[neㄘcash, ᨇcash, net⚷eys, or viᖚes?] Name AnonyMint's vapor coin?

[TPTB_need_war]

Smooth's point is that in a "segregated witness" block chain design where ordering of confirmations can be ambiguous due to the inability to prove propagation, then any threat of a penalty (e.g. confiscating a deposit) against a provably fraudulent instant confirmation node (which is a masternode in Dash) would be futile because for example the attacker who is in control of that fraudulent node could have shorted the coin and thus be profiting on the attack more than the cost of the penalty.

Yes smooth that is entirely correct. And it guarantees eventual failure for any "segregated witness" design that is vulnerable to double-spending and using only penalties to hope to disincentivize such attacks.

I don't know if your narrowing of the general problem to a specific instance (shorting to profit on an attack) is sufficient. It may be, but it is difficult to enumerate external incentives. For example, in Meni's paper it is pointed out that an attacker can double spend against multiple merchants simultaneously which makes it difficult to reason about the "cost" of double spending attacks (in terms of burned hash rate for a minority attacker). That doesn't directly apply here (because locks are specific to a UTXO), but still other external attacks probably exist.

I predicted you would reply with that point of clarification. I knew I was only providing one example of a general issue. I was keeping it simple for readers. Yes I agree with your point that the general case may not be so concisely contained.

This is why the problem statement of satoshi that assumes <50% (or 30% or whatever -- I will get to that) is important. Because if that condition is well-satisfied, then the system is unconditionally secure. The exponential difficulty of multiple-confirmation attacks make them quickly implausible for any finite payoff. Double spending is impossible up to an exponential difficulty, as is jamming.

As I had argued upthread to you, that logic doesn't hold against the State's incentive to force KYC by regulating 50+% of the mining. The State incurs no ongoing cost, because it charges it to the collective. And that is why if the State is not limited in its power by permissionless individual power, then the State can drag humanity into a Dark Age of death and misery. And that is one of the main reasons I wasn't gullible enough to fall prey to Satoshi's deception game.

As an aside, the difference between 50% or 30% or 25% or whatever selfish mining thresholds might exist doesn't really matter because security in satoshi's design is greatly reduced if mining is concentrated at all, even well under 50%. In satoshi's paper he gives an example of a 45% attacker which would require waiting 340 confirmations for "just okay" security (even though his assumed threshold is 50%). Nobody does that.

And as I am sure you are aware, the selfish mining paper showed that Sybil attacking propagation on the P2P network can dramatically amplify the attacker's effective hash rate.

Any way, my design removes the attacks due to even up to 99% of the hashrate. Seriously I already described it to monsterer in the past few pages of this thread. The design is not hidden any more.

I have a strong feeling the most secure cryptocurrency will eventually solve this problem with some method of keeping mining decentralized (enough). Maybe that is impossible (as you claim due to economies of scale, state capture, etc.), maybe not. But I have doubts about any other approach. I'll wait for your white paper though.

I have already solved it. The trick was including all chains. Simple. And then a lot of details to prevent ambiguities. See my prior post.


Edit: reminder on our future The Digital Kill Switch:

https://youtu.be/lHcTKWiZ8sI    must watch freaky shit out of China

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9JIKngJnCU  Orwell's 1984 Summary

[1714113409]

1714113409

[1714113409]

1714113409

[1714113409]

1714113409

[1714113409]

1714113409

[smooth]

As I had argued upthread to you, that logic doesn't hold against the State's incentive to force KYC by regulating 50+% of the mining. The State incurs no ongoing cost, because it charges it to the collective. And that is why if the State is not limited in its power by permissionless individual power, then the State can drag humanity into a Dark Age of death and misery. And that is one of the main reasons I wasn't gullible enough to fall prey to Satoshi's deception game.

Yes I addressed that later in the post. It remains to be seen whether non-concentrated mining is possible or if it is possible to create another design can achieve the same scope of security as satoshi's without assuming non-concentrated mining (or, indeed, if there is a proof this is not possible). If neither is possible then we will need to walk back the scope of security. I think you have commented somewhere that your design does weaken the security model in some way (relative to satoshi's idealized non-concentrated mining).

[TPTB_need_war]

I think you have commented somewhere that your design does weaken the security model in some way (relative to satoshi's idealized non-concentrated mining).

That was only because I didn't want every node to download and verify every transaction, so they had to trust an aggregator. But if I don't require that, then I believe no security tradeoff exists. I can still hit very high transaction volume I think without that, but not as unbounded as could be with delegation of verification (so that would be the one feature that I would have to retract from my original statements in other threads claiming I had a breakthrough). I can still consider Lightning Networks to scale beyond that or some similar conceptual paradigm.

I am still analyzing whether the optional aggregator design falls victim to our point about externalities and the damage they can inflict due to trust. I think yes. I think that remains the tradeoff that is difficult to get around if choosing to delegate verification. I believe this ties into issues of attacking the P2P network and propagation. The CAP theorem will apply I think. That is why I put some effort into that recently:

https://github.com/shelby3/hashsig/blob/master/DDoS%20Defense%20Employing%20Public%20Key%20Cryptography.md

Any way, I need to get back to launching something because marketing is more (or at least as) important than theory. I've got a breakthrough, but of course there isn't a perfect nirvana.

Edit: I think I can bring a lot of innovation on the marketing side also that we haven't seen yet in the altcoin arena. Perhaps more so than even my block chain tech. Again I am not selling anything to investors, so there is no pumping here. I am just excited and also want to get this damn thing launched, because I am also tired. I want to know asap if this marketing plan works or flops.

Need to sign off. My gf leaves tomorrow to travel 12 hours to her family home for the holidays, so I will be working all alone here in Davao and no one to cook for me for the next week or perhaps up to New Years. I need to signoff (4am here and I haven't slept yet) so I can do all the TODO for her sendoff tomorrow including buying new rear tires for my SUV. I can't eat out because all food in Philipppines is laden with MSG and glutamate is I think a serious poison to me.

Thanks to you, monsterer, and illodin for the discussion. That cleared up a lot of matters.

Monsterer you provide that peer review and analysis free-of-charge. That is much appreciated. Smooth also. Smooth has an incentive to know what new tech is on the horizon.

[smooth]

There is a hard-coded depth limit of 6 for InstantX reorgs here: https://github.com/dashpay/dash/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2450

If you Finney attack 6 blocks deep then the InstantX lock will succeed but the blocks will not be invalidated. The network will either fork, or your double spend will succeed. The requires also exploiting the race condition, but if you make sure you are well-connected on the p2p and pre propagate your blocks geographically you will likely win most of the time.

To Finney attack 6 blocks with 10% of the hash rate, you succeed around 1/1000 of the time. The hash rate on the Dash network is not very high since the block rewards are low to begin with (due to instamine, etc.) and much of the reward is redirected to masternodes and budgets. The total mining reward per day is around 1000 DASH, which is around $2600. 10% of that is $260/day. So for $260/day you can try your attack and succeed in an average of about 1000 attempts, which is about two days.

The underlying problem is that you can not ensure that the InstantX locks propagate to miners before taking effect because miners are not a pre-registered set.

I'm not a very good pentester, but I found that in about five minutes.

[eduffield]

[...]Masternodes could indeed wreck havoc. The InstantX white paper shows some math that claims an adversary needs 2/3 of the masternodes to attain 1.72% chance of controlling the majority of a single quorum. I think this math may be flawed. Can you whip up the correct probability math quickly or should I?

https://www.dash.org/instantx/

I see the flaw in Dash's math:

Probabilities of attack can be calculated by the chance of a masternode being selected as the winning node for a given block (1/1000). To subvert the system an attacker would require operating all ten masternodes that won a given election

The attacker only needs less than 10 of the of masternodes which are eligible to authorize an InstantX lock for a specific UTXO. Because if InstantX requires all 10 masternodes to authorize (which I believe is what the white paper implies), then the attacker can block (i.e. jam) InstantX 65% of the time with only 1/10 of the masternodes! With 50% of the masternodes, the attacker could jam the InstantX 99.9% of the time. There is the 50% attack. This is probably why for Evolution, Evan changed the requirement to a simple majority (or some N-of-M) of each eligible quorum.

Dash's flawed math in the InstantX paper incorrectly assumes the attacker needs all 10 of the eligible masternodes.

Thus if the attacker owns 50% of the masternodes, the attacker has at least the 6/10th majority in 38% of the InstantX transactions and also can block (jam) the InstantX transactions 62% time with only at least a 5/10ths minority. Thus the attacker can attack 38 + 62 = 100% of the time. There is the 50% attack again. And Evan erroneously claimed that Evolution eliminates the 50% attack.  

That is the hypergeometric distribution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergeometric_distribution
http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/422414/probability-of-selecting-q-red-balls-from-m-red-balls-and-n-blue-balls

So enter here:

http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx
 

Population size:	1000 masternodes
Number of successes in population:	500 adversarial, colluding masternodes
Sample size:	10 eligible masternodes
Number of successes in sample (x):	6 needed for a majority

I don't think anyone has the incentive to buy up 50% of the masternodes to do the other attacks (actually the attacks could be achieved somewhat infrequently with a much smaller % of the masternodes, e.g. with 10% of the masternodes every 666th UTXO could be jammed and every 10,000th UTXO could be spent as many times as desired).

IX requires 6 of 10 signatures to create a transaction lock. This entire argument is based on an invalid premise! So your jamming attack doesn't work...

https://github.com/evan82/dash/blob/master/src/instantx.h#L25

The paper is very outdated and this is why I should have written the code first, then the whitepaper second. I found all of these issues when I was actually writing the code, so it doesn't include any of them.

https://github.com/evan82/dash/blob/master/src/instantx.cpp
https://github.com/evan82/dash/blob/master/src/instantx.h
https://github.com/evan82/dash/blob/master/src/main.cpp#L2973

You should really try to follow the progress of evolution, what's happening is getting exciting. All of the existing Dash technology is just a simple prototype of what we're now making.

For example, the new quorum system uses age-based quorum layering. Each quorum will have 25% nodes that are very old (more than 2 years), 25% that are more than a year, 25% that are more than six months and 25% that are more recent. As the network gets older, we will also use the most trusted nodes as 25% of all quorums, so it becomes impossible to gain a majority as a bad actor.

Also, you said this "Thus if the attacker owns 50% of the masternodes, the attacker has at least the 6/10th majority in 38% of the InstantX transactions and also can block (jam) the InstantX transactions 62% time with only at least a 5/10ths minority. Thus the attacker can attack 38 + 62 = 100% of the time. There is the 50% attack again. And Evan erroneously claimed that Evolution eliminates the 50% attack.  "

That's not a 51% attack! There's only one and it's related to mining... That's the one I'm trying to solve. The idea behind this is I can create a system where the masternodes via quorum actions will determine which blocks will have which transactions... If the miners don't decide which transactions are in which block, it removes all mining vulnerabilities. They are responsible for creating the proof of work hashes, which are the bases for the quorum selection.

Feedback and discussion is always welcome! Thanks for helping us make Dash Evolution better.  

[monsterer]

If they've already authorized a transaction spending some UTXO output, then that output can't be spent again. It is already spent. The next transaction will be mathematically invalid.

Your definition of 'already' is subjective. Try imagining this from a completely objective perspective.

[TPTB_need_war]

If they've already authorized a transaction spending some UTXO output, then that output can't be spent again. It is already spent. The next transaction will be mathematically invalid.

Your definition of 'already' is subjective. Try imagining this from a completely objective perspective.

Yes of course if your (not mine) criteria automatically conflates that the proof of spending order is what is being considered, because all that exists is propagation at that point.

But my phrase was to be taken orthogonally of any specific criteria as a first predicate. Meaning that it is indeed mathematically provable that the UXTO has been spent (just evidence the transaction and signature from the payer), but then in the next paragraph I stated the order is not mathematically provable in Dash's design if the masternodes lie (and nothing that Evan wrote in the prior post fixes that ... will he now try to copy my design and claim it as his own?).

Please allow that I was distinguishing the orthogonality between provability of the different attributes because it impacts how one goes about designing a correct design.

[TPTB_need_war]

IX requires 6 of 10 signatures to create a transaction lock.

Which is exactly what I wrote it must do, and exactly what I wrote when I surmised that your white paper was implying the highly jammable design of 10-of-10.

But as I pointed out in the correct math (which is clear you still haven't grasped), even 6-of-10 can be jammed 62% of the time (and multiply spent the other 38% of the time) given a 50% attack on the masternodes (i.e. the 50% attack on masternodes can attack 100% of the InstantX transactions). Even at 10% attack on masternodes, then every 666th UTXO can be jammed and roughly every 10,000th UTXO can be multiply spent. So if there are 66,600 UXTO, then a 10% attack on the masternodes (i.e. controlling 10% of the masternodes) roughly can jam 100 of the available UXTO and double-spend (actually multiply spend, i.e. unlimited lies can be announced by masternodes) 7 of them.

These sort of flaws are amateurish. You are in over your head. You are a programmer and some sort of finance person and a reasonably good marketer mining the gullible speculators (but not to actual users of currency), but you are not capable enough on the block chain theory.

This entire argument is based on an invalid premise! So your jamming attack doesn't work...

Nope. My entire argument is you apparently still don't know how to do basic probability math.

Will you attempt to copy my design and order Dash's masternode announcements? Then will you try to copy my design and merge all the orphans? If not, you will still have attack flaws in your design. Will you replace the deposit for controlling a masternodes with a nomination by PoW, so as to avoid the flaw of externalities that can finance the purchase of masternodes, e.g. shorting the coin.

Well even if you do manage to copy my design, you still can't fix the fact that attacking masternodes is a one-time cost and not sublinear (ongoing cost) as per attacking a correctly designed PoW coin (which is the point that has been made by myself, monsterer, and smooth). And thus Dash is a proof-of-stake security model, not a proof-of-work. Thus it can be undermined by for example combining shorting with attacking masternodes. And you won't get all the small details correct, because you simply don't have enough smart people helping you, because apparently the smart people don't want to work on your closed source during development (and very well documented allegations: fraud) coin. I would never work on your coin, because you have no usership. It is all marketing to speculators to mine the speculators. What is the point? We are supposed to be creating crypto to change the world and entice millions or billions of users. But that has never been your marketing plan. You've always been mining the speculators instead.

And also I do believe the SEC will be coming after you eventually for very clearly running an unregistered illegal investment security (and you come from the finance world so you know very well that you are skirting the securities law). Hope you've paid off the regulators with the $million you mined from the gullible speculators in crypto. Personally I don't see how it has been worth it. The $million you've perhaps pocketed will never sustain you to be rich for the rest of your life, and you will constantly have hanging over your head the threat of SEC action at any time in the future. That is criminal liability in exchange for $million. Not worth it. You are nearing the end of the road for your run.

When I originally assisted you on some of the errors in your original design which caused you to invent masternodes, I viewed you as a nice guy who was trying to develop something. When all these allegations of fraud and premine crap came out, I was very shamed that I had let you get away with promoting Dash. I always knew that Dash was a barely literate design (come on do you really want me to explain how your new anonymity design will be just as flawed as the current on in Dash!), but I didn't want to interfere because I am not the altcoin police (unlike smooth who sometimes tries to act like a sheriff). But really I have to tell you frankly, that I am ashamed that you have mined the speculators and not proposed any real impact for mass usership. And now you have the audacity to go pumping up this Evolution design as some great innovation and fooling more gullible speculators. I mean if you hadn't of done the fraud thing, I would probably not be hitting you so hard now. Again I don't go around harping on the fraud thing, because I am not the altcoin police. But pleeeaaaseee do not try to argue that you are capable on block chain theory tech. You are not.

I don't want to help you because you are doing evil in terms of the goals we as a community are trying to reach. You are siphoning away money from the community and not putting it towards actual innovation (both marketing and technical) that could really help us deal with the problem of a State gone amok. Help us to reach the ideals of crypto. Instead you are just mining the speculators and they seem to believe you are technically capable. You are capable enough to produce code, and you are capable enough to correct mistakes that are pointed out to you. But you are not capable enough to get the really smart people to work with you on ongoing basis, because you are not going in the correct direction in terms of the purpose of why we are here supporting crypto in the first place, which is to get millions of users to use crypto and to better the world (while also making money from increased adoption, not from mining from each other i.e. extracting money from each other in zero-sum game on this forum).

Maybe if you mea culpa on the premine crap and work towards bettering the world instead fooling (ahem marketing to the) the speculators, then maybe I would feel like helping you. But any way, I am moving forward on trying to move the crypto world forward in the direction it needs to be going. Maybe you should help me! I helped you before and you made a lot of money from me standing aside and not criticizing Dash in the early days. Maybe now it is time for you to pay back to the community.

And most definitely you can't duplicate my marketing plan directly to millions of users.

This is the end of the road for Dash.

It will be evident some weeks from now that Dash has no future.

Edit: I will look at your source code links when I have time. I need to head out the door to do errands. If I discover that any of my points are incorrect, I will mea culpa. Again I don't hate you, but I feel I must be frank about the technology because we really need innovation that help us reach the goals of crypto and not just half-assed tech from guys who design schemes to siphon off the capital of crypto into their pockets. And again I have studied the SEC regulations and all these marketing to speculators is clearly a violation of the Howey test for being an unregistered illegal investment security. It doesn't matter how you've obfuscated it by pretending the masternodes are in control, the Supreme Court has consistently said that the test overlooks any attempts to obfuscate the economic reality of the situation. Then on top of that is the evidence of deception with the premine and the advertised money supply protocol being altered ex post facto, etc.

And afaik you are a USA citizen, so thus you incur the maximum culpability.

[smooth]

The paper is very outdated and this is why I should have written the code first, then the whitepaper second. I found all of these issues when I was actually writing the code, so it doesn't include any of them.

Did you lose the editable version of the white paper?

[monsterer]

in the next paragraph I stated the order is not mathematically provable in Dash's design if the masternodes lie

Ok, so you agree that my proposed sequence for creating a fork/double spend is viable?

...And thus Dash is a proof-of-stake security model, not a proof-of-work

I completely agree with that statement; instant-x (and vanillacoin's zerotime) has a very similar security profile to POS chains, and because it has the power to override the POW chain it has been grafted onto, it reduces the entire chain to this lesser model of security.

[TPTB_need_war]

Been thinking on and off all day about this. I am not satisfied with my public handling of this issue of Dash, in that I don't feel it is my role to attack another person's work or venture. I think those that can do something, just do it. I must admit to myself I am frustrated (beaten down) with my own struggles.

Everything lately has been very stressful. It is difficult to compute how to fit into this crypto jungle. In my condition, some times (or most of the time) everything is difficult, even just simple things. Very difficult to prioritize. It adds to frustration the level of excrutiating detail that is required to analyze, explain and implement correctly. The computer is physically injuring me. We were initially analyzing Dash because it is a related design to my coin's design and so I wanted to enumerate possible design flaws and how I correct them.

There is a lot more I could say to explain my various feelings and thoughts. But I think it is better I shut up.

I hope there is a rainbow at the end of the tunnel for those who dream of some idealistic outcome for crypto. I hope I can get back to programming enthusiatically for the internet as I did in the 1990s where I thought the world was headed for a bright future and not a future where China assigns everyone a social media 666 number. I suppose I associate Dash with the corporate corruption (and even collusion with the corrupt government) and perhaps that is a contributing emotion (frustration) causing me to lash out.

Of course I want to earn money in crypto also. And perhaps one could say Dash is a competitor to what I am working on. Except note that I will prove I am not mining the investors here, because I won't even be directly offering my coin in a general promotion here.


monsterer, yes we are in agreement on the attack scenarios I think. I don't remember any remaining disagreements up thread.

[toknormal]

Been thinking on and off all day about this. I am not satisfied with my public handling of this issue of Dash

Not surprised. What a load of trumped up patronising baloney..."mining the investors". Seems everyone's allowed to have an opinion on that except the investors themselves. As for your little drama cauldron over regulation...w.t.f. ? The entire industry is a potential target one way or another. Block rewards are everywhere. Most regulatory material impacts on realised fiat gains anyway, not unrealised ones.

I don't know where you got your chip from but you can drive a bus through it. If you’ve got personal grievances there are better ways of dealing with them than casting wild personal aspersions and maligning allusions based on a myopic appraisal of the project’s objectives and otherwise mundane technical observations.

you are doing evil

ffs. The bitcoin project is currently breaking every rule in the “cryptocurrency” book by building a scaffolding layer around it that plays straight into the hands of the corporate steamroller. Meanwhile Dash takes an integrated approach in order to resist this trend and you accuse it of “doing evil” ?

Give yourself a break.

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

He's obviously conflicted about something. History will judge whether Dash succeeds or fails. I believe it will fulfil crypto's goal of empowering people financially, while granting them complete anonymity in their day-to-day transactions.

You want these things too, right? I don't see how our end goals are different. Our ways might be different, and there are over 500 different ways right now, but we are all generally trying to do the same thing.

Evan will achieve his goals, because he is smart, capable, adaptable, personable, and he has a small army of helpers backing him up. Dash WILL be Pepsi to Bitcoin's Coke, not because we want to do different things, but because we do those things in a better way.

All help is welcomed, regardless of the helper's motivation.

[TPTB_need_war]

toknormal I believe I remember past interactions with you and that you were very rational and exhibited technical acumen, if I am not confusing you with another similar username.

I assume you've read my numerous criticisms of where Bitcoin is likely headed.

So it seems your point is that Dash is attempting an approach that is a valid alternative. Sorry every time I have analyzed any technical aspect of Dash, it has always been invalid. It started with me explaining to Evan that CoinJoin can be jammed (which is something I had argued with Gmaxwell about when he invented it) and so then Evan invented masternodes. And again I thought it was a stupid and highly flawed idea, but rather than rain on his parade, I offered my help on what were the most pressing attack concerns and he proceeded to design what he claimed were defenses. I continued to think it was an incredibly flawed design, but I shut up (and I didn't want to lose time combing over the fine details of his design to prove it and enumerate flaws). And then the speculators jumped on Dash like wildfire.

As for the "mining the investors", it is obvious that he all Dash can and is designed to do. It has no real usership. Its technology is fundamentally flawed. It is marketed ONLY to speculators and buyers of crypto currency. I don't classify those as users. I classify them as ignorant fools easy for a snake oil salesman to harvest.

The investors are caught up in gold rush fever and have no fucking clue how ignorant their investments are.

Your entire altcoin industry is a target for SEC crackdown and it is coming eventually. The government is letting you lay the trap for yourselves, which will come down the line.

I will be marketing and entering an entirely orthogonal industry to one which this forum represents. I will either invent an entirely new market for crypto currency, or I will fail, give up and move on.

Yeah you are correct. Go have your speculation orgy. I either be busy kicking your ass in the real market or moved on because the real market doesn't exist.

Obviously everyone has some vested interest. So as I wrote in prior post, I am admitting I am talking too much and not kicking ass enough. Probably because of this fucking illness and also too many decades on the computer has caused me to easily fall into a sort of non-productivity spiral (a form of addiction of trying to do too much at once and thus doing nearly nothing proficiently).

And on that note, I am going to stop discussion. Because in order to be reasonably healthy, I need to limit my computer hours to 8 or so per day maximum. I need all those hours to be on programming.

The upthread discussion was very astute and helpful. I am not discounting the value of discussion. I just know the times in my life where I created popular user software, I wasn't talking to anyone. I was too busy doing it.


TaoOfSaatoshi your post appeared while I was submitting mine. I believe Evan's goal is to milk you of as much of your capital as possible. I saw it in his eyes when the guy confronted him on video wherein he announced his plans for Evolution in Europe. His eyelids were fluttering which is a sign of lying and he became flustered (and overcome with rage) and unable to answer the allegations. I personally can't prove that he is lying (because I haven't expended my scarce time to go compiling and studying all the evidence), but others have done a good job already of presenting evidence about some of the shenanigans. My confliction is I am an anarchist. Thus I don't think it is my or anyone's role to play the role of the policeman for those who haven't hired me to do that job. I mean it is not my place, responsibility, nor right to condemn Dash with words and commentary. Much better if I condemn in the market by kicking its ass off the planet by rendering it inferior and millions of users behind in in adoption. Which I damn well will attempt to do. I can't promise success in my attempt.

Yeah this is the crypto jungle. A wild west of corruption and vested interests. I am leaving this jungle, because it isn't the real market of users. And it also isn't a safe place to play. The jail time comes later. Mark my word.



In summary, I cringe as much as Smoothie or smooth do at the stupid design of Dash, the manipulations and shenanigans (some of it only conjectured but with good logic and some data), and the gullible speculators who fall into love with this (technically speaking and also marketing to investors and not users) garbage. But I am conflicted, because I don't think competition by verbal attack helps produce success for the market. Competition by kicking ass in the market does.

Also originally I took Evan at his word and he seemed amiable. But over time, I come to form an opinion of him as more likely being a conniving con artist. And for example publishing lies about the math and capabilities of InstantX is another strong evidence. And we have so many examples of speculators writing that Dash has instant transactions, because they were lied to. This evidence can be handed to an SEC investigation in the future (not by me as I am anarchist but someone can).

Fact is that Dash's rise in market cap was likely a mirage and a manipulation of insiders buying from themselves. I used to convince myself that I shouldn't frown too much on Dash, because the large market cap meant the speculators had voted for their preference. But then smooth explained to me that these altcoin market caps are all manipulated mirages. Then I transitioned from a gullible fool and I started to ponder the more likely truth about the altcoin arena being one big "mining the speculators" paradigm.

Any newbies who fall into this trap, I guess deserve the cost of education. But remember that is what the SEC is there for to protect the unsophisticated investor from unregistered illegal investment securities (which I think Dash per the Supreme Court Howey test but IANAL so every reader should defer to their own attorney on legal issues). Now I see Erik Voorhees who settled with the SEC by repaying every investment he received from speculators (otherwise he would have faced jail time), is now promoting Dash. Strange bed fellows. Makes me ponder whether Erik has connections at the SEC and who knows who and what is being paid under the table in this corrupt world.

Let's contrast Dash and Evan with jl777. James is always working and coding trying to complete projects for the SuperNet. He is working now on making the SuperNet more accessible to users via browser GUIs. Do you see him prostituting himself in grand promotions of garbage? No. He is humble. I've grown to respect him more over time. Even I need to emulate him more, because he doesn't waste a lot of time in forum discussions. I can't vouch for the quality of his code or designs yet (and frankly his earlier white papers were so discombobulated that I thought he was not capable, but I have since learned his a very capable C coder) because I don't have yet sufficient exposure to detailed interoption with his code. But afaik at least he doesn't seem to be lying about what he is capable of doing and is doing. Evan presents a very amiable image up front, and he appears to be very crafty with his obfuscations such as the math lies in the InstantX white paper. An honest mistake? Just like the premine? And the change in the money supply ex post facto? So many honest mistakes?



I am frustrated because I should be solving the entire problem with my actions. But Father Time is undefeated and he caught up with me. But perhaps I still can. I need to organize better and focus more.

So thus adios to these time wasting discussions... salamat inyong lahat.

[TPTB_need_war]

Fuseleer what I was able to solve with my design (that turns PoW on its head so to speak) is transaction verification is as fast as propagating a transaction to a server and it propagating back out its confirmation. So roughly less than 1 second latency (can be faster but just referring roughly general case here).

But in terms of throughput, I believe the limiting factor (but not proven on a testnet yet) will be the rate of processing transactions on the CPU.

But we can talk about none of this without qualifying with detailed analysis of the security tradeoffs.

Thus it is useless to have these discussions and quote these figures until complete specifications and open source are revealed.

Thus I will not participate in any discussion on this until that juncture.

monsterer you are trying to reinvent my design? (referring to our recent discussion in my thread)

Btw, voting is already the wrong start, if you are attempting to duplicate how I was able to turn PoW on its head.

Also Bitcoin-NG already nominates a transaction confimer. Yet in my design multiple confirmers are nominated.

Hey I thought you were going to give me a chance to launch and release a paper and not go trying to reverse engineer my design in a very public manner from our discussions?

It is a free market. Do what you will.

Btw, I can't participate further due to lack of time.

[rdnkjdi]

Then I transitioned from a gullible fool and I started to ponder the more likely truth about the altcoin arena being one big "mining the speculators" paradigm.

Any newbies who fall into this trap, I guess deserve the cost of educationa

Best summary of altcoin market I've seen

[arielbit]

Then I transitioned from a gullible fool and I started to ponder the more likely truth about the altcoin arena being one big "mining the speculators" paradigm.

Any newbies who fall into this trap, I guess deserve the cost of educationa

Best summary of altcoin market I've seen

and now I thought I was mining some coin here...but I am the one being mined haha LOL

OP's idea to launch his coin outside bitcointalk makes sense

[iCEBREAKER]

IX requires 6 of 10 signatures to create a transaction lock.

Which is exactly what I wrote it must do, and exactly what I wrote when I surmised that your white paper was implying the highly jammable design of 10-of-10.

But as I pointed out in the correct math (which is clear you still haven't grasped), even 6-of-10 can be jammed 62% of the time (and multiply spent the other 38% of the time) given a 50% attack on the masternodes (i.e. the 50% attack on masternodes can attack 100% of the InstantX transactions). Even at 10% attack on masternodes, then every 666th UTXO can be jammed and roughly every 10,000th UTXO can be multiply spent. So if there are 66,600 UXTO, then a 10% attack on the masternodes (i.e. controlling 10% of the masternodes) roughly can jam 100 of the available UXTO and double-spend (actually multiply spend, i.e. unlimited lies can be announced by masternodes) 7 of them.

These sort of flaws are amateurish. You are in over your head. You are a programmer and some sort of finance person and a reasonably good marketer mining the gullible speculators (but not to actual users of currency), but you are not capable enough on the block chain theory.

This entire argument is based on an invalid premise! So your jamming attack doesn't work...

Nope. My entire argument is you apparently still don't know how to do basic probability math.

Will you attempt to copy my design and order Dash's masternode announcements? Then will you try to copy my design and merge all the orphans? If not, you will still have attack flaws in your design. Will you replace the deposit for controlling a masternodes with a nomination by PoW, so as to avoid the flaw of externalities that can finance the purchase of masternodes, e.g. shorting the coin.

Well even if you do manage to copy my design, you still can't fix the fact that attacking masternodes is a one-time cost and not sublinear (ongoing cost) as per attacking a correctly designed PoW coin (which is the point that has been made by myself, monsterer, and smooth). And thus Dash is a proof-of-stake security model, not a proof-of-work. Thus it can be undermined by for example combining shorting with attacking masternodes. And you won't get all the small details correct, because you simply don't have enough smart people helping you, because apparently the smart people don't want to work on your closed source during development (and very well documented allegations: fraud) coin. I would never work on your coin, because you have no usership. It is all marketing to speculators to mine the speculators. What is the point? We are supposed to be creating crypto to change the world and entice millions or billions of users. But that has never been your marketing plan. You've always been mining the speculators instead.

And also I do believe the SEC will be coming after you eventually for very clearly running an unregistered illegal investment security (and you come from the finance world so you know very well that you are skirting the securities law). Hope you've paid off the regulators with the $million you mined from the gullible speculators in crypto. Personally I don't see how it has been worth it. The $million you've perhaps pocketed will never sustain you to be rich for the rest of your life, and you will constantly have hanging over your head the threat of SEC action at any time in the future. That is criminal liability in exchange for $million. Not worth it. You are nearing the end of the road for your run.

When I originally assisted you on some of the errors in your original design which caused you to invent masternodes, I viewed you as a nice guy who was trying to develop something. When all these allegations of fraud and premine crap came out, I was very shamed that I had let you get away with promoting Dash. I always knew that Dash was a barely literate design (come on do you really want me to explain how your new anonymity design will be just as flawed as the current on in Dash!), but I didn't want to interfere because I am not the altcoin police (unlike smooth who sometimes tries to act like a sheriff). But really I have to tell you frankly, that I am ashamed that you have mined the speculators and not proposed any real impact for mass usership. And now you have the audacity to go pumping up this Evolution design as some great innovation and fooling more gullible speculators. I mean if you hadn't of done the fraud thing, I would probably not be hitting you so hard now. Again I don't go around harping on the fraud thing, because I am not the altcoin police. But pleeeaaaseee do not try to argue that you are capable on block chain theory tech. You are not.

I don't want to help you because you are doing evil in terms of the goals we as a community are trying to reach. You are siphoning away money from the community and not putting it towards actual innovation (both marketing and technical) that could really help us deal with the problem of a State gone amok. Help us to reach the ideals of crypto. Instead you are just mining the speculators and they seem to believe you are technically capable. You are capable enough to produce code, and you are capable enough to correct mistakes that are pointed out to you. But you are not capable enough to get the really smart people to work with you on ongoing basis, because you are not going in the correct direction in terms of the purpose of why we are here supporting crypto in the first place, which is to get millions of users to use crypto and to better the world (while also making money from increased adoption, not from mining from each other i.e. extracting money from each other in zero-sum game on this forum).

Maybe if you mea culpa on the premine crap and work towards bettering the world instead fooling (ahem marketing to the) the speculators, then maybe I would feel like helping you. But any way, I am moving forward on trying to move the crypto world forward in the direction it needs to be going. Maybe you should help me! I helped you before and you made a lot of money from me standing aside and not criticizing Dash in the early days. Maybe now it is time for you to pay back to the community.

And most definitely you can't duplicate my marketing plan directly to millions of users.

This is the end of the road for Dash.

It will be evident some weeks from now that Dash has no future.

Edit: I will look at your source code links when I have time. I need to head out the door to do errands. If I discover that any of my points are incorrect, I will mea culpa. Again I don't hate you, but I feel I must be frank about the technology because we really need innovation that help us reach the goals of crypto and not just half-assed tech from guys who design schemes to siphon off the capital of crypto into their pockets. And again I have studied the SEC regulations and all these marketing to speculators is clearly a violation of the Howey test for being an unregistered illegal investment security. It doesn't matter how you've obfuscated it by pretending the masternodes are in control, the Supreme Court has consistently said that the test overlooks any attempts to obfuscate the economic reality of the situation. Then on top of that is the evidence of deception with the premine and the advertised money supply protocol being altered ex post facto, etc.

And afaik you are a USA citizen, so thus you incur the maximum culpability.

Evan Madoffield 

DASH

[toknormal]

I will be marketing and entering an entirely orthogonal industry to one which this forum represents. I will either invent an entirely new market for crypto currency, or I will fail, give up and move on.

I'll save you some effort. You're about two years too late and Evan wasn't.

Whether he's an experienced crypto-coder or an inexperienced one, and whatever number of exotic attack vectors the trainspotters continue to dream up, he's got the right monetary model and thats why Dash is where it is.

Stick with being a tyre-kicker. You'll make more of a splash  

In the meantime, all sparring aside I genuinely wish you improved health.

[dEBRUYNE]

Just a shortcut in case you haven't seen it yet, TPTB_need_war!  

https://github.com/MonetaOfficial/moneta/releases/tag/v0.2

We have released the world's first implementation of Zerocoin: https://news.bitcoin.com/first-implementation-zerocoin-released-introducing-moneta

https://twitter.com/MonetaProject/status/678358260336955392

One shouldn't trust (previous) scammers:

Same guys as -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=846471.0

Just look at the trust rating.

Also, -> https://forum.bitcoin.com/post7037.html#p7037 & https://forum.bitcoin.com/post7046.html#p7046

Found another 1 -> https://github.com/MonetaOfficial/moneta/issues/1

Not signing your commits is a HUGE red flag.