Peter Todd calls dash snake oil.

[entertheabyss]

As I explained to you earlier, you can do exactly the same type of audit. Every single transaction except coinbases have inputs exactly equal to outputs (if fees are included in outputs), and that is entirely visible. Coinbases can be verified to match the published reward schedule in every instance starting from block 0 all he way to block infinity (unlike Dash, BTW), again all visible. Thus you can be assured that coins are not and never have been created out of thin air.

You further need to verify that transactions have valid signatures (for which all the necessary inputs are, again, visible), which is finally exactly the same thing you need to do (but with slightly different mathematical equations) with every other cryptocurrency.

This is just technological B.S. that nobody monetary user is interested in or needs to know. It is not a financial audit.

I already described what an "audit is" and it is not something that cryptonote supports because the relevant information is obscured. The originating address is obscured, the destination addresses are obscured, even the balance itself is obscured - that is the whole *point* of the cryptonote technology which is why I say it's relevant for bookkeeping or record keeping of a trusted party-backed currency but not for defining a new form of base money.

Sounds like wally the economist

http://dilbert.com/series/66

[1715031599]

1715031599

[1715031599]

1715031599

[1715031599]

1715031599

[oaxaca]

Do you think he's lurking here?  

Try this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/

I don't do reddit or twitter or facebook.  You have my permission to copy my question and post it.  I assume that you would be interested in his response.


EDIT
------
You started this thread, don't you want to read his justification?

[MalMen]

Surely DASH has at least one developer / supporter sophisticated enough to challenge Peter Todd on his assessment, no? If this was my investment, I'd push for answers if someone with a strong tech background called it "snake oil".

Again, it's tough to challenge his "assessment" when he provides ZERO backup or documentation or analysis or anything but name calling.

OK, let me quote your prophet:






hmmmm.  Is he saying that the instantx feature of DASH is "better off"?

I dont even knew Peter Todd before this, but i have to agree with him on that one... reduzing the block time is not a good soluction for a lot of reasons, bitcoin should be considered money, and its normal to have services working on top of it, just like VISA work on top of FIAT... you are talking about instax, instax is an feature on top of an central pseudo-descentralised autirity

[oaxaca]

I dont even knew Peter Todd before this, but i have to agree with him on that one... reduzing the block time is not a good soluction for a lot of reasons, bitcoin should be considered money, and its normal to have services working on top of it, just like VISA work on top of FIAT... you are talking about instax, instax is an feature on top of an central pseudo-descentralised autirity

Instantx is a transaction whose funds are locked by the masternode network until the miner network confirms it through block writing (EDIT - which prevents double spending and confirms in seconds).  Can you elaborate on what "central pseudo-descentralised autirity" means?

[generalizethis]

Do you think he's lurking here?  

Try this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/

I don't do reddit or twitter or facebook.  You have my permission to copy my question and post it.  I assume that you would be interested in his response.


EDIT
------
You started this thread, don't you want to read his justification?

Here you go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2546

[entertheabyss]

Do you think he's lurking here?  

Try this: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/

I don't do reddit or twitter or facebook.  You have my permission to copy my question and post it.  I assume that you would be interested in his response.


EDIT
------
You started this thread, don't you want to read his justification?

Here you go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2546

i sent him a pm hopefully he will clarify and this insane thread will die

[oaxaca]

Here you go:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=2546

Thank you!

[generalizethis]

anyway where the hell is Evan Duffield?

It works both ways. 

[aleix]

FYI

This thread is a perfect lame example of Argumento ad verecundiam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

It's a very common logical fallacy. Perfect for insecure people.


I'm very interested in the reasoning of PT about this issue.

Tnks Oaxaca.

[oaxaca]

anyway where the hell is Evan Duffield?

It works both ways. 

Unless there is something concrete to discuss, why bother?  A one-off name-calling without any rationale is trolling.  If some kind (ANY KIND) of real discussion points emerge...

[Cryptock]

LOL..what a shade

[kazuki49]

anyway where the hell is Evan Duffield?

It works both ways.  

Unless there is something concrete to discuss, why bother?  A one-off name-calling without any rationale is trolling.  If some kind (ANY KIND) of real discussion points emerge...

So you want Peter Todd tell you the formula of your own snake-oil? It's a snake-oil. 

[oaxaca]

So you want Peter Todd tell you the formula of your own snake-oil? It's a snake-oil. 

I'm impressed by your thorough analysis.  Your points are articulate and well laid out.

[generalizethis]

So you want Peter Todd tell you the formula of your own snake-oil? It's a snake-oil.  

I'm impressed by your thorough analysis.  Your points are articulate and well laid out.

I'm still waiting for you to refute this (I'm no Peter Todd, but it seems kind of a big security lapse and it can warm you up for when Todd shows up):

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.

[oaxaca]

I'm still waiting for you to refute this (I'm no Peter Todd, but it seems kind of a big security lapse and it can warm you up for when Todd shows up):

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.

Your plan to break the anonymity of DASH is to:
Buy 1,000,000 DASH,
Set up 1,000 MasterNodes you control,
DDOS all of the other MasterNodes (2,800 or so in 38 countries), and
Profit!

where to start?

[cAPSLOCK]

You guys started this thread to slap DASH in the face with an off handed, inaccurate and mean spirited comment by a so called "bitcoin developer" who is acting childish and insecure.  And you continue to act childish and insecure.  We just want to make sure that anyone opening this thread gets the other point of view as well. 

So called bitcoin developer? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commits?author=petertodd - looks like 60 commits to me. How many commits do you have on any cryptocurrency project? Given any talks? Written any analysis or whitepapers? He has a lot more history of providing intelligent input to the community than you do.

Dude.  You're talking about TasteofStephana.. no wait.. TantricStephanie.... you know...  

[generalizethis]

I'm still waiting for you to refute this (I'm no Peter Todd, but it seems kind of a big security lapse and it can warm you up for when Todd shows up):

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.

Your plan to break the anonymity of DASH is to:
Buy 1,000,000 DASH,
Set up 1,000 MasterNodes you control,
DDOS all of the other MasterNodes (2,800 or so in 38 countries), and
Profit!

where to start?

Start by rereading it. You missed some things, but I expect selective reading/hearing from dashers. Also, 95% of the nodes are in 5 countries (all allies) and on hosting services and there aren't 2,800 active nodes--last time i checked it was around 1,200. given pedos are mining dash (allegedly) it wouldn't be hard to imagine those countries working together to stop and prosecute by using subpoenas or coercion to hosting companies or the mn operators themselves.

[oaxaca]

Start by rereading it. You missed some things, but I expect selective reading/hearing from dashers. Also, 95% of the nodes are in 5 countries (all allies) and on hosting services and there aren't 2,800 active nodes--last time i checked it was around 1,200. given pedos are mining dash (allegedly) it wouldn't be hard to imagine those countries working together to stop and prosecute by using subpoenas or coercion to hosting companies or the mn operators themselves.

Last I checked there are 2,866 ACTIVE MasterNodes. 1,200 was roughly 1 year ago.  You are obviously way behind.  I suggest you start by reading the open source code or the PDFs or something.

Your concerns are real.  I'm sure that the US and it's allies are planning this takeover while we type.  Jesus, this is the best you've got?

Meanwhile, I'm sure you all have been waiting for the reply to my PM.  Here it is:

[statdude]

Start by rereading it. You missed some things, but I expect selective reading/hearing from dashers. Also, 95% of the nodes are in 5 countries (all allies) and on hosting services and there aren't 2,800 active nodes--last time i checked it was around 1,200. given pedos are mining dash (allegedly) it wouldn't be hard to imagine those countries working together to stop and prosecute by using subpoenas or coercion to hosting companies or the mn operators themselves.

Last I checked there are 2,866 ACTIVE MasterNodes. 1,200 was roughly 1 year ago.  You are obviously way behind.  I suggest you start by reading the open source code or the PDFs or something.

Your concerns are real.  I'm sure that the US and it's allies are planning this takeover while we type.  Jesus, this is the best you've got?

Meanwhile, I'm sure you all have been waiting for the reply to my PM.  Here it is:

lol wut

this is satoshi's prof

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3

[hodlmybtc]

Trolololol