XMR vs DRK

[iCEBREAKER]

Also, how much do you really know about Evan & the DASH foundation's mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  Not a lot I'd wager.

We don't know much about THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. and its mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  But what we do no does not look good.

That fishy lack of transparency is one of the reasons stated by vertoe for his quitting the project.

What brand theft? I believe Dashcoin(which is clearly not branded DASH) was negotiated with and OK'ed the Dash brand name?

Besides, these crypto"currencies" are really not copyrighting anything, they just copy opensource code and replace the name of it.

The Dashcoin community was not consulted nor bought out properly. 

TDFI (THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.) intends to trademark the term 'DASH' and is using Dashcoin and Dashcoiners as pawns in its legal gamesmanship.

TDFI is all about branding and marketing, not tech.  They copy BTC innovations, rename them, and pretend Duffman invented them.

That's how Green Addresses are magically now called InstantX, and so on.  It's all been documented.

[tidesoaked]

Also, how much do you really know about Evan & the DASH foundation's mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  Not a lot I'd wager.

We don't know much about THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. and its mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  But what we do no does not look good.

That fishy lack of transparency is one of the reasons stated by vertoe for his quitting the project.

What brand theft? I believe Dashcoin(which is clearly not branded DASH) was negotiated with and OK'ed the Dash brand name?

Besides, these crypto"currencies" are really not copyrighting anything, they just copy opensource code and replace the name of it.

The Dashcoin community was not consulted nor bought out properly. 

TDFI (THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.) intends to trademark the term 'DASH' and is using Dashcoin and Dashcoiners as pawns in its legal gamesmanship.

TDFI is all about branding and marketing, not tech.  They copy BTC innovations, rename them, and pretend Duffman invented them.

That's how Green Addresses are magically now called InstantX, and so on.  It's all been documented.

Well, to me it seems like "The Dashcoin community" would have to copyright the trademark both Dash and Dashcoin in that case. I don't believe they did, and if they did they could practically sue Dash I suppose.

We have to remember that this is all community driven, and what's the problem if one coin is called Dash and another is called Dashcoin? It's like Bitcoin would have the right to sue any other coin that is named Bit[whatever]? I really don't see the problem here.

When it comes to open source there are very few rules. The Linux foundation doesn't sue Linux Mint, for example.

[qvan]

Also, how much do you really know about Evan & the DASH foundation's mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  Not a lot I'd wager.

We don't know much about THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. and its mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  But what we do no does not look good.

That fishy lack of transparency is one of the reasons stated by vertoe for his quitting the project.

What brand theft? I believe Dashcoin(which is clearly not branded DASH) was negotiated with and OK'ed the Dash brand name?

Besides, these crypto"currencies" are really not copyrighting anything, they just copy opensource code and replace the name of it.

The Dashcoin community was not consulted nor bought out properly.  

TDFI (THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.) intends to trademark the term 'DASH' and is using Dashcoin and Dashcoiners as pawns in its legal gamesmanship.

TDFI is all about branding and marketing, not tech.  They copy BTC innovations, rename them, and pretend Duffman invented them.

That's how Green Addresses are magically now called InstantX, and so on.  It's all been documented.

Well, to me it seems like "The Dashcoin community" would have to copyright the trademark both Dash and Dashcoin in that case. I don't believe they did, and if they did they could practically sue Dash I suppose.

We have to remember that this is all community driven, and what's the problem if one coin is called Dash and another is called Dashcoin? It's like Bitcoin would have the right to sue any other coin that is named Bit[whatever]? I really don't see the problem here.

When it comes to open source there are very few rules. The Linux foundation doesn't sue Linux Mint, for example.

here's the catch, DASH is a coin like any other coin example: dashcoin....but if you ask them they will say we are not a coin lol

confusion in the is what they brought upon crypto currency market and why not just rename to DASH without buying dashcoin github and paying dashcoin dev to leave the project? Evan said "this project will not continue". it is an indirect way of killing a coin telling the community in a way to dump and leave.

edit: that's darkcoin/dash greatest technological breakthrough turning a coin into a non-coin 

[tidesoaked]

Also, how much do you really know about Evan & the DASH foundation's mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  Not a lot I'd wager.

We don't know much about THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. and its mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  But what we do no does not look good.

That fishy lack of transparency is one of the reasons stated by vertoe for his quitting the project.

What brand theft? I believe Dashcoin(which is clearly not branded DASH) was negotiated with and OK'ed the Dash brand name?

Besides, these crypto"currencies" are really not copyrighting anything, they just copy opensource code and replace the name of it.

The Dashcoin community was not consulted nor bought out properly. 

TDFI (THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.) intends to trademark the term 'DASH' and is using Dashcoin and Dashcoiners as pawns in its legal gamesmanship.

TDFI is all about branding and marketing, not tech.  They copy BTC innovations, rename them, and pretend Duffman invented them.

That's how Green Addresses are magically now called InstantX, and so on.  It's all been documented.

Well, to me it seems like "The Dashcoin community" would have to copyright the trademark both Dash and Dashcoin in that case. I don't believe they did, and if they did they could practically sue Dash I suppose.

We have to remember that this is all community driven, and what's the problem if one coin is called Dash and another is called Dashcoin? It's like Bitcoin would have the right to sue any other coin that is named Bit[whatever]? I really don't see the problem here.

When it comes to open source there are very few rules. The Linux foundation doesn't sue Linux Mint, for example.

here's the catch, DASH is a coin like any other coin example: dashcoin....but if you ask them they will say we are not a coin lol

confusion in the is what they brought upon crypto currency market and why not just rename to DASH without buying dashcoin github and paying dashcoin dev to leave the project? Evan said "this project will not continue". it is an indirect way of killing a coin telling the community in a way to dump and leave.

Yes, to me that seems a bit unnecessary tbh. But I suppose people could continue the Dashcoin-project regardless if it has been abandoned by the original developer. The original developer shouldn't have sold out an open source project, in fact, I don't believe that's really possible as long as the code is open source.

[qvan]

Also, how much do you really know about Evan & the DASH foundation's mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  Not a lot I'd wager.

We don't know much about THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC. and its mysterious funding sources, insider trading, brand theft, investment fraud, etc.  But what we do no does not look good.

That fishy lack of transparency is one of the reasons stated by vertoe for his quitting the project.

What brand theft? I believe Dashcoin(which is clearly not branded DASH) was negotiated with and OK'ed the Dash brand name?

Besides, these crypto"currencies" are really not copyrighting anything, they just copy opensource code and replace the name of it.

The Dashcoin community was not consulted nor bought out properly. 

TDFI (THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.) intends to trademark the term 'DASH' and is using Dashcoin and Dashcoiners as pawns in its legal gamesmanship.

TDFI is all about branding and marketing, not tech.  They copy BTC innovations, rename them, and pretend Duffman invented them.

That's how Green Addresses are magically now called InstantX, and so on.  It's all been documented.

Well, to me it seems like "The Dashcoin community" would have to copyright the trademark both Dash and Dashcoin in that case. I don't believe they did, and if they did they could practically sue Dash I suppose.

We have to remember that this is all community driven, and what's the problem if one coin is called Dash and another is called Dashcoin? It's like Bitcoin would have the right to sue any other coin that is named Bit[whatever]? I really don't see the problem here.

When it comes to open source there are very few rules. The Linux foundation doesn't sue Linux Mint, for example.

here's the catch, DASH is a coin like any other coin example: dashcoin....but if you ask them they will say we are not a coin lol

confusion in the is what they brought upon crypto currency market and why not just rename to DASH without buying dashcoin github and paying dashcoin dev to leave the project? Evan said "this project will not continue". it is an indirect way of killing a coin telling the community in a way to dump and leave.

Yes, to me that seems a bit unnecessary tbh. But I suppose people could continue the Dashcoin-project regardless if it has been abandoned by the original developer. The original developer shouldn't have sold out an open source project, in fact, I don't believe that's really possible as long as the code is open source.

it is very unlikely that the dev will to go to evan to sell, i think it was evan who made an offer..they know it is open source so maybe they tried to kill it with evan and darkcoin FUD..no matter how small dashcoin is, they underestimated the power of decentralization so dashcoin is till alive, small and without a dev for now.

[majamina]

I get the feeling this thread has just about run it's course:

1. Lots of criticism, both technical and non-technical of DASH from the outset
2. Reasonable responses from myself, illodin and others
3. DASH critics fail to follow-up on critical technical points
4. Critics regurgitate old arguments, add very little new information and still fail to follow up on critical technical points
5. GOTO 2

I'm still ready to be persuaded that DASH is fatally flawed as the critics make out.

If we continue as above, that speaks volumes imo.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm still ready to be persuaded that DASH is fatally flawed as the critics make out.

It's not (just) the critics you should be persuaded by.

It's more about vertoe, the insider-turned-whistleblower, who has confirmed that DarkDash is a scammy shitcoin and doomed to failure:

darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity.

this currency is lead by a single person.

darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid.

fuck this i tell you.

darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person.

the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing.

the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity.

you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.

what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning?

You, majamina, simply refuse to acknowledge the facts which threaten your goal to "win a gold donkey" and "exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space."

If a former DRK core dev says "things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity" who are you to argue?

You are obviously not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.

[majamina]

You, majamina, simply refuse to acknowledge the facts which threaten your goal to "win a gold donkey" and "exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space."

If a former DRK core dev says "things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity" who are you to argue?

You are obviously not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.

I already gave my opinion on Vertoe's comments.

I'll tell you why I'm here. I'm a professional guy with a pile of money tied up in crypto, quite a bit in DASH. I'm not a DASH 'fanboy' or whatever you may think, I've barely ever posted on the ANN thread and don't support any coin like a sports team.

I'm here because there's been a lot of noise about DASH lately, mostly from the likes of you and people directly involved with XMR. I saw this thread as a good opportunity to test out all the accusations of trolling, fud and crap tech coming from both sides. I've made a massive contribution to try and find the TRUTH about DASH technology and the criticisms against it.

See my post above for how I think this is working out.

[majamina]

Are you even reading the thread? DASH has been thoroughly pwned with former members of the community and even former DEVs openly speaking about the flaws both in the ethics as in the code.

No it hasn't. Perhaps you can demonstrate how it has, rather than posting a silly meme and making a blanket statement.

[qvan]

I'll tell you why I'm here. I'm a professional guy with a pile of money tied up in crypto, quite a bit in DASH.

that is clouding your judgement..only invest what you can afford to lose  

[iCEBREAKER]

You, majamina, simply refuse to acknowledge the facts which threaten your goal to "win a gold donkey" and "exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space."

If a former DRK core dev says "things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity" who are you to argue?

You are obviously not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.

I already gave my opinion on Vertoe's comments.

I'll tell you why I'm here. I'm a professional guy with a pile of money tied up in crypto, quite a bit in DASH. I'm not a DASH 'fanboy' or whatever you may think, I've barely ever posted on the ANN thread and don't support any coin like a sports team.

I'm here because there's been a lot of noise about DASH lately, mostly from the likes of you and people directly involved with XMR. I saw this thread as a good opportunity to test out all the accusations of trolling, fud and crap tech coming from both sides. I've made a massive contribution to try and find the TRUTH about DASH technology and the criticisms against it.

See my post above for how I think this is working out.

Vertoe isn't on any "side."  He's now a neutral observer, albeit one with ultimate insider knowledge of Dash's "fishy and untransparent" activities.

You are holding a dumpster full of DigitalTrash.  All you contribute is your bias and self-interest in winning a gold donkey.

[majamina]

that is clouding your judgement..only invest what you can afford to lose 

 

[GingerAle]

I get the feeling this thread has just about run it's course:

1. Lots of criticism, both technical and non-technical of DASH from the outset
2. Reasonable responses from myself, illodin and others
3. DASH critics fail to follow-up on critical technical points
4. Critics regurgitate old arguments, add very little new information and still fail to follow up on critical technical points
5. GOTO 2

I'm still ready to be persuaded that DASH is fatally flawed as the critics make out.

If we continue as above, that speaks volumes imo.

unfortunately, I don't have the chops to address the technical points - I never claimed to. And I hate to pull the dev worship card, but unfortunately those that really have the chops (xmr devs) are discouraged to respond, because they are accused of wasting their time and not developing their coin. So in that sense, this thread ran its course before it even started, because the XMR devs are probably exasperated with the cycle of providing critiques and then getting lambasted for providing critiques. Someone could probably index the existing responses.

I feel this is still relevant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144471.msg9764161#msg9764161

and yes, I just routed that from someone elses post. This one: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/


As a relative noob, my analysis boils down to this (and I apologize if its just "continuing as above): both of the coins privacy technology, when distilled to a single factor, rely on 1 if-then statement.

DRK: if the masternode network is secure, then my transactions are private
XMR: if the cryptographic mechanism is secure, then my transactions are private

(but I could be totally wrong on either of them - this is just me presenting my formed opinion on the matter)

So, IMO, the DRK if-then is human-centric, whereas the XMR if-then is ... math-centric? cryptography-centric?

basically, you could give 1000 monkeys a bunch of computers with monero installed and if they managed to pound a bunch of keys that sent a transaction, there'd be no way to trace it.

On the other hand, if you gave 1000 monkeys a bunch of computers with DRK / DASH installed, you'd have to get them to keep X amount in a cold wallet and make sure their masternode was secure etc etc.


For me, this is the essence of cryptocurrencies - to remove the human element.

I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPcB3vWGO9k

[majamina]

You are holding a dumpster full of DigitalTrash.  All you contribute is your bias and self-interest in winning a gold donkey.

I may have been defending DASH and demonstrating a certain bias on this thread, but that's because I'm invested in the coin based on my own time-consuming assessment of the technology and team.

I don't think anyone could say I've been unreasonable in that defence. I just want to see if these criticisms, mainly the technical ones, have any basis in reality. If DASH is fatally flawed as you all make out I'll dump the lot.

Nobody has been able to persuade me, in fact quite the opposite.

[majamina]

unfortunately, I don't have the chops to address the technical points - I never claimed to. And I hate to pull the dev worship card, but unfortunately those that really have the chops (xmr devs) are discouraged to respond, because they are accused of wasting their time and not developing their coin. So in that sense, this thread ran its course before it even started, because the XMR devs are probably exasperated with the cycle of providing critiques and then getting lambasted for providing critiques. Someone could probably index the existing responses.

Smooth has been responding, up until last night.

Fluffypony was responding earlier. He got it wrong about Darksend and for DASH in general he basically said 'I know it's flaky' but wasn't prepared to define exactly why, saying he can't devote time to it unless he gets paid. Fair enough, but hardly convincing.

Smart as these guys are I don't think they completely understand how DASH works, they just dismiss it out-of-hand because of an elitist opinion of the general architecture.

On the other hand, if you gave 1000 monkeys a bunch of computers with DRK / DASH installed, you'd have to get them to keep X amount in a cold wallet and make sure their masternode was secure etc etc.


For me, this is the essence of cryptocurrencies - to remove the human element.

I agree with you, but when we've got down to the detail nobody has been able to say how masternodes present a realistic risk due to the 'human element'. A recent post from illodin asking what data an attacker would hope to get from a compromised node hasn't been answered.

[Hueristic]

You are holding a dumpster full of DigitalTrash.  All you contribute is your bias and self-interest in winning a gold donkey.

I may have been defending DASH and demonstrating a certain bias on this thread, but that's because I'm invested in the coin based on my own time-consuming assessment of the technology and team.

I don't think anyone could say I've been unreasonable in that defence. I just want to see if these criticisms, mainly the technical ones, have any basis in reality. If DASH is fatally flawed as you all make out I'll dump the lot.

Nobody has been able to persuade me, in fact quite the opposite.

It's your money do what you want with it, burn it for all we care. You asked and were answered. All you are doing is wasting everyone's time over and over again. I'll link this thread for you in 6 months when your holdings are worthless. But I'm sure you will have divested by then as selling while stating the opposite is par for the crowd you are in.

[majamina]

It's your money do what you want with it, burn it for all we care. You asked and were answered.

But I wasn't answered, that's the point.

[Hueristic]

It's your money do what you want with it, burn it for all we care. You asked and were answered.

But I wasn't answered, that's the point.

I must have missed that, why don't you state an unequivocal question that you feel was not answered and I will answer it for you. 300 XMR per hour will cover the consulting fee. I will begin work as soon as the funds are received. Or you may send it in a PM if you wish.

[majamina]

It's your money do what you want with it, burn it for all we care. You asked and were answered.

But I wasn't answered, that's the point.

I must have missed that, why don't you state an unequivocal question that you feel was not answered and I will answer it for you. 300 XMR per hour will cover the consulting fee. I will begin work as soon as the funds are received. Or you may send it in a PM if you wish.

Just about says it all really.

Will look forward to you linking my post in 6 months when I've lost all my holdings.

[BlockaFett]

I get the feeling this thread has just about run it's course:

1. Lots of criticism, both technical and non-technical of DASH from the outset
2. Reasonable responses from myself, illodin and others
3. DASH critics fail to follow-up on critical technical points
4. Critics regurgitate old arguments, add very little new information and still fail to follow up on critical technical points
5. GOTO 2

I'm still ready to be persuaded that DASH is fatally flawed as the critics make out.

If we continue as above, that speaks volumes imo.

unfortunately, I don't have the chops to address the technical points - I never claimed to. And I hate to pull the dev worship card, but unfortunately those that really have the chops (xmr devs) are discouraged to respond, because they are accused of wasting their time and not developing their coin. So in that sense, this thread ran its course before it even started, because the XMR devs are probably exasperated with the cycle of providing critiques and then getting lambasted for providing critiques. Someone could probably index the existing responses.

I feel this is still relevant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144471.msg9764161#msg9764161

and yes, I just routed that from someone elses post. This one: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/


As a relative noob, my analysis boils down to this (and I apologize if its just "continuing as above): both of the coins privacy technology, when distilled to a single factor, rely on 1 if-then statement.

DRK: if the masternode network is secure, then my transactions are private
XMR: if the cryptographic mechanism is secure, then my transactions are private

(but I could be totally wrong on either of them - this is just me presenting my formed opinion on the matter)

So, IMO, the DRK if-then is human-centric, whereas the XMR if-then is ... math-centric? cryptography-centric?

basically, you could give 1000 monkeys a bunch of computers with monero installed and if they managed to pound a bunch of keys that sent a transaction, there'd be no way to trace it.

On the other hand, if you gave 1000 monkeys a bunch of computers with DRK / DASH installed, you'd have to get them to keep X amount in a cold wallet and make sure their masternode was secure etc etc.


For me, this is the essence of cryptocurrencies - to remove the human element.

I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPcB3vWGO9k

it's more like math hasn't got to the stage where it can describe complex systems, i.e. chaotic systems, e.g. weather, turbulence, market behaviour.  That's not a 'human element', it's a 'chaotic element'.  Cryptography's purpose is to obscure information for the purpose of un-obscuring it later.  Which is essential for underpinnings of mechanics of crypto currency.  But when you want to start to lose information like you do with anonymity, (in my opinion) it's not the best suited way.  Because it's essentially reversible with the right tools (because the information is confined in one place, it security relies on your ability to decode it).  Trying to lose information in a complex system, i don't think that approach is a good idea.  You need to abstract the problem and use the system itself, in DRK's case, disparate location of the information, combining information to create ambiguity, across a chaotic network, is used to help 'lose' it - a cryptographic function can't do that; it's an alternative method.  So just because there is not a mathematical proof to describe it doesn't matter, current math fails to describe most complex systems, forward brances are trying to like chaos theory. it's the application that counts and the efficacy of it's application which distils down to a statistic result, same as cryptography does IMO.