Bitcoin Forum
June 19, 2024, 05:25:04 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Dash versus Ring Signiture Coins  (Read 1246 times)
generalizethis (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
April 19, 2015, 03:01:47 PM
Last edit: April 20, 2015, 12:53:54 PM by generalizethis
 #1

Since Dash supporters have recently started a FUD campaign that Ring Signature coins can't be audited due to their private nature (even using a viewkey),and therefore they are useless as currency; I've decided to start a thread to hash it out publicly.




*added 4/20: "FUD", "(even using a viewkey)", "and therefore they are useless as currency;"

hodlmybtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700
Merit: 500



View Profile WWW
April 19, 2015, 04:36:09 PM
 #2

Let me think...

Instamined, coinjoin copy pasted, name changed twice to hide it's scammy past, masternode ROI system vs Ring Signatures

There is no comparison here.

Maybe the comparison is a broken bike which is held up by duct tape and a brand new Bugatti.
generalizethis (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
April 19, 2015, 09:49:30 PM
 #3

Before we get into ring on ring violence, here's the propaganda that's being used to BS people into believing private blockchains are a bad thing:



DASH is the most innovative coin ever in crypto world with much rich features and great supportive community, DASH is deserve to be more than $100 each in price with that revolutionary technology.

The real value is not so much in its technology, but in how it deploys it to create 'perfect asset-based money'.

I know this looks a bit like an attack on other projects - it isn't meant to be but it's difficult to demonstrate the subtle powerfulness in Dash's priorities without contrasting them against those of alternatives who have chosen to prioritise things differently.

This morning, ArticMine posted a link to this thread when discussing the bytecoin "premine". That thread contains a link to the annotated Cryptonote whitepaper which I read with interest as I'd never seen that one before (the annotated one that is) and I actually agree with much if not most of the remarks as far as they go.

All the same, everytime I read it though it reminds me how cryptonote just isn't money (to me). It's a cryptographic messaging system which is a very different thing. They've built a safe to hold the money but not the money itself. (It’s not surprising though that if you put together a bunch of cryptographers and ask them to design money that they're more likely to churn out a cryptographic messaging system instead).

The thing is, unlike fiat, in cryptocurrency there are 2 gearwheels (or ‘slabs’) each of which operates very independently of the other but in complimentary roles. One (the public part) attracts value and engenders confidence. The other supports privacy and anonymity (the global set of private keys). If the former is to perform well as money and have a high value then you can't mess with it. It needs to have as perfect as possible monetary properties

With stealth/cryptonote the mistake that’s made in defining money is to assume that the value comes from the privacy (I suppose if you’re a cryptographer it probably does  Smiley ). Then another one is made in assuming that in turn, privacy derives from obscurity of the asset. There's no base money in existence that I can think of where this is the case though. Monetary value derives from intrinsic monetary properties whereas privacy is an extrinsic one.

Old Fiat Banking Model vs New Crypto Asset Model
When people talk about "untraceability" and "unlinkability”, this refers to the public part of the blockchain - not the private. But in cryptocurrency, the appropriate place for “cryptographic protection” of this nature is in securing the firewall that separates those two halves - not in amongst the various addresses in the public part as if they were fiat bank accounts. They are not ‘bank accounts’. They are simply publicly valued blockchain addresses and don’t correspond to people any more than a diamond does.

The fiat system doesn’t have this asset-like dual nature because it deploys a trusted counterparty to manage accounts, not assets. In other words it’s a bookkeeping job. As far as “the people” are concerned it is therefore all-private which is why I say Cryptonote/Stealth technology is a fiat business model since it’s trying to make crypto “all-private” as well and what that does is turn it from a base asset in it’s own right into no more than a “bookkeeping job” like banking (Albeit on a clumsy, piecemeal, “you-can-see-this-but-not-that”, censoring kind of basis).

As more evidence of this “personalised account, fiat perspective”, note that CN proponents overwhelmingly tend to use personal pronouns when alluding to blockchain addresses which is a misunderstanding of the their nature and a ‘loaded’ form of vocabulary. Even cryptonote wallets actually encourage us to revert to the old fiat way of thinking where accounts “are” synonymous with people, by making it difficult to create and use new addresses on the fly - thereby diminishing their fungibility.

Rather, I think of the blockchain as a containership full of coal plus the certificates of ownership. The coal is in full view but the hundreds of certificates that secure ownership to various tonnages are in diverse private hands. Sure, you might be able to learn something about its owners by watching the coal movements but that’s true of any good monetary medium. Whether it’s cash or coal, the more fungible it is the less you will know, but obscuring the coal stock in an attempt to enhance the privacy of the paper certificates is an exercise in futility as long as it’s reasonably fungible.



In crypto, the real way to maximise privacy while at the same time liberating this “dual gearwheel” approach to work its miracles is to address fungibility *directly* - not by obscuring the public blockchain. That’s what defines the objectives of Dash as a technical project for me and what makes it potentially both extremely valuable and extremely anonymous.


Maximise anonymity by doing this…



But don’t do this…


Apart from all that, the precedent has been set by bitcoin anyway and IMO it’s now impossible to back out of now that the liberation is there. You just can’t go from a fully uncensored blockchain to a censored one and make it look the least bit attractive because the alternative is the electronic equivalent of a swiss bank account for rich people except without the "trusted third party auditor” (which in bitcoin is the eyes of the world - not an algo) and therefore a breeding ground for scams, heists, deceptions and (ironically) corruption by the ‘NSA’  Wink  <— (That was a bit of a cheeky me, but still my honest opinion).

After I post this we will probably get trolled to death and reminded a gazillion times about the ‘instamine’ etc. But it doesn’t change the fact that I feel this important high level analysis of monetary, business process and system-analysis perspectives has been lost in the noise of low level computer science concepts as exemplified by that PDF whitepaper.

Just my own view of course - but one based on a monetary perspective not a cryptographic one for a change Smiley (+ 25 years in the systems analysis profession).


e-coinomist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1085


Money often costs too much.


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 02:02:53 AM
 #4

There is no comparison here.

Maybe the comparison is a broken bike which is held up by duct tape and a brand new Bugatti.

Never underestimate da power of da duct tape!
And "Bugatti" allready bears "bug" in it's name...

You might venture a guess that I'm bored, bored, soooo bored allready from all of these DRK vs. XMR threads ... time to dump both? Been holding both, to ballance out the risk. You know, there's an alternative called Bitcoin.

e-coinomist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2380
Merit: 1085


Money often costs too much.


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 02:50:12 AM
 #5

only people that tolerate the dash scam is because they have some stake in the game, I think you should dump your XMR.
At some day you mirrored your avatar, the mask was on the right side before. Anyways, most of the time seen you as the new shill on the block, I've been with Monero somewhat longer than you.

And that's it! I called Captn Duct, tape dem keyboards to da ceiling! Enuf is enuf!


PS: still bored, reading forum
futureofbitcoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 02:54:00 AM
 #6

I just read toknormal's post, and it makes a lot of sense. Personally, I preferred xmr, but toknormal makes a lot of good points that I kind of intrinsically thought were xmr's weaknesses but couldn't put it to words.
generalizethis (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
April 20, 2015, 03:27:48 AM
 #7

I just read toknormal's post, and it makes a lot of sense. Personally, I preferred xmr, but toknormal makes a lot of good points that I kind of intrinsically thought were xmr's weaknesses but couldn't put it to words.

If that's true (and I don't believe that) then anonymity coins don't exist. Dash has centralized points of failure (and darksend is taintware ie. kills fungability) and every other anonymity coin uses ring signatures: XMR, SDC, BBR, XDN...

The idea that a time tested method for anonymity that no one has broken yet is somehow not good as a currency because the blockchain is invisible (it's not, you can still see transactions and using viewkeys you can show people your transactions if you want) is a false choice. The real choice is public addresses with mixing versus private addresses that you can make public if you decide to make them public. I do like how Tok tries to discredit cryptographers in his attempt dismiss one cryptocurrency for another cryptocurrency.  Huh

futureofbitcoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 322
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 08:13:41 AM
 #8

I just read toknormal's post, and it makes a lot of sense. Personally, I preferred xmr, but toknormal makes a lot of good points that I kind of intrinsically thought were xmr's weaknesses but couldn't put it to words.

If that's true (and I don't believe that) then anonymity coins don't exist. Dash has centralized points of failure (and darksend is taintware ie. kills fungability) and every other anonymity coin uses ring signatures: XMR, SDC, BBR, XDN...

The idea that a time tested method for anonymity that no one has broken yet is somehow not good as a currency because the blockchain is invisible (it's not, you can still see transactions and using viewkeys you can show people your transactions if you want) is a false choice. The real choice is public addresses with mixing versus private addresses that you can make public if you decide to make them public. I do like how Tok tries to discredit cryptographers in his attempt dismiss one cryptocurrency for another cryptocurrency.  Huh

I want to make clear that I didn't switch from xmr to dark or dash or whatever it's called. I still prefer xmr to dark/dash. But just as bitcoin has weaknesses that many are not willing to admit, so does xmr or dark/dash. If there is a possibility of having a "perfect currency", we, as humans are currently far away from that, I think.

@kazuki: You can continue your ad hominem attacks. That just reflects your own lack of ability to think critically and accept new information. If you even tried to look into my history, I've made 0 posts in the dark/dash threads, and many posts where I believe xmr has a positive future, as well as some concerns regarding xmr. If you continue to think I'm some sort of a hidden paid commenter for dark/dash/bitcoin, go ahead. That's your own choice. But that attitude will eventually cause you to miss a lot of potentially valuable information simply because you dismiss content based on the author of the content, rather than the content itself. Oh well.
GTO911
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 500



View Profile
April 20, 2015, 09:02:16 AM
 #9

miss a lot of potentially valuable information simply because you dismiss content based on the author of the content, rather than the content itself. Oh well.

Content by people invested in scams is nothing but crap, no need to read it
cryptonight.net
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
April 20, 2015, 09:16:56 AM
 #10

Since Dash supporters have recently started a campaign that Ring Signature coins can't be audited due to their private nature, I've decided to start a thread to hash it out publicly.

CryptoNote address can be partially audited in case owner will explicitly allow you to do that by giving you view key.
Otherwise, it is impossible.
scientific
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 32
Merit: 0


View Profile
April 20, 2015, 12:37:28 PM
 #11

Since Dash supporters have recently started a campaign that Ring Signature coins can't be audited due to their private nature, I've decided to start a thread to hash it out publicly.

I thought that's the whole point of having an anonymous coin. Besides, if you need other people to see your funds you can always give out your viewkey, problem solved.
generalizethis (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1036


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
April 20, 2015, 12:49:52 PM
 #12


I thought that's the whole point of having an anonymous coin. Besides, if you need other people to see your funds you can always give out your viewkey, problem solved.

I'm going to restate it in OP: Since Dash supporters have recently started a FUD campaign that Ring Signature coins can't be audited due to their private nature (even using a viewkey),and therefore they are useless as currency; I've decided to start a thread to hash it out publicly.

Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!