Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon?

[jpoker272727]

No, simple NO.

[1714201051]

1714201051

[1714201051]

1714201051

[aminorex]

why would XMR replace BTC even BBR do more then XMR and SDC do much more then BBR

Liquidity, liquidity, liquidity.  The market will use the cash which is liquid, and not the cash which is illiquid.  When XMR liquidity approaches that of BTC, then we can talk about replacement.  Until then, no.   But it does seem inevitable that a fungible currency will displace a non-fungible currency in a majority of use-cases.

[Anon136]

The reason i dumped MNR so long ago and never looked back was because development was slow and unimpressive focused on fundamentals that require a deeper than average understanding of crypto systems to appreciate rather than layered on flashy "features".

FTFY

Also I was interested in this project a long time ago before I was censored repeatedly in the main thread just for asking questions. The same sorts of questions which would simply garner forthright responses in moneros thread.

[dinofelis]

If you don't trust crypto, then you cannot trust this whole procedure ; if you can't trust your wallet having done this correctly, then you don't know anything about the legitimity of any transaction.

Have you ever heard of scientific controls ?



In this case, the independent variable is the balance in the destination address and the dependent variables are just about every aspect of the blockchain mechanics that you cite in last previous post.

Do you know the most common error in scientific controls ?  The false sense of security, when the scientific control you think is "independent" is in fact totally correlated with your original.

And this is an example of it.

After all, what are we looking at ?

We are looking at the VALIDITY OF A SINGLE TRANSACTION.

Now, that transaction will essentially be something like:

{input: transaction X with address A ; output address B (10 bitcoin)}

Now you THINK that you have TWO INDEPENDENT ways of verifying that transaction:
namely that address A has now 10 bitcoin less, and address B has now 10 bitcoin more.

You think that the verification of the diminishing of 10 coins in A is a kind of INDEPENDENT verification of the increase of 10 coins in address B, which would bring "credibility to the validity of the above transaction".  You THINK that you do a scientific control.

There's nothing about it.

What happens when a wallet calculates the CONTENT OF address A ?

It looks at all transactions that have an UNSPEND OUTPUT at address A.  How does the wallet do that ?  It looks at all the transactions that have address A as output, and LEAVES OUT THOSE THAT HAVE THEM SOMEWHERE AS AN INPUT.  (to keep only the unspend)

So what happens when your wallet calculates the content of B, before and after the transaction ?

Well, before the transaction it makes the sum of all unspend outputs containing address B.  After the transaction, it finds ONE MORE such output, namely 10 bitcoin.  Why ?  Because of the above transaction !

What happens now when your wallet calculates the content of A, before and after the transaction ?

Well, before the transaction it makes the sum of all unspend outputs containing address A.  After the transaction, it has to leave out one output, of 10 bitcoin (plus fee).  Why ? *** because of the above transaction ***

So your "scientific control" involves TWICE the same transaction of which you want to verify the veracity.  You thought that by verifying that the balance of A diminishes while the one of B increases, you have a kind of double check on the validity of the transaction.  But this is not true: the increase of B and the diminishing of A are BOTH calculated using one and the same transaction: the one you wanted to verify !  So checking that A diminished, didn't ADD any "independent control" at all !  You checked twice the same thing !

This is a common mistake in "scientific control": depending on the same element, and thinking one has done an independent verification.

And now we come to the essence that kills all your arguments: the BALANCE of addresses FOLLOWS from the VALIDITY of transactions, and not the other way around.  The whole idea of crypto currencies is NOT to have "bank accounts", but is to have VALID TRANSACTIONS.  The atomic component of a crypto currency is not a balance, but is a transaction.  And the essence of a monetary asset is the "right/power to spend", that is, the CAPABILITY OF PROVIDING A VALID TRANSACTION, not of 'changing balances'.  That is a consequence of it, it is not the cause.

Your "double check" in bitcoin balances was nothing else but using twice the same valid transaction.  If the transaction is invalid and you didn't see it, your "double check" would work just as well, and you would be wrong.  Your whole check stands or falls with the validity or not of that transaction, and nothing else.   And as I pointed out, checking the validity of a transaction in bitcoin (which is the essential function of the whole bitcoin thing !) is complex, uses a lot of cryptography, and can only be done with software.

IF the transaction is deemed valid, your balances will check, but the balance of A will not check anything more than the balance of B, because it uses exactly the same information you validated.

The validity of a transaction in bitcoin is checked by verifying that:
1) the block chain is all right
2) that the inputs of the transaction exist as former outputs of other transactions and are unspend
3) that the transaction is correctly cryptographically signed

the inclusion of the transaction in the block chain will make the former outputs now "spend".

In Monero, it is not much different.  The only thing that changes is the WAY 2) is verified.  In bitcoin, there is an explicit indication of which transaction had which output.  In monero too, but there are OTHER transaction outputs in the list which have nothing to do with this transaction.  However, the cryptographic signature used CAN ONLY BE USED ONCE for a given output.  When that signature is used, we know that this output is "spent", because nobody will be able to produce a SECOND signature on the block chain using the same output, without it being seen.  So directly checking, or using this signature, comes down to the same effect: the impossibility of spending an output twice.

[toknormal]

Your "double check" in bitcoin balances was nothing else but using twice the same valid transaction.

You go to great lengths to justify hiding the output of a user's own transaction from them.

Yet, the bitcoin network is 7 years old, fully transparent and benefits hugely from that transparency.

Maybe you need to rethink why.

Here's a clue: (And here's another one)

[dinofelis]

Your "double check" in bitcoin balances was nothing else but using twice the same valid transaction.

You go to great lengths to justify hiding the output of a user's own transaction from them.

Yet, the bitcoin network is 7 years old, fully transparent and benefits hugely from that transparency.

Maybe you need to rethink why.

Here's a clue: (And here's another one)

You entirely missed the point.  Nor in bitcoin, nor in monero, there is such a thing as a balance in itself.  The balance is DERIVED from a set of valid transactions.  The + and the - of the two derived balances come BOTH from the SAME valid (or invalid !) transaction.  As such, your argument is totally false.  In as much as there is a + and a - in bitcoin, it is there also in monero (as a derived quantity in both), and the + AND the - are derived from one and the same thing, namely a valid transaction.

It is simply not true that in bitcoin there are two balances, and in monero there is one.  There is NONE, nor in bitcoin, nor in monero. There are only valid transactions.  If a transaction is valid, it contains BOTH a + and a - for a to be derived balance.  So verifying the - against the + is not a double check at all.

The differences reside in two aspects.  The first aspect is that the DERIVED balance in bitcoin can be done by anybody, for any address.  Again, the instruction to {ADD 10 to B and to SUBTRACT 10 to A} which is the transaction, OBVIOUSLY will give an agreement in augmenting B and decreasing A, but that is not a double check ; only, everybody can do that calculation if he wants to.  But he's checking nothing that is not already stated when we say that {ADD 10 to B and to SUBTRACT 10 to A} is a valid transaction.  The "double check" follows mathematically from the acceptance of this transaction as valid, so it doesn't check anything.  But, in bitcoin everybody can do that calculation if he wants to.  In monero, only the owner of the secret key of A can do the calculation for A, and the owner of the secret key of B can do the calculation of B.  But B KNOWS that, given the validity of the transaction, some A must see a minus, and A KNOWS that, given the validity of the transaction, there is a balance of some B that must go up with the same amount.
The second aspect is that in bitcoin, the checking of the double spending of an output is done by checking simply whether that output appears DIRECTLY already as an input (then it is spend and cannot be spend twice) while in monero, it is checked by cryptographically verifying that the same SIGNATURE CHECK doesn't appear already somewhere.  

But these are just two different methods to make sure that the output that makes the transaction valid, is indeed unspend.

So in the end, whether we have a transaction that says:
{ADD 10 to B and SUBTRACT 10 from A} like in bitcoin ; or whether we have:

{ADD 10 to B and SUBTRACT 10 from one of A X or Z, such that this is the only time this can be done},

in both cases we know that there is a + and a corresponding - IF WE MAKE THE BALANCES, which are not explicit, nor in bitcoin, nor in monero.

What counts, is whether the transaction is valid.  If we ERRONEOUSLY accept a transaction as valid, while it isn't, then JUST AS WELL IN BITCOIN AS IN MONERO, you will find the "correct" check of B increasing with 10 and A decreasing with 10, because in both cases, a transaction contains as well a + as a - instruction.  As such, this + vs - check, is not a check at all.  It ALWAYS works out, in bitcoin, as well as in monero, and doesn't check the validity of the transaction itself, at all.

[toknormal]

verifying the - against the + is not a double check at all.

You seem to be digging yourself a great big hole here. Please read this line back.

Even anecdotally it's dismissible.

 - You send a transaction to Poloniex using a blockchain address they supply
 - your local simplewallet app reports your balance reduced by the transaction amount
 - But the balance on your exchange account doesn't move for a whole day

That is only 1 tiny scenario of thousands that occur day in day out in every cryptocurrency where the actual blockchain itself (as opposed to exchange trading) is in heavy use.

It's resolved by a symmetric audit of the transaction (described earlier) which is supported by transparent blockchains such as bitcoin and serviced via a number of public block explorers.

[mining1]

No, monero will never replace bitcoin or any other crypto unless it solves scaling. The closest project so far of doing that is ethereum. Ethereum foundation is the only team out there with both resources and an elite dedicated team of developers. Ofcourse, there are many projects out there with their own teams, but they're either small or aiming low, developing clones ain't rocket science.

[rustynailer]

No, monero will never replace bitcoin or any other crypto unless it solves scaling. The closest project so far of doing that is ethereum. Ethereum foundation is the only team out there with both resources and an elite dedicated team of developers. Ofcourse, there are many projects out there with their own teams, but they're either small or aiming low, developing clones ain't rocket science.

Thats really disrespectful towards Howard Chu and other dozens of Monero contributors that among other things reduced the blockchain size close to 50% in the lastest Monero release, Ethereum is bloatware that increases the blockchain 10 fold what Bitcoin does, the "elite team of developers" indeed acts like a new kind of royalty bailing-out themselves in a criminal fraudulent hard-fork that will go down in history as how not to manage a cryptocurrency.

Moreover joke coins like SDC will never amount real live usage, no one in their sane state of mind would trust an instamined POS coin with its myriad of problems to lead the cryptocurrency movement.

and by "no one" I mean the people with $$$ that matter, pumps come and go but you can't fake good fundamentals, the money stick to these like magnets.

Thats really disrespectful towards Ryno Mathee who was the first to put ring sigs on the btc codebase.  If Monero is so superior to sdc why the need to attack it.

[rustynailer]

No, monero will never replace bitcoin or any other crypto unless it solves scaling. The closest project so far of doing that is ethereum. Ethereum foundation is the only team out there with both resources and an elite dedicated team of developers. Ofcourse, there are many projects out there with their own teams, but they're either small or aiming low, developing clones ain't rocket science.

Thats really disrespectful towards Howard Chu and other dozens of Monero contributors that among other things reduced the blockchain size close to 50% in the lastest Monero release, Ethereum is bloatware that increases the blockchain 10 fold what Bitcoin does, the "elite team of developers" indeed acts like a new kind of royalty bailing-out themselves in a criminal fraudulent hard-fork that will go down in history as how not to manage a cryptocurrency.

Moreover joke coins like SDC will never amount real live usage, no one in their sane state of mind would trust an instamined POS coin with its myriad of problems to lead the cryptocurrency movement.

and by "no one" I mean the people with $$$ that matter, pumps come and go but you can't fake good fundamentals, the money stick to these like magnets.

Thats really disrespectful towards Ryno Mathee who was the first to put ring sigs on the btc codebase.  If Monero is so superior to sdc why the need to attack it.

Because its my opinion, and I don't endorse instamined scams.

And he did a terrible job, https://shnoe.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/de-anonymizing-shadowcash-and-oz-coin/

I can see you have no idea what your talking about
https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.3jqn7fyjr

Do you think you gain respect from shitting on everybody

[hyc]

Thats really disrespectful towards Ryno Mathee who was the first to put ring sigs on the btc codebase.  If Monero is so superior to sdc why the need to attack it.

Because its my opinion, and I don't endorse instamined scams.

And he did a terrible job, https://shnoe.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/de-anonymizing-shadowcash-and-oz-coin/

I can see you have no idea what your talking about
https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.3jqn7fyjr

Do you think you gain respect from shitting on everybody

Actually, no, you're the one without a clue. The Monero code base never had that bug. The problem was discovered in private proof-of-concept code in a personal repo. That code was never in any Monero repository, let alone any released code. It was never a "Monero bug." It never had *any* impact on the Monero blockchain or Monero's users. But it *was* a bug in SDC's publicly released code, and it *did* allow de-anonymizing the entire SDC blockchain. The SDC developers were sloppy, pushing code into production without sufficient review. That demonstrates both poor quality developers *and* development practices.

Proof: you link to a ringCT commit from February 7 2016. https://github.com/ShenNoether/RingCT/commit/6640e808018bb47ea34fd112dbf2d2bef9c1156b
But the ringCT code wasn't merged into the Monero codebase until August 24, 2016. The merge was done only after months of intensive testing and refactoring. https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/961

Do you think you gain respect from lying through your teeth?
It's not "shitting on everybody" - it's calling out liars and scammers, which is what all honest communities must do.

[dinofelis]

verifying the - against the + is not a double check at all.

You seem to be digging yourself a great big hole here. Please read this line back.

Even anecdotally it's dismissible.

 - You send a transaction to Poloniex using a blockchain address they supply
 - your local simplewallet app reports your balance reduced by the transaction amount
 - But the balance on your exchange account doesn't move for a whole day

You are totally missing the point again.  Your "balance on an exchange" has nothing to do with a cryptocurrency, but is something that the guys on an exchange decide to put on their website.  They can change that balance at any moment, by just editing their web site database.  The balance on an exchange is not "holding crypto", it is holding IOU on a website.  So this has nothing to do with it.

Your local simplewallet application is a thing that takes the block chain, as I explained, and CALCULATES a balance from all the valid transactions on the chain.  If that calculation is wrong because your application doesn't work correctly, then it is just doing a wrong calculation, but that *balance* is nowhere explicitly on a block chain.  Only TRANSACTIONS are, from which software can calculate balances.

And it is in the nature of a transaction to contain BOTH an instruction of "augmenting a balance" and an instruction of "diminishing a balance".  So from the moment that there is a valid transaction, AUTOMATICALLY there will be an augmented balance somewhere, and a diminished balance somewhere.  Whether software, of websites reflecting IOU, or whatever DO THIS CALCULATION CORRECTLY, is an entirely different issue, that has nothing to do with the block chain itself.  This software can work correctly, or wrongly, as well on the bitcoin block chain, as on the monero block chain.

You can just as well send bitcoins to poloniex, and NOT see your IOU account of bitcoins there increased, as you can send monero to poloniex, and not see your IOU account of monero increase.  If poloniex's software is not running correctly (on purpose or with a bug) then that has nothing to do with the nature of the block chain.

If your bitcoin core wallet is not treating transactions on the bitcoin chain correctly, then your balances will  not be correct, just as if simplewallet is making mistakes reading the monero block chain, it will display wrong balances.  Because in both cases, these balances are calculated on the basis of the block chain transactions.

Your reference to your "scientific control" which I explained, was totally erroneous, because just testing twice the effect of a transaction, whether valid or not, is not bringing anything new.

Again: a transaction contains BOTH a "plus" for one balance, and a "minus" for another balance.  OF COURSE if you include that transaction in the calculation of the first balance, you will see an augmentation, and if you include THAT SAME TRANSACTION in the calculation of the second balance, you will see a corresponding decrease.  But that doesn't check, prove, or double check anything.
If the transaction is valid, which is the thing that must be checked, your balances will correspond AUTOMATICALLY (in monero just as well as in bitcoin) ; and if your transaction is invalid, the erroneously calculated balances on the basis of that invalid transaction will ALSO check.  So the fact of seeing an augmentation of A and a decrease of B doesn't prove ANYTHING.  It is a logical consequence of accepting as valid a transaction.

With a correct calculation of balances from a block chain, and valid transactions, your scenario "A is diminished, but B didn't increase" CAN NEVER HAPPEN.  Because it is one and the same element (the valid transaction) that causes BOTH.  If the transaction is valid, then the correct calculation of A will be diminished, and that same transaction will cause the correct calculation of B to be augmented.  It is simply not possible that one and the same block chain, with the same set of transactions, would ever result in A diminishing, and B not augmenting, because it is one and the same instruction (the transaction).  At least if the transaction is correctly structured, which is part of its cryptographic validation.

Your scenario is only possible if people are having DIFFERENT BLOCK CHAINS with different sets of transactions, but that is also true for bitcoin.

The trivial other cases can be when your wallet software makes a wrong calculation of balances (that doesn't affect anybody, because that doesn't modify the block chain), or when other software writes wrong calculations in a web site database.  But that can just as well happen with bitcoin, as with monero, and has nothing to do with the currency principles itself.

[toknormal]

Your "balance on an exchange" has nothing to do with a cryptocurrency...it is holding IOU on a website.

Thanks, I understand that very well  

That is exactly why symmetrical audits are required on a transaction - any transaction, be it an accounting package, a blockchain or a chemical plant mass balance because that tells you whether the problem lies in the IOU or in the blockchain. The thing about controlled actions is that the control needs to be identified/measured using the same criteria as the original intent. Thats the problem with this design.

So if I use a blockchain address to command my wallet to execute a transaction, I also need to use that address to test the result. With obscured blockchains, this is not possible (because they were originally conceived of to transport fiat with a trusted party in the loop, not unbacked crypto). Thats why this is an obsolete archetype.

Bitcoin and all modern transparent blockchains however, do support properly controlled actions on the blockchain through a symmetric transaction audit. If I send a bitcoin balance to Poloniex therefore, I’ll be using exactly the same criteria to test the result as they are (...and use as the basis for their "IOU"). This is possible of course due to the magic of public-private key cryptography which effectively allows for 2 blockchains - a private one and a public one. I can command the action using the “private” address domain and BOTH sender and receiver can test the result using the same public address without revealing any private key.

When asymmetric transaction audits are enforced on users on the other hand, you don’t have this option. The control is gone. You will be using one set of criteria to measure the success (“Transaction was successful message from wallet + transaction ID) and they will be using another (visually inspecting that the address is populated). By definition the action is therefore uncontrolled.

The fact that these may be the same tests “under the hood” is irrelevant because a control needs to be explicit, not implicit. (Poloniex at least, will only endorse the ‘explicit’ result anyway).

The flaw in this (encrypted blockchain) design isn’t in the technology which I accept works fine, it’s in the original design archetype. It is made to work like a bank account from the account holder’s perspective where you can only see” your stuff” and nobody else’s. But even that system has controls because there is a brokering party that DOES have access to a symmetric transaction audit and the account holder has recourse to that trusted party.

[rustynailer]

Thats really disrespectful towards Ryno Mathee who was the first to put ring sigs on the btc codebase.  If Monero is so superior to sdc why the need to attack it.

Because its my opinion, and I don't endorse instamined scams.

And he did a terrible job, https://shnoe.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/de-anonymizing-shadowcash-and-oz-coin/

I can see you have no idea what your talking about
https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.3jqn7fyjr

Do you think you gain respect from shitting on everybody

Actually, no, you're the one without a clue. The Monero code base never had that bug. The problem was discovered in private proof-of-concept code in a personal repo. That code was never in any Monero repository, let alone any released code. It was never a "Monero bug." It never had *any* impact on the Monero blockchain or Monero's users. But it *was* a bug in SDC's publicly released code, and it *did* allow de-anonymizing the entire SDC blockchain. The SDC developers were sloppy, pushing code into production without sufficient review. That demonstrates both poor quality developers *and* development practices.

Proof: you link to a ringCT commit from February 7 2016. https://github.com/ShenNoether/RingCT/commit/6640e808018bb47ea34fd112dbf2d2bef9c1156b
But the ringCT code wasn't merged into the Monero codebase until August 24, 2016. The merge was done only after months of intensive testing and refactoring. https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/961

Do you think you gain respect from lying through your teeth?
It's not "shitting on everybody" - it's calling out liars and scammers, which is what all honest communities must do.

You really are a piece of work.

Its quite clear what happened, and you come here accusing me of lying though my teeth.  Read my article the facts are not disputed here.

https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.56mx91ypi

Your great cryptographer (shen) is a kid with no morals, lucky for him he is anonymous and he might still be able to salvage his career.

Let me just dig a bit further and find some Monero rookie amateur code fuckups: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=632595.msg7987286#msg7987286

[rustynailer]

Thats really disrespectful towards Ryno Mathee who was the first to put ring sigs on the btc codebase.  If Monero is so superior to sdc why the need to attack it.

Because its my opinion, and I don't endorse instamined scams.

And he did a terrible job, https://shnoe.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/de-anonymizing-shadowcash-and-oz-coin/

I can see you have no idea what your talking about
https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.3jqn7fyjr

Do you think you gain respect from shitting on everybody

Actually, no, you're the one without a clue. The Monero code base never had that bug. The problem was discovered in private proof-of-concept code in a personal repo. That code was never in any Monero repository, let alone any released code. It was never a "Monero bug." It never had *any* impact on the Monero blockchain or Monero's users. But it *was* a bug in SDC's publicly released code, and it *did* allow de-anonymizing the entire SDC blockchain. The SDC developers were sloppy, pushing code into production without sufficient review. That demonstrates both poor quality developers *and* development practices.

Proof: you link to a ringCT commit from February 7 2016. https://github.com/ShenNoether/RingCT/commit/6640e808018bb47ea34fd112dbf2d2bef9c1156b
But the ringCT code wasn't merged into the Monero codebase until August 24, 2016. The merge was done only after months of intensive testing and refactoring. https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/961

Do you think you gain respect from lying through your teeth?
It's not "shitting on everybody" - it's calling out liars and scammers, which is what all honest communities must do.

You really are a piece of work.

Its quite clear what happened, and you come here accusing me of lying though my teeth.  Read my article the facts are not disputed here.

https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.56mx91ypi

Your great cryptographer (shen) is a kid with no morals, lucky for him he is anonymous and he might still be able to salvage his career.

Let me just dig a bit further and find some Monero rookie amateur code fuckups: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=632595.msg7987286#msg7987286

You are a liar, I was going to type exactly what hyc said but got busy with other stuff, anyway the moral of history is you won't fool anyone here, shitcoiners gonna shitcoin and this thread is not about your scamcoin.

What have I lied about?

Who is hyc?

And why is shadow a scam coin?

[rustynailer]

This seems pretty clear to me
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=632595.msg7987286#msg7987286

How can smooth and fluffy make a schoolboy error like that?

[N-rG]

why you talk about things 2 years ago?

[enomin]

I don't think that Monero would replace bitcoin any time soon. Monero would need the same amount of press coverage that bitcoin has right now considering that most stores may have not heard of it.

[20kevin20]

why you talk about things 2 years ago?

I don't think that Monero would replace bitcoin any time soon. Monero would need the same amount of press coverage that bitcoin has right now considering that most stores may have not heard of it.

Many big, popular stores haven't heard of Bitcoin either. A good option to make one or both popular is to ask everytime we go somewhere to eat or buy anything if we can pay in the respective currency. People will ask each other what is it and this is how Bitcoin can get easily popular.

[hyc]

Thats really disrespectful towards Ryno Mathee who was the first to put ring sigs on the btc codebase.  If Monero is so superior to sdc why the need to attack it.

Because its my opinion, and I don't endorse instamined scams.

And he did a terrible job, https://shnoe.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/de-anonymizing-shadowcash-and-oz-coin/

I can see you have no idea what your talking about
https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.3jqn7fyjr

Do you think you gain respect from shitting on everybody

Actually, no, you're the one without a clue. The Monero code base never had that bug. The problem was discovered in private proof-of-concept code in a personal repo. That code was never in any Monero repository, let alone any released code. It was never a "Monero bug." It never had *any* impact on the Monero blockchain or Monero's users. But it *was* a bug in SDC's publicly released code, and it *did* allow de-anonymizing the entire SDC blockchain. The SDC developers were sloppy, pushing code into production without sufficient review. That demonstrates both poor quality developers *and* development practices.

Proof: you link to a ringCT commit from February 7 2016. https://github.com/ShenNoether/RingCT/commit/6640e808018bb47ea34fd112dbf2d2bef9c1156b
But the ringCT code wasn't merged into the Monero codebase until August 24, 2016. The merge was done only after months of intensive testing and refactoring. https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/961

Do you think you gain respect from lying through your teeth?
It's not "shitting on everybody" - it's calling out liars and scammers, which is what all honest communities must do.

You really are a piece of work.

Its quite clear what happened, and you come here accusing me of lying though my teeth.  Read my article the facts are not disputed here.

https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.56mx91ypi

You're not only a liar, you're a moron. But here's one thing that no one can argue with - github itself doesn't lie. And it is a fact that the github commits you linked to, from Shen, were never in public use in any Monero release. The commits you linked to were specific to ringCT and ringCT+multisig. RingCT itself has only been merged into monero's master repository on August 24. Everything is spelled out in exactly the commits you referenced.

This is a direct quote from your blog:

We can see the Monero fix here on the 7th Feb:

https://github.com/ShenNoether/RingCT/commit/6640e808018bb47ea34fd112dbf2d2bef9c1156b
https://github.com/monero-project/research-lab/commit/b215a98a749c452c0a0336ab4ee93b1d71df2e78

Then on the 11th Feb Shen Noether wrote this public blog: Broken Crypto in Shadowcash

Both of those commits are prototype ringCT code. Neither of those were ever in Monero's released code. RingCT code only went into Monero on August 24. The commit history is indisputable.

Your "not disputed facts" are completely false.