Has Dash the unlicensed pyramid game run its course?

[generalizethis]

Why do dashers not think people get masternodes and that's why they think they are awful for privacy? If a governmental agency can afford to buy enough nodes to break TOR's anonymity (they did and can), why couldn't they afford to buy enough masternodes to break dash's anonymity, buy or intimidate the people who already own them, or go to Amazon (who they already work with) and get information from the hosts themselves on who is running the masternodes and where to "contact" them. If dash ever got close to Bitcoin's level this would be the easiest way to break dash's anonymity and comes straight from the NSA's thin-thread playbook--apparently Evan and his Devs skipped a few chapters in Cryptocurrency for Dummies.

these are legitimate concerns. And I can understand that.

Nobody can't afford to buy enough master nodes, it's too expensive, ?and we would notice that?. Instead they can create bitcoin nodes (for free) to do the same.

The initial distribution was not definitely under the radar of the NSA. Just because the masternodes didn't exist, not even the project or the intention of doing something like that. Just check the main thread. As I said in other threads, Darkcoin was just another shitcoin at the begining (with a very skilled dev behind).

Points bolded taken in order:

--The NSA alone has an 8 billion dollar budget. TOR is a way bigger and more expensive target than dash and it is being done to TOR. Also, there's an economic incentive for masternodes to attack each other to get the number of nodes to 1000*--an NSA operation would definitely disable other masternodes to funnel transactions to the masternodes they control.


--would anyone notice if the NSA held a FinCen investigation over the biggest holder of dash's head and gleaned information from his masternodes while simultaneously attacking other masternodes to funnel the majority of transactions through the compromised nodes--I get the feeling you dashers don't wander much further than the marketcap listings for your cryptosystem research.

*this is from dash's frontpage

[1714229397]

1714229397

[1714229397]

1714229397

[1714229397]

1714229397

[1714229397]

1714229397

[aleix]

an NSA operation would definitely disable other masternodes to funnel transactions to the masternodes they control.

This is an interesting debate.

I agree that the NSA can kill Dash, and Dash is finished. And I am sure they can kill Bitcoin too, but I am sure they cannot control Dash without we would realize. I am not so sure about Bitcoin.

Check the masternodes/country here:

http://www.dashnodes.com/index/charts

26% US
25% Germany
20% France
13% Netherlands
etc.

With all US masternodes under control the NSA cannot denonimize the transactions. Let's do alternative scenarios:

1.- They buy XXXX Dash to create new masternodes (we can do the math to find the exact number is necessary to do it, it's a lot). The market goes crazy, we would realize. They control the network but they can't know past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

2.- They can "invade" or "hack" us the poor Europeans (France, Germany, Netherlands, etc.) get access to our accounts in our european servers. We would realize (yes, we would), they can control the network, they can't control the past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

I think the NSA can kill, but they can't control the Dash network. How you see it?



(excuse my grammar and vocabulary mistakes, english is my third language)

[generalizethis]

an NSA operation would definitely disable other masternodes to funnel transactions to the masternodes they control.

This is an interesting debate.

I agree that the NSA can kill Dash, and Dash is finished. And I am sure they can kill Bitcoin too, but I am sure they cannot kill Dash without we would realize. I am not so sure about Bitcoin.

Check the masternodes/country here:

http://www.dashnodes.com/index/charts

26% US
25% Germany
20% France
13% Netherlands
etc.

With all US masternodes under control the NSA cannot denonimize the transactions. Let's do alternative scenarios:

1.- They buy XXXX Dash to create new masternodes (we can do the math to find the exact number is necessary to do it, it's a lot). The market goes crazy, we would realize. They control the network but they can't know past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

2.- They can "invade" or "hack" us the poor Europeans (France, Germany, Netherlands, etc.) get access to our accounts in our european servers. We would realize (yes, we would), they can control the network, they can't control the past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

I think the NSA can kill, but they can't control the Dash network. How you see it?



(excuse my grammar and vocabulary mistakes, english is my third language)

Some European countries share meta data with US agencies and even have more power to capture data than even the US due to less strict rules on spying agencies, but that doesn't diminish that foreign servers are sometimes owned by American companies already working with the US government or that can be forced, coerced, or bribed into supplying information.  Never mind that Dash's Dev Evan has too much power over Dash's direction (and its assets) and can be coerced by US operations to help or hinder Dash with the mere threat of a FinCen investigation or a compliance document similar to those that were used in Prism to get some of the biggest companies in the world to hand over unbridled access to data--either you don't get how much of a vestige interest all countries have in controlling information and finances or you overestimate Dash's ability to cope with these measures.

How would you realize the network is compromised if Evan was coerced into working with investigators? Cut the head off the snake and it dies, control it and you can decide where the venom goes.

Here would be my gameplan if I wanted to control Dash:

If Patriot Act rules are engaged, I would send a letter of complicity to Evan and have him work with my agency to glean as much information from the network while also creating more backdoors to glean information. If he chooses to fight the complicity order, I would green light a FinCen or SEC or FBI investigation with the power and scope of this investigation dependent on if he plays ball or not. If there weren't Patriot Act rules in play, I would move immediately to step two. The goal would be to control Dash, not to destroy it.  

I don't know the other players in Dash, but thanks to the instamine, they seem like a small group and most likely could be gotten to and forced to comply. To put the risk to US power in perspective: Gadaffi had an army and lived in his own country and had vast personal wealth, but was expelled from power and put to death after he talked about not accepting US dollars for oil. Do you think you can pin your replacing-all-the-world's-currency hopes on a guy who lives in Arizona, couldn't get the details of his coin launch in order, doesn't understand  (or care) that masternodes are a major attack vector for a cryptocurrency, and renames his coin every five months? That guy can be gotten to and i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a needlessly expensive revolution to do it.

[celestio]

an NSA operation would definitely disable other masternodes to funnel transactions to the masternodes they control.

This is an interesting debate.

I agree that the NSA can kill Dash, and Dash is finished. And I am sure they can kill Bitcoin too, but I am sure they cannot kill Dash without we would realize. I am not so sure about Bitcoin.

Check the masternodes/country here:

http://www.dashnodes.com/index/charts

26% US
25% Germany
20% France
13% Netherlands
etc.

With all US masternodes under control the NSA cannot denonimize the transactions. Let's do alternative scenarios:

1.- They buy XXXX Dash to create new masternodes (we can do the math to find the exact number is necessary to do it, it's a lot). The market goes crazy, we would realize. They control the network but they can't know past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

2.- They can "invade" or "hack" us the poor Europeans (France, Germany, Netherlands, etc.) get access to our accounts in our european servers. We would realize (yes, we would), they can control the network, they can't control the past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

I think the NSA can kill, but they can't control the Dash network. How you see it?



(excuse my grammar and vocabulary mistakes, english is my third language)

Some European countries share meta data with US agencies and even have more power to capture data than even the US due to less strict rules on spying agencies, but that doesn't diminish that foreign servers are sometimes owned by American companies already working with the US government or that can be forced, coerced, or bribed into supplying information.  Never mind that Dash's Dev Evan has too much power over Dash direction (and its assets) and can be coerced by US operations to help or hinder Dash with the mere threat of a FinCen investigation or a compliance document similar to those that were used in Prism to get some of the biggest companies in the world to hand over unbridled access to data--either you don't get how much of a vestige interest all countries have in controlling information and finances or you overestimate dash's ability to cope with these measures.

How would you realize the network is compromised if Evan was coerced into working with investigators? Cut the head off the snake and it dies, control it and you can decide where the venom goes.

Her would be my gameplan if I wanted to control Dash:

If Patriot Act rules are engaged, I would send a letter of complicity to Evan and have him work with my agency to glean as much information from the network while also creating more backdoors to glean information. If he chooses to fight the complicity order, I would green light a FinCen or SEC or FBI investigation with the power and scope of this investigation dependent on if he plays ball or not. If there weren't Patriot Act rules in play, I would move immediately to step two. The goal would be to control dash, not to destroy it.  

I don't know the other players in Dash, but thanks to the instamine, they seem like a small group and most likely could be gotten to and forced to comply. To put the risk to US power in perspective: Gadaffi was had an army and lived in his own country and vast wealth, but expelled from power and put to death after he talked about not accepting US dollars for oil. Do you think can pin your replacing all the world's currency hopes on a guy who lives in Arizona, couldn't get the details of coin launch in order, doesn't understand  (or care) that masternodes are major attack vector for a cryptocurrency, and renames his coin every five months? That guy can be gotten to and i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a expensive revolution to do it.

Also, the NSA works with other agencies in other countries as well such as England for ex, Edward Snowden revealed all that. So again, Dash's masternodes are just generally a bad idea for a cryptocurrency. It adds very unnecessary security complications, centralization, and is just plain unpractical.

[Gibbs187x]

why dont you guys stop being stupid and just spend some time looking at Shadowcash!

[aleix]

an NSA operation would definitely disable other masternodes to funnel transactions to the masternodes they control.

This is an interesting debate.

I agree that the NSA can kill Dash, and Dash is finished. And I am sure they can kill Bitcoin too, but I am sure they cannot kill Dash without we would realize. I am not so sure about Bitcoin.

Check the masternodes/country here:

http://www.dashnodes.com/index/charts

26% US
25% Germany
20% France
13% Netherlands
etc.

With all US masternodes under control the NSA cannot denonimize the transactions. Let's do alternative scenarios:

1.- They buy XXXX Dash to create new masternodes (we can do the math to find the exact number is necessary to do it, it's a lot). The market goes crazy, we would realize. They control the network but they can't know past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

2.- They can "invade" or "hack" us the poor Europeans (France, Germany, Netherlands, etc.) get access to our accounts in our european servers. We would realize (yes, we would), they can control the network, they can't control the past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

I think the NSA can kill, but they can't control the Dash network. How you see it?



(excuse my grammar and vocabulary mistakes, english is my third language)

Some European countries share meta data with US agencies and even have more power to capture data than even the US due to less strict rules on spying agencies, but that doesn't diminish that foreign servers are sometimes owned by American companies already working with the US government or that can be forced, coerced, or bribed into supplying information.  Never mind that Dash's Dev Evan has too much power over Dash's direction (and its assets) and can be coerced by US operations to help or hinder Dash with the mere threat of a FinCen investigation or a compliance document similar to those that were used in Prism to get some of the biggest companies in the world to hand over unbridled access to data--either you don't get how much of a vestige interest all countries have in controlling information and finances or you overestimate Dash's ability to cope with these measures.

How would you realize the network is compromised if Evan was coerced into working with investigators? Cut the head off the snake and it dies, control it and you can decide where the venom goes.

Here would be my gameplan if I wanted to control Dash:

If Patriot Act rules are engaged, I would send a letter of complicity to Evan and have him work with my agency to glean as much information from the network while also creating more backdoors to glean information. If he chooses to fight the complicity order, I would green light a FinCen or SEC or FBI investigation with the power and scope of this investigation dependent on if he plays ball or not. If there weren't Patriot Act rules in play, I would move immediately to step two. The goal would be to control Dash, not to destroy it.  

I don't know the other players in Dash, but thanks to the instamine, they seem like a small group and most likely could be gotten to and forced to comply. To put the risk to US power in perspective: Gadaffi had an army and lived in his own country and had vast personal wealth, but was expelled from power and put to death after he talked about not accepting US dollars for oil. Do you think you can pin your replacing-all-the-world's-currency hopes on a guy who lives in Arizona, couldn't get the details of his coin launch in order, doesn't understand  (or care) that masternodes are a major attack vector for a cryptocurrency, and renames his coin every five months? That guy can be gotten to and i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a needlessly expensive revolution to do it.

Good answer! Quite a work kill Dash in your gameplay, right? NSA, Secret Service, Patriot Act and threaten Evan. All without a single leak of information.  Not bad!

Assuming your scenario, let me tell you a little secret: Evan is not alone anymore. UdjinM6 is a core developer from Russia, and he is as much talented as Evan (you can check Github about that). And I am not sure UdjinM6 would agree about spying for the NSA. You know, russians are tough guys.

And I am not sure NSA can go to Russia and force UdjinM6 to cooperate to control Dash, you know Putin is a person of temper.

How would you realize the network is compromised if Evan was coerced into working with investigators?

Dash is open source! And Dash is not Evan.  Evan can write it, but you can check and review the code. UdjinM6, Flare, Crowning, elbereth, Francis, etc. All the members of the Dash community and the general public can check the code.
And this is bad for backdoors and is good for transparency.


(excuse my grammar and vocabulary mistakes, english is my third language)

[generalizethis]

an NSA operation would definitely disable other masternodes to funnel transactions to the masternodes they control.

This is an interesting debate.

I agree that the NSA can kill Dash, and Dash is finished. And I am sure they can kill Bitcoin too, but I am sure they cannot kill Dash without we would realize. I am not so sure about Bitcoin.

Check the masternodes/country here:

http://www.dashnodes.com/index/charts

26% US
25% Germany
20% France
13% Netherlands
etc.

With all US masternodes under control the NSA cannot denonimize the transactions. Let's do alternative scenarios:

1.- They buy XXXX Dash to create new masternodes (we can do the math to find the exact number is necessary to do it, it's a lot). The market goes crazy, we would realize. They control the network but they can't know past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

2.- They can "invade" or "hack" us the poor Europeans (France, Germany, Netherlands, etc.) get access to our accounts in our european servers. We would realize (yes, we would), they can control the network, they can't control the past transactions (Masternodes don't do that, users are secure). Dash is finished

I think the NSA can kill, but they can't control the Dash network. How you see it?



(excuse my grammar and vocabulary mistakes, english is my third language)

Some European countries share meta data with US agencies and even have more power to capture data than even the US due to less strict rules on spying agencies, but that doesn't diminish that foreign servers are sometimes owned by American companies already working with the US government or that can be forced, coerced, or bribed into supplying information.  Never mind that Dash's Dev Evan has too much power over Dash's direction (and its assets) and can be coerced by US operations to help or hinder Dash with the mere threat of a FinCen investigation or a compliance document similar to those that were used in Prism to get some of the biggest companies in the world to hand over unbridled access to data--either you don't get how much of a vestige interest all countries have in controlling information and finances or you overestimate Dash's ability to cope with these measures.

How would you realize the network is compromised if Evan was coerced into working with investigators? Cut the head off the snake and it dies, control it and you can decide where the venom goes.

Here would be my gameplan if I wanted to control Dash:

If Patriot Act rules are engaged, I would send a letter of complicity to Evan and have him work with my agency to glean as much information from the network while also creating more backdoors to glean information. If he chooses to fight the complicity order, I would green light a FinCen or SEC or FBI investigation with the power and scope of this investigation dependent on if he plays ball or not. If there weren't Patriot Act rules in play, I would move immediately to step two. The goal would be to control Dash, not to destroy it.  

I don't know the other players in Dash, but thanks to the instamine, they seem like a small group and most likely could be gotten to and forced to comply. To put the risk to US power in perspective: Gadaffi had an army and lived in his own country and had vast personal wealth, but was expelled from power and put to death after he talked about not accepting US dollars for oil. Do you think you can pin your replacing-all-the-world's-currency hopes on a guy who lives in Arizona, couldn't get the details of his coin launch in order, doesn't understand  (or care) that masternodes are a major attack vector for a cryptocurrency, and renames his coin every five months? That guy can be gotten to and i'm pretty sure it doesn't take a needlessly expensive revolution to do it.

Good answer! Quite a work kill Dash in your gameplay, right? NSA, Secret Service, Patriot Act and threaten Evan. All without a single leak of information.  Not bad!

Assuming your scenario, let me tell you a little secret: Evan is not alone anymore. UdjinM6 is a core developer from Russia, and he is as much talented as Evan (you can check Github about that). And I am not sure UdjinM6 would agree about spying for the NSA. You know, russians are tough guys.

And I am not sure NSA can go to Russia and force UdjinM6 to cooperate to control Dash, you know Putin is a person of temper.

How would you realize the network is compromised if Evan was coerced into working with investigators?

Dash is open source! And Dash is not Evan.  Evan can write it, but you can check and review the code. UdjinM6, Flare, Crowning, elbereth, Francis, etc. All the members of the Dash community and the general public can check the code.
And this is bad for backdoors and is good for transparency.


(excuse my grammar and vocabulary mistakes, english is my third language)

It doesn't matter if you have a guy on the moon as a Dev; you still have the masternode problem, which is too many are owned by too few and encouraged to keep the number of nodes at 1000. And the biggest holder is most likely Evan who can be easily be gotten to, and if even he couldn't be (or was out as a Dev), most masternodes are currently on Amazon servers--Amazon!--a company known to work with the NSA. And even if none of this were true, you still depend on humans to not do stupid things like run masternodes on Amazon servers--this is an inherent weakness in any system that requires human best practices to be followed in most cases. Why? Most humans are worried about themselves and their costs, not worrying about the network and the residual cost to everyone else--in short, some humans are selfish and won't care that the system breaks as long as they are getting there's, while other humans are ignorant of how their actions might break a network and will do so unknowingly--this is why good cryptosystems don't use things like masternodes.

Lets be honest, unless I actually do it or have done it, you will always weasel out of the argument with rationalizations that protect your investment in your head--there's no way for you to know that Evan or the majority of masternodes were compromised in all situations and that would be the start of the end for current Dash. Hell, the NSA could be gleaning transaction info off the Amazon servers right now and no one but Amazon and the NSA would know.

And this part isn't for Aleix; he's already made his choice and is intent on riding it till it sinks. Anyone who cares about their privacy should only have confidence in cryptosystems that are decentralized and do not depend on humans or humans following best practices to maintain their security/privacy. This is an easy rule that saves you from having to come up with infinite attack vectors for infinite solutions for a problem that will infinitely follow a system built in this flawed way.

[NorrisK]

There is not ba big chance that anonimity coins s will fly off big, exactly because of anonimity. The only ones that will de it are the black markets in the end..

[generalizethis]

There is not ba big chance that anonimity coins s will fly off big, exactly because of anonimity. The only ones that will de it are the black markets in the end..

You do know that's over a trillion dollar market, right?

Also, coins that employ view keys will be as private and as voluntarily reviewable as cash.

But this is all off-topic--I don't really care if dash is dying or not--i just can't listen to the flawed logic of its privacy argument.

[toknormal]

Also, coins that employ view keys will be as private and as voluntarily reviewable as cash.

But this is all off-topic--I don't really care if dash is dying or not--i just can't listen to the flawed logic of its privacy argument.

Speaking of "flawed logic", look no further than your own avatar. You're one word short of perfection - change "fights" to "is" and you'll have a semblance of reality because you make 2 fatal flaws your propagandistic “reasoning”:

[1] - that the detection of a sending address in a given blockchain transaction amounts to generalised "de-anonynimsation"

[2] - that hosting centralisation equates to functional centralisation

In [1], this is only true in the case of a fiat banking system. It isn't true in the case of crypto, where regardless of what's visible in the blockchain you can only "de-anonymise" an address from social or other means of communication outwith the blockchain (for example you inform me of an address that you control).

Even then, I can’t glean much more information about your financial movements as long as the blockchain remains sufficiently fungible (i.e. undergoes perpetual pre-emptive mixing as happens on the Dash network). The reason for that is that crypto (at least Satoshi's privacy model) broke the association between bank accounts and individuals.

Lets take a step into history for a minute. The 'cryptographically hidden' transaction mechanism that technologies like cryptonote are trying to push was originally designed for FIAT, not crypto. It is both needed and can be accommodated in the fiat system for 2 reasons:

[1] - needed because in fiat, an ‘account’ is synonymous with a legal entity (or person)

[2] - can be accommodated because fiat has a trusted third party (a bank) in the loop to endorse the veracity of the monetary medium and therefore does not rely on public consensus

See this NSA document from 1996 which by now has been fairly well circulated amongst the crypto community. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm#2

It describes to a ’T’ the privacy principles behind Cryptonote hidden blockchain. In particular, this paragraph:



There is one noteable exception, however - Figure 1. There is a bank in the equation, hence the need for the cryptographic plumbing because in those days we WERE talking about shuffling identities around the blockchain.

Satoshi model
Bitcoin did away this model and introduced 2 fundamental revisions:

[1] - eliminated the “Bank” as the ultimate arbiter of monetary veracity and replaced it with a public consensus model where all aspects of the system were directly accountable to the end users

[2] - anonymised it so there was no longer any association between a person and an address

That fact right there ended the need for cryptographic obfuscation of the transactional mechanics. In fact, it now made it positively toxic in the context of the new mined cryptocurrency world where the trusted third party had been eliminated.

The implications of this are that the two conditions that applied to Fiat cited earlier are now reversed, i.e.:

[1] - it is not needed due to the fact that an address is no longer synonymous with a legal entity (or person)

[2] - it cannot be accommodated (is toxic) due to the absence of a trusted third party

No matter how hard proponents of 'invisible blockchains' try to get us to go back to fiat and bang our eardrums with the broken record that "addresses are people", the reality is that they are not. Far from being the “leading edge” the cryptographically protected private blockchain is a relic of the 90’s and has no place in modern cryptocurrencies.

As for financial censorship, the invisible blockchain isn’t protection from the NSA, it’s OWNED by the NSA.

[generalizethis]

Tok, you should give that fungibility lecture to the guys who ripped off evolution--they could have just sent it to BTCe and that would have been the end to it.

I do enjoy how you argue with things i didn't say and don't actually refute things that I did say--neat trick. Did they teach you that infographic school?  

But those are the rules, so here:

Until you can use math to disprove the validity of cryptonote transactions, you're just a word salad machine intent on using FUD tactics in a world ruled by cryptographers and mathematicians. Why don't you send GMaxwell your poster so he can hang it on his wall as a token of your unheralded genius after he takes his XMR address off his profile page. Listen up everyone, the cryptonote protocol was just broken by a poster, not math, a poster! Yes, you heard right. It wasn't the mathematicians or cryptographers who have looked over the code, but a lone man who had the insight to make graphics and quote himself with his brilliant, but not shared by anyone else, views of money. Listen up! Use a clear blockchain to buy drugs, sex, gambling, evade your taxes, send donations to political dissidents, buy your wife a dildo, or pay for your gay sons wedding, because Toknormal amateur economist said that opaque blockchains will never work because people are too stupid to trust math and won't ever trust what they can't see. Never mind that you would have seen evidence of cryptonote coins deflating or inflating  in number based on the code creating improper transactions, coin inflation and deflation that would be easily noticed and have exchanges and users screaming bloody murder, never mind all that, because some random guy declared himself an economist and says nobody will trust a system that is verified over and over and over again by math.

Your stupidity is exhausting.

[illodin]

If a governmental agency can afford to buy enough nodes to break TOR's anonymity (they did and can), why couldn't they afford to buy enough masternodes to break dash's anonymity

In case you're referring to Operation Onymous, I thought it wasn't known how they found the hidden services' real IP's? I'm not following news regarding TOR very closely though so maybe they have disclosed their methods since.

Is there proof somewhere that they have been "buying TOR nodes" and how does that help to break its anonymity?

[toknormal]

Why don't you send GMaxwell your poster so he can hang it on his wall as a token of your unheralded genius after he takes his XMR address off his profile page.

Because cryptographers don't define money. Users and markets do and the only reason they need to worry about privacy is because they have something of value. If there's no value proposition in the first place then nobody gives a f* about privacy, no matter how much you scream about cryptographic proofs and mathematical certainty.

Contrary to what you allude to in your posts it doesn't work the other way around unfortunately.

Listen up! Use a clear blockchain to buy drugs, sex, gambling, evade your taxes, send donations to political dissidents.....

A "clear blockchain" is money - and yes, they're going to need money to pay for those things. As far as their anonymity goes, they'll be slightly more worried about divulging a delivery address than an anonymous cryptocurrency address.

....because Toknormal amateur economist said that opaque blockchains will never work because people are too stupid to trust math

Well I don't have any problem agreeing on the first of those points. As far as people "not trusting math", we can probably even agree on that as well. Unless they see results that mean something to them * most people wouldn't trust math as far as they could "notionally" throw it  

* (In modern electronic 'money' with no trusted third party, that means "where did my money come from and where did it go")

[Liquid71]

In a very short period Bitshares, Stellar and even the joke Dogecoin have passed it on marketcap. Not so long ago the cult guru told its followers it will soon rival bitcoin and take over the world. Now it seems more likely to follow Paycoins footsteps.
Is this the faith of all scams?
Is there a future at all for something which can not sustain itself above, much wow, such moon?

maybe the premine is being dumped 

[generalizethis]

If a governmental agency can afford to buy enough nodes to break TOR's anonymity (they did and can), why couldn't they afford to buy enough masternodes to break dash's anonymity

In case you're referring to Operation Onymous, I thought it wasn't known how they found the hidden services' real IP's? I'm not following news regarding TOR very closely though so maybe they have disclosed their methods since.

Is there proof somewhere that they have been "buying TOR nodes" and how does that help to break its anonymity?

Many are assuming, I'm one of them, that Onymous was carried out by one of these exploits--no evidence that's been outed yet, so i'm guilty of being intuitively biased. Guess we'll have to wait for next Snowden before we can bet money on it.  

https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-tor-anonymity-can-busted-2500-month/


https://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-the-nsa-or-anyone-else-can-crack-tors-anonymity

[generalizethis]

Why don't you send GMaxwell your poster so he can hang it on his wall as a token of your unheralded genius after he takes his XMR address off his profile page.

1.Because cryptographers don't define money. Users and markets do and the only reason they need to worry about privacy is because they have something of value. 2. If there's no value proposition in the first place then nobody gives a f* about privacy, no matter how much you scream about cryptographic proofs and mathematical certainty.

Contrary to what you allude to in your posts it doesn't work the other way around unfortunately.

Listen up! Use a clear blockchain to buy drugs, sex, gambling, evade your taxes, send donations to political dissidents.....

3."clear blockchain" is money - and yes, they're going to need money to pay for those things. As far as their anonymity goes, they'll be slightly more worried about divulging a delivery address than an anonymous cryptocurrency address.

....because Toknormal amateur economist said that opaque blockchains will never work because people are too stupid to trust math

4. Well I don't have any problem agreeing on the first of those points. As far as people "not trusting math", we can probably even agree on that as well. Unless they see results that mean something to them * most people wouldn't trust math as far as they could "notionally" throw it  

5.* (In modern electronic 'money' with no trusted third party, that means "where did my money come from and where did it go")

1.Sorry to tell you that that cryptographers and mathematicians define whether a cryptosystem is strong or weak and a system that depends on masternodes is more insecure than a system that doesn't, so implying that the market won't take their opinions into account is like saying investors won't take the opinions of software developers into account when evaluating a software company's stock.

2.As far as no one giving a fuck about privacy, it will be good for dash if they don't. But I'm only worried about my privacy, so i don't and won't use it. Also, you might want to ask governments, corporations, husbands, dissidents, libertarians, arms dealers, drug dealers, human traffickers,  tax evaders, teenagers, wives, ect. if they're willing to use inferior privacy just so dash's marketcap gets pushed up. For these few examples, privacy actually is a major part of an opaque blockchain's value proposition.

3.Again, this is a false choice. The experts (cryptogapher and mathematicians) have validated ring signatures time and time again, so unless you can prove otherwise with math, you're going to sound like ice salesman trying to tell people to not use refrigerators because you can't see electricity--again, I already pointed out that if ring signatures didn't work that there would be evidence of inflationary or deflationary amounts of coins in the wallets of exchanges of users. So the evidence and the experts are only countered with, "but you can't see it." This is why i think you are stupid.

4. Again, people trust math with their money  (and their lives--try flying without math building or guiding your plane) every day and a ring signature coin's transactions aren't any more hidden than Bitcoin's are--you just can't link them to a single wallet without the user's permission, which is the point. And this is really big when you have companies taking in billions of dollars a year and do not want a competitor monitoring their every transaction or pinpointing their payroll.

5. You are partly right for once. In any age, you want to see where money goes and you can see where your money went by checking the account screen in front of you. You have no right to know where my money went though--unless you are governmental agency--and this is the cash effect that clear blockchain's miss. As far as knowing where your money came from--next time you go into a mom and pop restaurant or a convenience store dump out the tip/donation jar and tell them it's only money if they can tell where every cent came from. And please record it and uplpoad it to youtube.  

[toknormal]

Sorry to tell you that that cryptographers and mathematicians define whether a cryptosystem is strong or weak

Don't be sorry because that's a very different thing from defining what is and isn't "money" which - I reiterate - is a much more nebulous process in the absence of trusted counterparties and one that is ultimately arbitrated on by public consensus.

If you measure everything in terms of degree of cryptographic obfuscation of the public blockchain then all you'll get is the best "obfuscated blockchain". Good luck with that because monetary media derive both their consensual existence and value from a whole lot of properties, none of which is obscurity.

Fungibility is, however, an integral property of monetary media and you don't improve fungibility by implementing "strong cryptographic obfuscation" between one address and another on the blockchain. All you do is frustrate people who regard that as an essential element of public accountability, prepare the ground for scams and heists and generally kill confidence.

Dash has improved Bitcoin's fungibility in the most optimal way any approach could have while preserving transparency and confidence. It does it in exactly the way that traditional cash does.

Somebody earlier in this thread said they were surprised at how long Dash had lasted in the "top 10" and noted that despite their preference and the subject line of this thread, Dash was doing "insanely well".

In fact there was no need to be surprised - Dash is the only public blockchain which improves on Bitcoin's fungibility by orders of magnitude.

Privacy in crypto calls for different cryptographic priorities from what privacy in fiat does. Some things are necessarily more public, others are more private. Cryptonote simply sends us back to the dark ages with the old fiat model again which is why it's seen zero adoption and next to zero development in more than a year other than its bare existence.

Get real and stop harping on about garbage non-arguments that are well past their sell by date such as instamines, centralisation that isn't, amazon servers and the faux innovation that is invisible blockchains.
 

[neordicICE]

No body cares because Dark Dash or wtv you wanna call it is a big instamine scam.

[wpalczynski]

Lots of new people catching onto what a scam DASH really is, its good to see.  Enough people have been scammed in cryptos short life.

[generalizethis]

Sorry to tell you that that cryptographers and mathematicians define whether a cryptosystem is strong or weak

Don't be sorry because that's a very different thing from defining what is and isn't "money" which - I reiterate - is a much more nebulous process in the absence of trusted counterparties and one that is ultimately arbitrated on by public consensus.

If you measure everything in terms of degree of cryptographic obfuscation of the public blockchain then all you'll get is the best "obfuscated blockchain". Good luck with that because monetary media derive both their consensual existence and value from a whole lot of properties, none of which is obscurity.

Fungibility is, however, an integral property of monetary media and you don't improve fungibility by implementing "strong cryptographic obfuscation" between one address and another on the blockchain. All you do is frustrate people who regard that as an essential element of public accountability, prepare the ground for scams and heists and generally kill confidence.

Dash has improved Bitcoin's fungibility in the most optimal way any approach could have while preserving transparency and confidence. It does it in exactly the way that traditional cash does.

Somebody earlier in this thread said they were surprised at how long Dash had lasted in the "top 10" and noted that despite their preference and the subject line of this thread, Dash was doing "insanely well".

In fact there was no need to be surprised - Dash is the only public blockchain which improves on Bitcoin's fungibility by orders of magnitude.

Privacy in crypto calls for different cryptographic priorities from what privacy in fiat does. Some things are necessarily more public, others are more private. Cryptonote simply sends up back to the dark ages with the old fiat model again which is why it's seen zero adoption and next to zero development in more than a year other than its bare existence.

Get real and stop harping on about garbage non-arguments that are well past their sell by date such as instamines, centralisation that isn't, amazon servers and the faux innovation that is invisible blockchains.
 

If you could argue me point for point the way i did you without reflecting evasively back to arguments a few posts back or from posts from entirely different threads that would be a debate--this is just you hoping no one notices your flimsy argumentation. Good luck selling a clear blockchain as good privacy technology--I'm sure there are some idiots who will buy in and give that market cap a few more pumps.