XMR vs DRK

[iCEBREAKER]

The standard for fintech security is 'mathematically proven,' not "the code has been reviewed once."

Ah so it's "fintech security" now not "fintech". Nice little mod there.

I'd love to know your fintech credentials...

My "credentials" are sufficient to know "the code has been reviewed once" isn't the standard for anything except failures like Darkcoin.

'Mathematically proven' security is an important part of fintech.  That's why Bitcoin exists.  You must be new.

*CLICK*

Date Registered:    May 26, 2014

Yep, I figured.  You are so noob to the topics here you think 'mathematically proven' means 'perfect.'

*PLONK*

[Johnny Mnemonic]

- Nobody has answered the question about DRK fungibility

Actually, I commented on it myself upthread. A large amount of transparency reduces the anonymity set and thus reduces fungibility. Coins must be cryptographically identical to be fungible. Otherwise you will eventually run into issues where coins without some degree of taint could be considered suspicious. Here's the quote:

[snip]

You can't have fungibility and transparency at the same time. Sorry. All units have to be cryptographically indistinguishable, and having a large amount of transparency in the ledger only serves to reduce the anonymity set (and reduce the fungibility as a result).

Monero is currently the most fungible crypto in existence. Maybe some day if zerocash works out it's kinks it will take monero's place. Darkcoin isn't a contender in that regard (though it's privacy tech can be debated).

Next:

- Nobody has answered the question about Masternodes being 'compromised' by anyone other than NSA

You are asking questions that (you know) nobody has an answer to. "Assuming the NSA has enough resources to bring down drk/dash, how much money/resources would someone else need?" Nobody knows, which is why you should stick with the best freakin tech available (ie. not dash).

Also, a lot of us (perhaps not you) are interested in monetary privacy for the specific reason that we don't want NSA-level organizations spying on everything we do. Your "anyone other than NSA" question is pointless to those of us in that category, because they are exactly the type of adversaries we're concerned about. Sure, all crypto projects are vulnerable at this point, but some have a much more "optimistic" future than others.

This should also answer your "fit-for-purpose" question. You still haven't defined exactly what "fit-for-purpose" means, but the answer is unquantifiable regardless. If you're willing to trust an inferior solution that you think is "good enough" (while being full aware of all the other shady practices surrounding this project), then there's really nothing more we can do to convince you otherwise.

[5w00p]

What huge failures in basic security are you referring to?

All the ones pointed out by everyone who has pointed them out.

If I did actually redundantly reiterate the many flaws here by pointing them all out AGAIN, you dashers would just say "nugh-ugh!"

And we would start yet another revolution around the circle this thread has been going in from the beginning.

So to you guys, a "cold wallet" is one that is "cold" when you want it to be and "hot" when you want it to be. Lukewarm wallet? Tepid wallet?


EDIT: OK, I get it. Even a "cold" wallet has to be brought "online" at some point, in order to transfer funds.  So, it is a rather ambiguous term.

[majamina]

Date Registered:    May 26, 2014

Yep, I figured.  You are so noob to the topics here you think 'mathematically proven' means 'perfect.'

*PLONK*

Nice try, but if you look back, you'll see that I wrote 'perfect or mathematically proven'.

[majamina]

[snip]

You can't have fungibility and transparency at the same time. Sorry. All units have to be cryptographically indistinguishable, and having a large amount of transparency in the ledger only serves to reduce the anonymity set (and reduce the fungibility as a result).

Monero is currently the most fungible crypto in existence. Maybe some day if zerocash works out it's kinks it will take monero's place. Darkcoin isn't a contender in that regard (though it's privacy tech can be debated).

But there are no coins, just balances on addresses. The darksend process removes any association between two given addresses. That's where the fungibility comes from and that's the question I asked. Where is the 'taint' you talk about?

You are asking questions that (you know) nobody has an answer to. "Assuming the NSA has enough resources to bring down drk/dash, how much money/resources would someone else need?" Nobody knows, which is why you should stick with the best freakin tech available (ie. not dash).

Also, a lot of us (perhaps not you) are interested in monetary privacy for the specific reason that we don't want NSA-level organizations spying on everything we do. Your "anyone other than NSA" question is pointless to those of us in that category, because they are exactly the type of adversaries we're concerned about. Sure, all crypto projects are vulnerable at this point, but some have a much more "optimistic" future than others.

OK that's a fair response. So it's down to an opinion on who your adversaries really are and what the future holds. If you think you can beat the NSA with Monero in the long game then fair enough.

This should also answer your "fit-for-purpose" question. You still haven't defined exactly what "fit-for-purpose" means, but the answer is unquantifiable regardless. If you're willing to trust an inferior solution that you think is "good enough" (while being full aware of all the other shady practices surrounding this project), then there's really nothing more we can do to convince you otherwise.

For me, fit-for-purpose would mean working, useful services (instant transactions, privacy, 2FA etc) which are secure against any realistic attack (i.e. not guv/TLA).

[majamina]

EDIT: OK, I get it. Even a "cold" wallet has to be brought "online" at some point, in order to transfer funds.  So, it is a rather ambiguous term.

yep that's pretty much it....you have to bring the DASH wallet online to start the node, but otherwise it's 'cold'. Hopefully there will be a feature in the future where you can sign the 'start-node' command on an offline host and then start on an online host that doesn't contain the private keys, like how you can sign transactions offline in BTC wallets such as Armory.

[iCEBREAKER]

Date Registered:    May 26, 2014

Yep, I figured.  You are so noob to the topics here you think 'mathematically proven' means 'perfect.'

Nice try, but if you look back, you'll see that I wrote 'perfect or mathematically proven'.

The "or" operator you used means you consider them functionally equivalent.

You were trying to frame 'mathematically proven' as a mere abstract academic concern, dithered upon solely by Ivory Tower nerds, with no applicability to hard-nosed fintech affairs.

But 'mathematically proven' crypto is Bitcoin's (and Monero's) raison d'être.

Crypto isn't a 'hurr-durr good enough if "the code has been reviewed once" and it makes me money' thing.  If you could see over your huge bag of DigitalTrash, that would be obvious.

[majamina]

The "or" operator you used means you consider them functionally equivalent.

No, it doesn't, that's just you trying to sound clever.

You were trying to frame 'mathematically proven' as a mere abstract academic concern, dithered upon solely by Ivory Tower nerds, with no applicability to hard-nosed fintech affairs.

But 'mathematically proven' crypto is Bitcoin's (and Monero's) raison d'être.

yeah, and I think Monero is pretty cool y'know...

Crypto isn't a 'hurr-durr good enough if "the code has been reviewed once" and it makes me money' thing.  If you could see over your huge bag of DigitalTrash, that would be obvious.

OK dude, nice going. I'm going to call it a night, got a big few days work on some 'fintech' IRL.  

Toodle-pip.

[illodin]

Actually, I commented on it myself upthread. A large amount of transparency reduces the anonymity set and thus reduces fungibility. Coins must be cryptographically identical to be fungible. Otherwise you will eventually run into issues where coins without some degree of taint could be considered suspicious. Here's the quote:

[snip]

You can't have fungibility and transparency at the same time. Sorry. All units have to be cryptographically indistinguishable, and having a large amount of transparency in the ledger only serves to reduce the anonymity set (and reduce the fungibility as a result).

"The problem with Monero's ring signatures in this situation is an exchange can notice that one of the pubkeys in your ring signature comes from a "stolen" coin and tell you to resubmit the tx with that pubkey left out of the signature."

[Johnny Mnemonic]

But there are no coins, just balances on addresses. The darksend process removes any association between two given addresses. That's where the fungibility comes from and that's the question I asked. Where is the 'taint' you talk about?

Let me rephrase: Due to the nature of a transparent blockchain, there will always be associations with addresses, even if your concerned association is eliminated. People won't mix because they don't think they need to, or maybe they aren't aware of some illicit trade 80 transactions up-chain. Because of this, we will still see increasing use of blockchain analysis and increasing discrimination against transactors that leads to fungibility issues. The only way to eliminate this concern is through an entirely opaque block chain.

For me, fit-for-purpose would mean working, useful services (instant transactions, privacy, 2FA etc) which are secure against any realistic attack (i.e. not guv/TLA).

Okay. Then in my opinion, yes, it's probably fit for purpose right now. But as demand for blockchain analysis services increases, major fungibility issues will start to pop up. Of course this won't be provable until it actually happens.

[illodin]

it's implementation of gmaxwell's coinjoin is snotty at best

Can you explain the differences between gmaxwell's coinjoin and Darkcoin's mixing, thanks.

Hi, can you please?

[illodin]

Okay. Then in my opinion, yes, it's probably fit for purpose right now. But as demand for blockchain analysis services increases, major fungibility issues will start to pop up. Of course this won't be provable until it actually happens.

Development is still going on. If DASH is still alive 2 years from now it won't be the same as it is today.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Actually, I commented on it myself upthread. A large amount of transparency reduces the anonymity set and thus reduces fungibility. Coins must be cryptographically identical to be fungible. Otherwise you will eventually run into issues where coins without some degree of taint could be considered suspicious. Here's the quote:

[snip]

You can't have fungibility and transparency at the same time. Sorry. All units have to be cryptographically indistinguishable, and having a large amount of transparency in the ledger only serves to reduce the anonymity set (and reduce the fungibility as a result).

"The problem with Monero's ring signatures in this situation is an exchange can notice that one of the pubkeys in your ring signature comes from a "stolen" coin and tell you to resubmit the tx with that pubkey left out of the signature."

Is that quote from Peter Todd? I'm pretty sure this issue has already been addressed/resolved in MRL-004 (but devs should correct me or verify).

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Okay. Then in my opinion, yes, it's probably fit for purpose right now. But as demand for blockchain analysis services increases, major fungibility issues will start to pop up. Of course this won't be provable until it actually happens.

Development is still going on. If DASH is still alive 2 years from now it won't be the same as it is today.

My point was that these issues are unresolvable short of DASH abandoning the bitcoin codebase and adopting a more opaque block chain.

[illodin]

My point was that these issues are unresolvable

I'm not sure about that.

short of DASH abandoning the bitcoin codebase and adopting a more opaque block chain.

Might happen, who knows. Evan is known for making big moves quite swiftly.

[Joshuar]

Would it be best to maybe set up a bounty for independent reviews by a reputable cryptographer/coder for both Monero and Dash? The reviews would be alligned with Satoshi Nakamoto's original "vision" for cryptocurrencies, so the major factors of the review would be; The code itself and the pro's and con's of each(Along with which is more "anonymous", etc), the decentralization aspect in each coin or lack of, and of course the ethics of each coin(Does the coin have a honest, open history? Did it allign to Satoshi's vision of the core design being "set in stone", does it have a open, fair dev team? etc

Those are the things that make a cryptocurrency valuable. The ethics behind it(Good dev team, no dishonesty, transparency etc), the actual code and features of the coin, and how much it stays on course of being decentralized.

Obviously in my view the winner is clear, but a 3rd party doing this, Reputable third party, would be pleasant.

[Joshuar]

My point was that these issues are unresolvable

I'm not sure about that.

short of DASH abandoning the bitcoin codebase and adopting a more opaque block chain.

Might happen, who knows. Evan is known for making big moves quite swiftly.

Just like Evan said he'd be implementing Ring Signatures back in May-June of 2014, then it got totally scrapped?

[Johnny Mnemonic]

My point was that these issues are unresolvable

I'm not sure about that.

Me neither. Try not to quote me out of context. I didn't say the issues were "unresolvable." I said they "are unresolvable short of DASH abandoning the bitcoin codebase and adopting a more opaque block chain."

I highly doubt that will ever happen, as evan considered it once and went another direction (probably because he'd have to rebuild everything from scratch). He certainly won't dive down that rabbit hole now that he has instantX and other features already in place.

[Joshuar]

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.

1) Dash's code causes inevitable centralization and is not as fungible as Ring Signatures, it's as simple as that
2) It's likely that you're trying to use Reverse Psychology(Aka trolling) by acting "nice"(Pretty easy to see through when one actually reads your posts thoroughly), because others have constantly corrected you on what you've said, yet on every new page you bring up the same incorrect statements/questions in an attempt to manipulate/push Dash to the forefront.
3) Dash's entire architecture has been "decimated"/torn to pieces code wise, it's external masternode system brings in centralization and other attack vectors since they are hosted on centralized servers online and unwisely provide it's most important features through those external masternodes(Also, Bitcoin already does this, no point in even using Dash)
4) Again, you do the same, you're extremely hypocritical. Please reread this thread or even have a friend do it for you, maybe then you'd see just how many times you've been corrected.

And to add further

5) The entire Dash/Darkcoin cryptocurrecy project has been recently deemed a centralized joke by it's former developer vertoe, that speaks volumes
6) Dash/Darkcoin had a dishonest/scam instamine that makes Auroracoin's premine look like the holy grail.

etc.

[5w00p]

Might happen, who knows. Evan is known for making big moves quite swiftly.

Being at the mercy of the "big moves" made "quite swiftly" by one individual is not always a good thing, in my opinion, when talking about a Free & Open Source Software project that involves units of value.

The community-driven approach is superior, even if it moves more slowly. Of course, you can't please all the people all of the time, so some sort of quasi-democratic system coordinated by a somewhat small team is usually the best compromise.