also a trusted mixing service. How do you as a user prove that the MasterNodes you use not keep logs or aren't reporting to some adversary?

yes it does, that is the critical point. If you can mix the coins at will, in a trustless and sufficiently secure manner then there's your fungibility.

Security I'm less worried about, but how are MasterNodes trustless? I know, I know, there's a 1 in 10 to the power of something chance, but then why not just use Bitcoin? If you think that a 35 year old neck-beard living in his mother's basement can secure his MasterNode that is quite worrying. I never thought about it in those terms until a few hours ago. Read this and then tell me if you think that even an advanced MasterNode operator can keep it secure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_(2013–present)

I do respect what Evan is trying to achieve but this thread has opened my eyes. Just in the past 24 hours I have read about how British Airways got hacked and Slack got hacked for days, and Nigeria's Electoral Commission website got hacked. If powerful organisations can't secure their servers what makes you think that 2,000 MasterNode operators will be any different?

If powerful organisations can't secure their servers what makes you think that 2,000 MasterNode operators will be any different?

Debora its the same as Bitcoin's fullnodes.  Masternodes are just people's wallets running with masternode=1 in the config. Plus you need 1000 coins in there to make it work so a lot easier to attack fullnodes than masternodes.  Plus taking over masternode network you couldn't actually make any $, takover BTC nodes and you can.   There is zero merit to all this crap about masternodes being 'easy to compromise' or being 'centralized', it only works if you have 20 butthurt XMR drones who try to make it true by posting it 2000 times - it's just a lie.

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing. It's as simple as that.

take down by 'the government' lol

Masternodes are in 30+ countries, which government you think is going to take them down exactly?

VPS hosting websites/companies can host those nodes wherever, but it's still under the control or superivison of that one website or company. You're interpreting it wrong as if each country has a different VPS company or website for those nodes when it could be one VPS with the ability to host in 30 different countries.

you said ' therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing'

i said 'Masternodes are in 30+ countries, which government you think is going to take them down exactly?'

so which government were you talking about?  or now you are saying there is one VPS company running them all?  What are you saying?

I'm saying that you need to get the statistics for the websites these nodes are hosted on. Just saying it's in 30 different countries is meaningless, as I can go to one VPS hosting company and host a node in 3 different countries If I'd like, itd still be centralized and under "superivison" of that hosting provider however.

[smooth]

Yeah sure, if you want to do all that then go for it. BTC is your new anon coin

This is not an insignificant point. One of gmaxwell's criticisms of darkcoin/dash using coinjoin (which he invented) is that you can use coinjoin on Bitcoin. There are several different ways of doing that today, and if you use a few of them you are protected from the weaknesses of any of them in the same way that using multiple masternodes protects you from the weaknesses of one. Apparently there is a significant amount of coinjoin going on with Bitcoin right now.

Sure, this is maybe more inconvenient than using darkcoin/dash with masternodes and support built into the wallet (though I don't really know what people are using for Bitcoin-based-coinjoin so I can't entirely say) but the trade off for that is being isolated from the enormously larger set of Bitcoin users, Bitcoin services, and Bitcoin liquidity.

The point being, if you are going to use an altcoin at all, it better be one that is at least fundamentally different from what you can accomplish with Bitcoin otherwise it is mostly just a speculative trading game (i.e. fantasy stock market).

To be fair I think instantx, for all of its potential flaws, is a better case for this than darksend, and I (believe it or not) mostly agree with BlockaFett when he says that darkcoin/dash is abandoning the anonymity problem (or at least should be) and focusing on being a fast payment rail like Ripple. The reason is not even Monero it all, it is Bitcoin. When it comes to anon, darkcoin/dash just isn't differentiated enough from what systems (current and future) layered right on top of Bitcoin can accomplish, and never wlll be with the existing architecture.

[majamina]

right I should get some sleep, it's getting late.

I'll just quote a snippet from my earlier post again....come on XMR guys, persuade me to jump ship

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

[BlockaFett]

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing. It's as simple as that.

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

You're a troll. You've already lied once and said a ton of plain wrong comments showing your misunderstanding of basic concepts. Please just stop. Masternodes and Regular Nodes are much different(Masternodes for Dash provide much functions than a regular node, and thus centralization or hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node)

we covered this already too didn't we?  

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?

[vokain]

It's not bad like Bitcoin, but the point of vulnerability where Dash can cross the "not fungible" threshold lies in the Masternode scheme. CryptoNote does not have this vulnerability.

sure I agree with that, but nobody has been able to show how anyone less than NSA/guv could take DASH across that line.

Okay, the major point still stands, if we're going to upset TPTB's entire financial system with a protocol that allows us to opt out, you're going to want that on-chain anonymity to not have to trust anyone else to ensure your anonymity against said PTB.

But we already agreed, several times on this thread, that against TLA/guv adversary all bets are off.

All coins is fucked, is what we said.

At which point we get back to the still unanswered 'fit-for-purpose' argument.

Is DASH providing sufficient privacy for all sub-TLA adversaries?

If it is, and it's got loads of other great features (InstantX, BTC API compatibilty, two-factor authentication etc), then it's full of win

Here's how I see one scenario, you want to destroy a network? Taking out even a few Masternodes based on say, evidence of "facilitating illegal trade" (technically because all trade runs through Masternodes), might incite a system-wide panic amongst all masternode owners, quickly compromising network security, perhaps enough to reduce the amount of Masternodes to a more attainable amount to fully compromise. Monero nodes are a few steps away from this vulnerability because compromising nodes don't compromise anonymity because the anonymity is not dependent on third party mixers, probably even in the case of double-spend attack thresholds (idk for sure), so attacks will be more individualized. I think even compromising 100% of nodes won't compromise anonymity assuming other safe practices.

[Joshuar]

Most if not all masternodes are hosted on centralized servers, therefore making them easy to take down or get controlled by the government without the masternode owners ever knowing. It's as simple as that.

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

You're a troll. You've already lied once and said a ton of plain wrong comments showing your misunderstanding of basic concepts. Please just stop. Masternodes and Regular Nodes are much different(Masternodes for Dash provide much functions than a regular node, and thus centralization or hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node)

we covered this already too didn't we?  

even if you gained control of 51% of masternodes, you would have:

1) 0.000000000000000000000403286875% probability of deanonymizing a transaction

2) 0.0% of making any money

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1001642.msg10900308#msg10900308

so 'hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node' is just a crock and you know it because we already talked about it right?

Hey, all I said was it's more dangerous to host a masternode than a regular node, for fear of centralization, getting compromised by gov or other authority, having large amounts of nodes shut down by an attacker which would "end" the anonymity, etc and yes I've seen this conversation before, I simply responded to what you said earlier. I wasn't talking about the chance of deanonymizing anything.

[toknormal]

Masternodes on Dash/DRK and Regular Nodes, such as with Monero, are much different(Masternodes for Dash provide much functions than a regular node, and thus centralization or hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node)

No they're not.

Bitcoin or Monero full nodes are far more important to the integrity of their respective currency's blockchain than masternodes are to Dash's.

Thanks for calling me a "liar" - very noble of you. But I'm afraid that perception has more to do with your understanding (or lack therefore) of technical terms than my bad faith.

[Joshuar]

Masternodes on Dash/DRK and Regular Nodes, such as with Monero, are much different(Masternodes for Dash provide much functions than a regular node, and thus centralization or hosting it on a centralized server is much more "dangerous" than for a regular node)

No they're not.

Bitcoin or Monero full nodes are far more important to the integrity of their respective currency's blockchain than masternodes are to Dash's.

Thanks for calling me a "liar" - very noble of you. But I'm afraid that perception has more to do with your understanding (or lack therefore) of technical terms than my bad faith.

Would you like me to quote all that was said again, where you lied about the liquidity of XMR and DRK, where you thought bitmonerod was a wallet, where you said that cryptography was hardly used by cryptocurrencies, and where you didnt even know what liquidity was by saying volume has nothing to with liquidity? Just please stop, you've made more incorrect statements today than I can count on both hands... You've been corrected by almost everyone in this thread. I honestly can't tell whether you're just trolling, plain lying, or just that misinformed on basic concepts.

[DeboraMeeks]

I'm assuming DeboraMeek's female for some reason--dunno, why....

And they say there are no ladies in crypto!