Peter Todd calls dash snake oil.

[smooth]

In cryptonote, I still can't verify it with logic, therefore I will not trust it.  That's all I have to say on it, I'm going to go back to my hole.  I can see your point, that you are willing to trust.  This is a philosophical difference, a difference in what we value to be important.  In this case, the argument can never be resolved.  Good day to you

That's all very nice but none of that changes the fact that Pater Todd says that Dash is snake oil, and I agree with him.

If you don't like Monero, then don't use it. Maybe stick with Bitcoin or look for something else. Stay away from Dash Oil.

[1715027711]

1715027711

[1715027711]

1715027711

[1715027711]

1715027711

[1715027711]

1715027711

[smooth]

I don't trust this system.  I can't see it and verify it.  What good is it for everything to be hidden completely, to the point where you have to trust that it is working?

With a simple, understandable system that fully protects the privacy of the user,  yet requires no trust - as was always the whole point of the decentralized crypto currency of Bitcoin - DASH is not more superior due to it's complexity, but due to it's simplicity.  If you're such a technocrat that you don't understand this, I can only feel bad for you because the majority of the world will.

LOL. Here's the attack vector Evan created out of ignorance, stupidity or pure not giving a fuck.

The easiest attack is to buy masternodes and ddos attack competing nodes until you own the traffic. Evan claims it's financially implausible, but ignores that nodes are most profitable when there about a 1,000 masternodes (he has a ROI graphic on the dash BCT thread that underscores this). He also ignores that the attacker would be pulling incomes from these masternodes--given that most are held on corporate servers underlies that no one knows who owns them outside of the host and the owner. He also ignores how motivated an attacker may be, that he or another masternode operator might comply given the right circumstances (threat or lawful compliance) and how deep LE's pockets are--silly, dangerous, stupid.

If you trust that system knowing the flaws, you deserve whatever comes your way--except maybe being linked to pedophiles--can you show that link on your explorer?

DOS'ing masternodes doesn't reduce the anonymity set of the transactions or coins mixed before the DOS. If the masternode count drops 50% for example all of a sudden, mixing coins at that moment is not a good idea. It was already suggested a year ago or so that the wallet would take care of this and protect the user during the network downtime. It hasn't been implemented yet afaik, DASH must grow at least 10x at minimum before this (an appearance of such a motivated attacker) would become even a possibility.

I'd say more like 1000x (even 100x wouldn't get to Bitcoin's size, and Bitcoin isn't attacked all that hard) but the problem is that these issue are unfixable without a complete redesign.

The anonymity set attributable to the masternodes is unknowable because you don't know, can't know, and will never know to what extent the masternodes are compromised. The best you can do is run a few masternodes yourself (assuming you are rich enough to afford it; in the unlikely event that Dash were really successful the masternodes would all be owned by billionaires or major corporations or governments), but unlike running your own Bitcoin or Monero node, that doesn't really help you because you are only going to be a tiny fraction of the network. What the rest of the network and the underlying infrastructure is doing (and on which your privacy depends) is unknowable to you.

That's quite close to the definition of snake oil, being a potion of unknown composition which is alleged by its promoters to be helpful but can't be tested or verified for safety or efficacy.

[entertheabyss]

In cryptonote, I still can't verify it with logic, therefore I will not trust it.

Holy shit. A philosophical difference? When did we stop talking about cryptography and mathematics and start talking about your "feelings". I am simply blown away at how silly you people are. On one hand you are saying that you cant trust a coin with an opaque blockcoin on the other hand darksend makes coins opaque. Please explain this to us me. I just dont get it.

You don't trust cryptonote because... you cant verify it with logic!!?!?!? Its an open source computer program based on a public blocchain where EVERY full node verifies the data independently , its 100% mathematical logic. I'm sorry to say but this is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.

[generalizethis]

I don't trust this system.  I can't see it and verify it.  What good is it for everything to be hidden completely, to the point where you have to trust that it is working?

With a simple, understandable system that fully protects the privacy of the user,  yet requires no trust - as was always the whole point of the decentralized crypto currency of Bitcoin - DASH is not more superior due to it's complexity, but due to it's simplicity.  If you're such a technocrat that you don't understand this, I can only feel bad for you because the majority of the world will.

LOL. Here's the attack vector Evan created out of ignorance, stupidity or pure not giving a fuck.

The easiest attack is to buy masternodes and ddos attack competing nodes until you own the traffic. Evan claims it's financially implausible, but ignores that nodes are most profitable when there about a 1,000 masternodes (he has a ROI graphic on the dash BCT thread that underscores this). He also ignores that the attacker would be pulling incomes from these masternodes--given that most are held on corporate servers underlies that no one knows who owns them outside of the host and the owner. He also ignores how motivated an attacker may be, that he or another masternode operator might comply given the right circumstances (threat or lawful compliance) and how deep LE's pockets are--silly, dangerous, stupid.

If you trust that system knowing the flaws, you deserve whatever comes your way--except maybe being linked to pedophiles--can you show that link on your explorer?

DOS'ing masternodes doesn't reduce the anonymity set of the transactions or coins mixed before the DOS. If the masternode count drops 50% for example all of a sudden, mixing coins at that moment is not a good idea. It was already suggested a year ago or so that the wallet would take care of this and protect the user during the network downtime. It hasn't been implemented yet afaik, DASH must grow at least 100x at minimum before this (an appearance of such a motivated attacker) would become even a possibility.

DDOS is to control the majority of nodes, not to directly reduce the anonymity set--though by doing so while monitoring the nodes you posses would break anonymity--which was my point. Nice suggestion, but wouldn't an attacker take control of the nodes before any measures were taken, while it was cheapest, and while they could gain the most info for the longest time without raising any red flags? Also, you still have no measure in reality or in the works to stop an organization from using coercion or compliance to motivate a node operator to turn over data--this is even better since the whatevermine granted the first users such a large stash of coins and the masternodes are most likely concentrated in a few hands. But here's the big problem: masternodes are human controlled intermediaries that perform important functions. Whatever breaks dash's anonymity will happen because you trust this moronic system that is begging to be broken. You are playing a game of whack-a-mole and apparently no one in dashland has the theoretical capability to see it or the moral compass to speak up. Snake oil.

[TanteStefana2]

In cryptonote, I still can't verify it with logic, therefore I will not trust it.  That's all I have to say on it, I'm going to go back to my hole.  I can see your point, that you are willing to trust.  This is a philosophical difference, a difference in what we value to be important.  In this case, the argument can never be resolved.  Good day to you

That's all very nice but none of that changes the fact that Pater Todd says that Dash is snake oil, and I agree with him.

If you don't like Monero, then don't use it. Maybe stick with Bitcoin or look for something else. Stay away from Dash Oil.

Of course I don't like nor use nor ever bought Monero, no worries.  Also, Peter Todd is a child and a technocrat.  I don't put any credence to his name calling whatsoever, it's silly.  I'm not looking for anything, I found it January 18, 2014 and have only bought/sold Bitcoin to interface with fiat.  I'm a complete DASH cheerleader, as I've always admitted to, and you know me.  However, anyone that wants to understand better, can at least see an opposing view here, though this is only a silly name calling thread to pat yourselves on the back with.

By guys, you're going back on ignore, LOL

[illodin]

I don't trust this system.  I can't see it and verify it.  What good is it for everything to be hidden completely, to the point where you have to trust that it is working?

With a simple, understandable system that fully protects the privacy of the user,  yet requires no trust - as was always the whole point of the decentralized crypto currency of Bitcoin - DASH is not more superior due to it's complexity, but due to it's simplicity.  If you're such a technocrat that you don't understand this, I can only feel bad for you because the majority of the world will.

LOL. Here's the attack vector Evan created out of ignorance, stupidity or pure not giving a fuck.

The easiest attack is to buy masternodes and ddos attack competing nodes until you own the traffic. Evan claims it's financially implausible, but ignores that nodes are most profitable when there about a 1,000 masternodes (he has a ROI graphic on the dash BCT thread that underscores this). He also ignores that the attacker would be pulling incomes from these masternodes--given that most are held on corporate servers underlies that no one knows who owns them outside of the host and the owner. He also ignores how motivated an attacker may be, that he or another masternode operator might comply given the right circumstances (threat or lawful compliance) and how deep LE's pockets are--silly, dangerous, stupid.

If you trust that system knowing the flaws, you deserve whatever comes your way--except maybe being linked to pedophiles--can you show that link on your explorer?

DOS'ing masternodes doesn't reduce the anonymity set of the transactions or coins mixed before the DOS. If the masternode count drops 50% for example all of a sudden, mixing coins at that moment is not a good idea. It was already suggested a year ago or so that the wallet would take care of this and protect the user during the network downtime. It hasn't been implemented yet afaik, DASH must grow at least 10x at minimum before this (an appearance of such a motivated attacker) would become even a possibility.

I'd say more like 1000x (even 100x wouldn't get to Bitcoin's size, and Bitcoin isn't attacked all that hard) but the problem is that these issue are unfixable without a complete redesign.

The anonymity set attributable to the masternodes is unknowable because you don't know, can't know, and will never know to what extent the masternodes are compromised. The best you can do is run a few masternodes yourself (assuming you are rich enough to afford it; in the unlikely event that Dash were really successful the masternodes would all be owned by billionaires or major corporations or governments), but unlike running your own Bitcoin or Monero node, that doesn't really help you because you are only going to be a tiny fraction of the network. What the rest of the network and the underlying infrastructure is doing (and on which your privacy depends) is unknowable to you.

That's quite close to the definition of snake oil, being a potion of unknown composition which is alleged by its promoters to be helpful but can't be tested or verified for safety or efficacy.

Yea I edited the 10x to 100x like 5 seconds after I posted it.

It wouldn't necessarily need a complete redesign to shut that attack vector. All that's needed is to prevent the mixing masternode from knowing which outputs (of the mixing transaction) belong together with which inputs. The mixing peers could do a key exchange and encrypt their own outputs with random mixing peer's public key, and decrypt the others' outputs they can using their private key, and then pass clear text outputs to the mixing masternode.

I wouldn't rule a complete redesign out either - the "decentralized blockchain governance" funding system will allow anyone to suggest a project that needs funding, and perhaps someone will suggest a new design and if the project gets voted it gets the funding. As this thread is as much about Monero as it's about DASH - maybe some Monero devs might want to earn some money on the side and suggest they can implement CN blockchain for DASH for $20k for example and then have the funds to continue Monero development.   Obviously if DASH grows 10x, 100x, or 1000x before that becomes relevant, then add appropriate number of zeros to the $20k example number.

Or perhaps something entirely different - the future is wide open.

[TanteStefana2]

In cryptonote, I still can't verify it with logic, therefore I will not trust it.

Holy shit. A philosophical difference? When did we stop talking about cryptography and mathematics and start talking about your "feelings". I am simply blown away at how silly you people are. On one hand you are saying that you cant trust a coin with an opaque blockcoin on the other hand darksend makes coins opaque. Please explain this to us me. I just dont get it.

You don't trust cryptonote because... you cant verify it with logic!!?!?!? Its an open source computer program based on a public blocchain where EVERY full node verifies the data independently , its 100% mathematical logic. I'm sorry to say but this is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.

Trustless verses trust is at the root of Bitcoin.  Centralized Banks and their ilk, vs a decentralized trustless networks.  Monero works ulitmately like a trusted central authority, it is opposite, no matter how much fancy mathematics is included, to what Bitcoin achieved.  So any argument as to which is best is indeed philosophical.

[TanteStefana2]

In cryptonote, I still can't verify it with logic, therefore I will not trust it.

Holy shit. A philosophical difference? When did we stop talking about cryptography and mathematics and start talking about your "feelings". I am simply blown away at how silly you people are. On one hand you are saying that you cant trust a coin with an opaque blockcoin on the other hand darksend makes coins opaque. Please explain this to us me. I just dont get it.

You don't trust cryptonote because... you cant verify it with logic!!?!?!? Its an open source computer program based on a public blocchain where EVERY full node verifies the data independently , its 100% mathematical logic. I'm sorry to say but this is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.

I can't follow where the coins came from without cryptography.  Everything is hidden.  The ledger does not exist, only a chain of cryptography.  As Toknormal always says, it's throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Now I feel like we're just repeating ourselves.  This means you are not really reading what I wrote, and that means this is futile.

[generalizethis]

In cryptonote, I still can't verify it with logic, therefore I will not trust it.

Holy shit. A philosophical difference? When did we stop talking about cryptography and mathematics and start talking about your "feelings". I am simply blown away at how silly you people are. On one hand you are saying that you cant trust a coin with an opaque blockcoin on the other hand darksend makes coins opaque. Please explain this to us me. I just dont get it.

You don't trust cryptonote because... you cant verify it with logic!!?!?!? Its an open source computer program based on a public blocchain where EVERY full node verifies the data independently , its 100% mathematical logic. I'm sorry to say but this is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.

Trustless verses trust is at the root of Bitcoin.  Centralized Banks and their ilk, vs a decentralized trustless networks.  Monero works ulitmately like a trusted central authority, it is opposite, no matter how much fancy mathematics is included, to what Bitcoin achieved.  So any argument as to which is best is indeed philosophical.

Monero works like a trustless (human trutless/mathematical proven) decentralized cryptographical system. Saying it any other way is lying.

[TanteStefana2]

I don't trust this system.  I can't see it and verify it.  What good is it for everything to be hidden completely, to the point where you have to trust that it is working?

With a simple, understandable system that fully protects the privacy of the user,  yet requires no trust - as was always the whole point of the decentralized crypto currency of Bitcoin - DASH is not more superior due to it's complexity, but due to it's simplicity.  If you're such a technocrat that you don't understand this, I can only feel bad for you because the majority of the world will.

LOL. Here's the attack vector Evan created out of ignorance, stupidity or pure not giving a fuck.

The easiest attack is to buy masternodes and ddos attack competing nodes until you own the traffic. Evan claims it's financially implausible, but ignores that nodes are most profitable when there about a 1,000 masternodes (he has a ROI graphic on the dash BCT thread that underscores this). He also ignores that the attacker would be pulling incomes from these masternodes--given that most are held on corporate servers underlies that no one knows who owns them outside of the host and the owner. He also ignores how motivated an attacker may be, that he or another masternode operator might comply given the right circumstances (threat or lawful compliance) and how deep LE's pockets are--silly, dangerous, stupid.

If you trust that system knowing the flaws, you deserve whatever comes your way--except maybe being linked to pedophiles--can you show that link on your explorer?

DOS'ing masternodes doesn't reduce the anonymity set of the transactions or coins mixed before the DOS. If the masternode count drops 50% for example all of a sudden, mixing coins at that moment is not a good idea. It was already suggested a year ago or so that the wallet would take care of this and protect the user during the network downtime. It hasn't been implemented yet afaik, DASH must grow at least 10x at minimum before this (an appearance of such a motivated attacker) would become even a possibility.

I'd say more like 1000x (even 100x wouldn't get to Bitcoin's size, and Bitcoin isn't attacked all that hard) but the problem is that these issue are unfixable without a complete redesign.

The anonymity set attributable to the masternodes is unknowable because you don't know, can't know, and will never know to what extent the masternodes are compromised. The best you can do is run a few masternodes yourself (assuming you are rich enough to afford it; in the unlikely event that Dash were really successful the masternodes would all be owned by billionaires or major corporations or governments), but unlike running your own Bitcoin or Monero node, that doesn't really help you because you are only going to be a tiny fraction of the network. What the rest of the network and the underlying infrastructure is doing (and on which your privacy depends) is unknowable to you.

That's quite close to the definition of snake oil, being a potion of unknown composition which is alleged by its promoters to be helpful but can't be tested or verified for safety or efficacy.

Yea I edited the 10x to 100x like 5 seconds after I posted it.

It wouldn't necessarily need a complete redesign to shut that attack vector. All that's needed is to prevent the mixing masternode from knowing which outputs (of the mixing transaction) belong together with which inputs. The mixing peers could do a key exchange and encrypt their own outputs with random mixing peer's public key, and decrypt the others' outputs they can using their private key, and then pass clear text outputs to the mixing masternode.

I wouldn't rule a complete redesign out either - the "decentralized blockchain governance" funding system will allow anyone to suggest a project that needs funding, and perhaps someone will suggest a new design and if the project gets voted it gets the funding. As this thread is as much about Monero as it's about DASH - maybe some Monero devs might want to earn some money on the side and suggest they can implement CN blockchain for DASH for $20k for example and then have the funds to continue Monero development.   Obviously if DASH grows 10x, 100x, or 1000x before that becomes relevant, then add appropriate number of zeros to the $20k example number.

Or perhaps something entirely different - the future is wide open.

Good luck getting the votes, LOL

[generalizethis]

I can't follow where the coins came from without cryptography.  this is futile.

Then stop wasting our time and learn cryptography.

[iCEBREAKER]

In cryptonote, I still can't verify it with logic, therefore I will not trust it.  That's all I have to say on it, I'm going to go back to my hole.  I can see your point, that you are willing to trust.  This is a philosophical difference, a difference in what we value to be important.  In this case, the argument can never be resolved.  Good day to you

That's all very nice but none of that changes the fact that Pater Todd says that Dash is snake oil, and I agree with him.

If you don't like Monero, then don't use it. Maybe stick with Bitcoin or look for something else. Stay away from Dash Oil.

Monero only requires trusting proven cryptographic techniques.  Anyone may (with logic) verify this: https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

Dash requires trusting third parties in the form of Masternodes and THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION, INC.

"Trusted third parties are a security hole."  - Nick Szabo 2001

[entertheabyss]

In cryptonote, I still can't verify it with logic, therefore I will not trust it.

Holy shit. A philosophical difference? When did we stop talking about cryptography and mathematics and start talking about your "feelings". I am simply blown away at how silly you people are. On one hand you are saying that you cant trust a coin with an opaque blockcoin on the other hand darksend makes coins opaque. Please explain this to us me. I just dont get it.

You don't trust cryptonote because... you cant verify it with logic!!?!?!? Its an open source computer program based on a public blocchain where EVERY full node verifies the data independently , its 100% mathematical logic. I'm sorry to say but this is the stupidest statement I have heard in a long time.

I can't follow where the coins came from without cryptography.  Everything is hidden.  The ledger does not exist, only a chain of cryptography.  As Toknormal always says, it's throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Now I feel like we're just repeating ourselves.  This means you are not really reading what I wrote, and that means this is futile.

So a chain of cryptographic signatures rolled into blocks is bad... as the basic structure of all blockchains even including dash. or is it specifically cryptography that you don't understand?

specifically what kind of cryptography is not logical?

[entertheabyss]

I can't follow where the coins came from without cryptography.  this is futile.

Then stop wasting our time and learn cryptography.

+1

you fail to understand that cryptography is the building blocks of all -> CRYPTOcoins <- including dash. Its in the name

[smooth]

It wouldn't necessarily need a complete redesign to shut that attack vector. All that's needed is to prevent the mixing masternode from knowing which outputs (of the mixing transaction) belong together with which inputs. The mixing peers could do a key exchange and encrypt their own outputs with random mixing peer's public key, and decrypt the others' outputs they can using their private key, and then pass clear text outputs to the mixing masternode.

Or they could do all this without masternodes at all, as is being done with Bitcoin-based mixing systems, so again, Dash and masternodes are pointless. One of the original criticisms of Dash from Greg Maxwell (inventor of CoinJoin) is that the whole purpose of CoinJoin was that it can work directly on top of Bitcoin. Dash missed this point entirely, in pursuit of an instamine and speculative gains. If you are going to create a whole new system, there are better ways of doing mixing (cryptonote being one of them, which was first proposed by satoshi, CT from Blockstream being the first building block of another)

I wouldn't rule a complete redesign out either

Okay great. At that point, we can discuss whether or not that complete redesign is also snake oil.

[iCEBREAKER]

Oh look, THE DARKCOIN FOUNDATION INC's slow witted lawyer finally got them to take down the most blatant example of their HYIP attributes!

Unfortunately for them, it's still in the Internet Archive: https://web.archive.org/web/20150601003557/http://darkcoin.guide/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/masternode_payment_plan.png

Also, fluffypony's Epic Domination Post: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/cpmvogy

Alright, let me give it a spin. Preface: I'm one of the core developers on Monero, which some mistakenly believe to be in "competition" with Darkcoin. Nonetheless, I have been involved in the cryptocurrency space for many years, and in cryptography / netsec / FOSS projects far longer, so take these observations accordingly.

    Darkcoin had a problematic launch: 2 million Darkcoin were mined in the first day (incidentally, there are around 2 800 Darkcoin emitted daily right now, so that should give some level of contrast). This may not seem to relate to your question, but it is important to establish the legitimacy and technical competency of the developer. The fact that the block reward does not match either of the three block reward formulae published by the developer is worrying. This points to an outright scam at worst, pure incompetence at best.

    When dealing with a cryptocurrency you need to be able to cryptographically and mathematically prove a particular claim. So in the original Bitcoin whitepaper Satoshi was able to mathematically prove the validity of the longest chain rule. The rest of his cryptographic claims were backed by the papers he quotes (Adam Back's Hashcash paper in particular). Darkcoin has no cryptographic proofs of their claims. This is important, because a cryptocurrency is a manifestation of cryptographic theory, not the other way around. If you try and shoe-horn it the other way around you'll likely find your model unsafe under the most basic of assumptions.

    The developer seems to eschew well-defined, anti-fragile, and proven Bitcoin concepts (eg. building a model based on paying for services via micropayment channels) for bizarre models that are poorly implemented and fragile (eg. payments based on uptime make a MasterNode a ripe target for DDoS attacks null-routing that IP).

    I have seen no evidence that InstantX transactions are not susceptible to malleability. This means that it is trivially easy to disrupt every InstantX transaction, and the network will fall back to processing them as "normal" transactions.

    This malleability approach also allows for easy forking of the network if you own a subset of MasterNodes, whereby your malicious MasterNodes vote for both of your transactions and feed those votes to two groups of miners. The claim made in the InstantX "whitepaper" is that the conflicting messages will "cancel each other out", but once the network is forked that isn't the case, as half the conflicting messages won't even be received by the one part of the forked network. By continuing to run this group of malicious nodes, feeding sets of InstantX transactions that appear to be voted in as valid, you can keep the network split indefinitely.

    The entire basis for "anonymising" transactions is based on clients being online at a given point in time, which means that those clients are also open to leaking information via temporal association.

    The developer seems to have a grave lack of understanding when it comes to the danger of incentives. The clearest example of this is this table of MasterNode ROI. As you can clearly see, a MasterNode's ROI is substantially higher when there are fewer MasterNodes. Thus there is clear incentive for a MasterNode operator to systematically attack and destroy other MasterNodes, but not so much that the network ceases to exist. Just enough to double or triple his ROI. Incidentally, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as in a hypothetical future where Darkcoin is processing thousands of transactions an hour it will require quite a hefty server to act as a MasterNode. The fewer MasterNodes there are, the more work individual MasterNodes will have to do, which means that those run by non-technical people or on cheap VPS's will be the first to go, eventually leaving a group of big boys with big guns operating the remaining MasterNodes.

    We've already seen ample evidence of law enforcement turning seemingly anonymous people into informants (eg. Sabu), hacking servers, and infiltrating systems in other ways. It is safe to say that LEA could also outrightly purchase large portions of the MasterNode network. It is impossible to tell which MasterNodes are real and which are owned by LEA (in perpetuity). Unfortunately it appears that the developer's line of reasoning, with respects to "how much" privacy Darkcoin gives you, started with the assumption that a supermajority of the MasterNodes are honest / not being watched / not infiltrated by LEA. This leaves open a huge, gaping hole whereby all of the "mixing" MasterNodes are involved in can be revealed by an owned / compromised majority. I can guarantee that the bulk of all MasterNode operators do not know even the first piece of opsec required to keep from your tin from being tampered with.

    MasterNodes can be tricked into believing they can no longer accept new connections, simply by filling up all their file descriptors. It is somewhat trivial to force new connections to a group of MasterNodes under your control.

    The developer has no clue how dangerous and stupid it is to chain hashing algorithms, as you open them up to pre-image attacks among other things. As a security researcher who discovered a flaw in chained hashing algorithms in PHP concluded: "The underlying problem is that combining cryptographic operators that weren't designed to be combined can be disastrous. Is it possible to do so safely? Yes. Is it a good idea to do it? No. This particular case is just one example where combining operations can be exceedingly dangerous. But the bottom line: never roll your own crypto. It can have fatal consequences."

Of course, Darkcoin proponents try reply to comments like these with accusations of "FUD" and nonsensical dismissals that occasionally contain a smattering of hand-waving and technical jargon to try make it appear they know what they're talking about. Which I will, understandably, ignore and refuse to engage. Instead, I ask only that the onus remain on Darkcoin to cryptographically and mathematically prove that their model, for all claims, remains valid and secure.

Edit: corrected first point to reflect that 2 million Darkcoin were mined in a day, not in 8 days. I had forgotten that it was instamined due to low diff, it only normalised after many retargets towards the end of the day.

[TanteStefana2]

I can't follow where the coins came from without cryptography.  this is futile.

Then stop wasting our time and learn cryptography.

Explain to me how I can trust a cryptographic algorithm that says a coin is indeed valid and was created properly and that nothing malicious has happened, though none of that information is visible or verifiable on the blockchain.  Explain to me how I can know this.  Not in theory, but in unbreakable proofs.  Perhaps the cryptography has indeed kept the coins true, but how do I know bad information, extra coins, a super block payout can not happen?  How do I know this, I can't verify the validity of any of these coins except to accept what the cryptography says is spendable at that moment in time.

And by the way, your response is extremely rude.  If you can't converse but only attack, you should shut it.  Knowing how to do a cryptographical proof has nothing to do with knowing how to properly and usefully apply that proof in a system. (I can do the first, but am open to the fact I'm wrong about the second)  I see a hole I can't trust. I'm asking for an explanation, but none of you have given it to me, other than "hey, it's cryptography man, you can trust it baby!"  Sorry, that's not good enough for me.

You're an idiot Icebreaker, don't embarrass yourself.

[smooth]

I can't follow where the coins came from without cryptography.  this is futile.

Then stop wasting our time and learn cryptography.

Explain to me how I can trust a cryptographic algorithm that says a coin is indeed valid and was created properly and that nothing malicious has happened, though none of that information is visible or verifiable on the blockchain.

This is incorrect. All of the information that is used by the cryptography is visible and verifiable on the blockchain. That's the whole point of it all.

a super block payout can not happen

FWIW the block payout amounts in cryptonote are visible and public. See the first transaction in every block on the chain explorer. That's not really the point though. You still need cryptography to verify that any of it is actually valid, regardless of which coin you are using.

it's cryptography man, you can trust it baby!"

You could learn math and work through the proofs yourself. Failing that you are blindly trusting the cryptography regardless of which coin you use. That's why they are called cryptocurrencies.

[illodin]

It wouldn't necessarily need a complete redesign to shut that attack vector. All that's needed is to prevent the mixing masternode from knowing which outputs (of the mixing transaction) belong together with which inputs. The mixing peers could do a key exchange and encrypt their own outputs with random mixing peer's public key, and decrypt the others' outputs they can using their private key, and then pass clear text outputs to the mixing masternode.

Or they could do all this without masternodes at all, as is being done with Bitcoin-based mixing systems, so again, Dash and masternodes are pointless.

Difference is, that the mixing in DASH is automatic, trustless, and decentralized. And, mixing is not all that masternodes can do. Instant transaction confirmations come to mind. Further, I wouldn't say having a healthy number of full nodes is pointless.

[iCEBREAKER]

Explain to me how I can trust a cryptographic algorithm that says a coin is indeed valid and was created properly and that nothing malicious has happened, though none of that information is visible or verifiable on the blockchain.  Explain to me how I can know this.  Not in theory, but in unbreakable proofs.

First, you need some background in zero knowledge proofs and fully homomorphic encryption.  Better make coffee...

Done?  Good.

Now read this:  https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

Welcome to Monero Mountain!