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

[smooth]

One shouldn't trust (previous) scammers:

Agreed 100%.  Unfortunately, I don't have the technical know-how to judge the rest.  Thus, we need to get developer-eyes on it!   

Why? Zerocoin (note this is zeroCOIN not zeroCASH) was developed years ago and well-discussed by experts (and generally rejected as a poor approach) already on this forum and elsewhere. Just because some pump-and-dumpers recycle their zerovert scam into a new ICO coin they are trying to hype, why would developers care about that?

[TPTB_need_war]

---8<---

Feature	Dash	Monero	ShadowCoin	AnonyMint's "VaporCoin"	BitShares DPOS
Anonymity	Spyware potentially improving	Unprovable	Unprovable	No	Incomplete
Mass-scale txns	Broken, Unfixable	No*	No	Yes	100+ TX/sec
Instant txns	Broken, Unfixable	No	No	Yes	No
GUI wallet	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Browser wallet	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Microtransactions wallet	No	No	No	Yes	No
Unlimited public block chains per PoW chain	No	No	No	Yes	No
Launched to millions of users	No	No	No	Planned	No
IPO or mineable by speculators	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Bitcoin interoption				Planned
Mobile App	Yes	Yes	No	Browser app	Browser app
Browser/SPV wallet	Planned	Yes	Yes	Yes
Proof-of-Stake Politics (non-decentralized governance)	Yes	No	No	No	Yes
Research	Dunning-Krugerish!	Above average, several smart dudes	Minimal, mostly plagiarism	Above average, but only 1 dude	Average?
Development (10 is highest)	5	6	6	¼	8
Network & security model	Fixed cost Vulnerable[1] Proof-of-Stake	Unbounded cost Satoshi proof-of-work	Fixed cost Vulnerable[1] Proof-of-Stake	Unbounded cost Perfected proof-of-work	Fixed cost Vulnerable[1] Proof-of-Stake

[1]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13271013#msg13271013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13276564#msg13276564 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13277243#msg13277243 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13281563#msg13281563 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13289767#msg13289767 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13296145#msg13296145 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13277560#msg13277560 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13281009#msg13281009

Note my coin is not released so claimed features are not publicly verified. Also by the time those features are released, it is possible the other coins will also have released new features.

Please notify me of any corrections I need to make and I will edit the table.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

Haha. Evan will eat my dust. And you will learn to respect the experience of your elders.

The Dunning-Kruger hare doesn't win the race because he makes a zillion wrong turns along the way. The experienced turtle (even sick) wins the race. Did you forget the wise parable from your formative years.

Dash has 0 adoption. They haven't even found the starting line of the race yet.

P.S. thanks for the well wishes on my health. I appear to be making progress. Staying off the computer yesterday and sleeping 12 hours all day Sunday has rejuvenated my brain! I was feeling so worn out that I couldn't function.

[TPTB_need_war]

Why? Zerocoin (note this is zeroCOIN not zeroCASH) was developed years ago and well-discussed by experts (and generally rejected as a poor approach) already on this forum and elsewhere. Just because some pump-and-dumpers recycle their zerovert scam into a new ICO coin they are trying to hype, why would developers care about that?

Well, maybe they don't care.  That's absolutely fine with me.  Considering some well-respected folks in Cryptoland were tweeting about it, I honestly thought this was a never-seen-before implementation.  If it's old news, that's fine too!  

Even anoncoin was I think implementing Zerocoin last year. But Zerocoin is not Zerocash (although Zerocash does have coins names zerocoins). It is Zerocash that might be the holy-grail of provable anonymity, but afaik there doesn't exist a stable, fully vetted implementation. No one can really deliver Zerocash today. It is on my future list to delve into (that doesn't mean a promise of implementation).

Note when I write that anonymity in Cryptonote (and plagiarized version such as ShadowCoin) is "unprovable", I mean that no one can prove the level of their anonymity mathematically. That doesn't mean there is no mixing going on. It just means no one can prove the mixing is of a certain level of probability to be anonymous. Or to be even more precise, compared to Zerocash, no one can prove that the asymptotic anonymity is 100% (even Zerocash can be Sybil attacked but the non-Sybils accumulate in the anonymity set unbounded whereas the anonymity sets in Cryptonote are ephemeral, bounded thus collapsing into combinatorial cascade + Sybil reduction).

I will not bother to enumerate again the flaws of Zerocoin. I concur with smooth's statement that others have done that already.

[TPTB_need_war]

"Proof-of-Stake Politics (non-decentralized governance)" - I guess you haven't been following Bitcoin lately? There are just as much politics involved with PoW as soon as a cryptocurrency is large enough. Google "Bitcoin block size limit controversy".

Perhaps you haven't noticed that changing Bitcoin's protocol is incredibly difficult because it requires convincing 50% of the mining hashrate to do so. In my design, it will require ~100%. That is zero effective politics. People can foam at the mouth but they can't actually change the protocol.

That sounds like a horrible idea... you are banking on the fact you will release the cryptocurrency without any flaws. Furthermore, it will be hard to make changes if something desperately needs to be changed. One saboteur can ruin it for everybody. If Satoshi would have made Bitcoin that way, I'm sure Bitcoin would already be dead. Cryptocurrencies need to be able to evolve easily due to unknown issues that will certainly come up in the future.

Btw, thanks for raising the point that my innovation to eliminate control-of-the-majority means hard forks become that much more difficult to accomplish. I do need to make sure I pay attention to that!

A PoW coin becomes progressively more difficult to hard fork as the mining becomes more diversified. Obviously Satoshi could—and Monero can still—hard fork, because they have loyalty of the miners because it is not yet a widely adopted block chain.

But yeah, a PoW coin needs to get their protocol correct before it becomes too widely deployed.

Also note that even widely deployed, miners are much more willing to accept a hard fork which fixes a bug for as long as it isn't injuring their vested interests.

Users invest in a protocol and if politics can change the protocol at any time in the future, then users can't trust the future. This is another reason Bitcoin can't just graft on all the innovations of altcoins. It is one of the prominent reasons I am trying to design a PoW block chain which can be hot-plugged with unlimited public block chain transaction format variants that are orthogonal to the PoW chain which remains a constant (so they don't all have to reinvent security).

Whereas, PoS proponents want absolute control forever. And thus they are private club designs. Their designs will never be ubiquitous platforms because they are not strictly protocol:

The only way you could accomplish what you stated is for the system to not enforce a consensus protocol.

---8<---

Either proof-of-stake is not a decentralized protocol for consensus so your point is correct, or vice versa so your point is incorrect. This ties into the point that politics has absolute control in proof-of-stake. Does everyone always agree with the decision of the government. Who is that again who predicted DPOS would end up in a shooting war?

[...]Bitshares is going to have elements of the Roman senate, maybe people will even stab or murder each other eventually[...]

The PoW proponents are trying to design the protocol that will be the block chain for the entire internet, not some private club where we get to play King forever. Inventing a protocol that is orthogonal to politics is I think part of the definition of an end-to-end principled protocol (end-to-end is an underlying principle of all popular internet protocols).

Whereas in Proof-of-Stake coins, the collectivized, centralized control is absolute.

As stated above, there is a reason why a "majority rules" system is best.

Refuted.

Your claim that attacking a PoS coin is a "fixed cost" and attacking a PoW coin is an "unbounded cost" is similarly ridiculous considering the costs of attacking both types are dynamic (PoS depending on the price of the coin and PoW depending on the hash power of the coin.)

It is absolutely correct. Once you control a PoS coin, you control it forever at no additional (significant) cost. How can anyone else ever take control away from you since you control staking and the only way anyone else can get stake is by buying it from you? No one can and you don't need to continue expending resources (mining) to retain control as you do with PoW.

Wrong. If someone buys up 50%+ of the currency supply to attack it, the PoS coin's community thanks them for the donation, forks the coin, rolls back the blockchain, and continues business as usual.

In that case, the system doesn't work at all, because it doesn't enforce consensus. You might as well have "the community" record everyone's holdings on a spreadsheet.

Also, attacking via 50% doesn't necessarily require "buying up" anything. It could be (at least in part) having hacked an exchange or other large holder, or having accumulated stake through borrowing. The same with PoW (compromising a large pool for example), except that it isn't permanent.

Obviously that is not an ideal solution, but a worst-case scenario solution. Feel free to try and attack a PoS chain and let me know how successful you are.

You are missing the point. The stake is an attack.

If you and few others who were Kings before but gave up majority stake, you fork but the users may not follow you. The masses tend to be very apathetic about changing what they are accustomed to.

The majority can change the protocol at-will. Ditto with Satoshi's PoW (but I claim not in my innovation), except it is an unbounded ongoing cost;whereas, with PoS it is a one-time cost. And you can even recoup that cost by shorting the coin if the manipulations will cause a drop in price, or by recouping profits gained from changing the protocol.

As long as the protocol changes don't too much inconvenience the masses, they won't bother to change. For example, adding a small transaction fee that is paid to the new Kings.

You claim we can't attack PoS, but this may be because there is no profit for us to do so, because your PoS coins have no usership nor sufficient non-mirage liquidity to profit from shorting. Go grow the usership and/or the true liquidity of the float, then observe the game theory.

You are also presuming that the majority of stake exists. Instead you may have 10 coalitions of minority stakes all fighting each other. Thus 10 forks and chaos due to being able to spend the coins 10 times.

Forking will almost always be avoided because politically it is devastating. Again the attackers can just short the coin.

A dictator attacker who unifies control (a la Napoleon) by acquiring majority stake would perhaps be cheered (ending the chaos). This is the strategy being deployed right now before our eyes to bring the world to its knees to beg for a NWO one world government to stop the nation-state chaos. The banksters created that chaos on purpose.

Refuted.

[toknormal]

Evan will eat my dust.

I doubt it.

You're a talker. He's a doer.

[generalizethis]

Evan will eat my dust.

I doubt it.

You're a talker. He's a doer.

Just look how he did you and your cohorts with that accidental instamine story and now he's got you on the hook (12-18 months) with a bunch of vaporware and promises. Yeah, he's a doer.

[TPTB_need_war]

You're a talker.

And a doer. But I use more precision in my doing. I can accomplish with 10,000 LOC (which is roughly what I am approaching now) what Evan couldn't with 1 million LOC.

Evan can dig canals with spoons and I will wait until the backhoe is available.

I haven't studied to see how many LOC of code he wrote. Didn't he start from Bitcoin code base? My code base is original (except where clearly noted in the source code). I've never even looked at the Bitcoin code.

He's a doer.

Doer of what?

Feature	Dash	Monero	ShadowCoin	AnonyMint's "VaporCoin"	BitShares DPOS
Anonymity	Spyware	Unprovable	Unprovable	No	Incomplete
Mass-scale txns	Broken, Unfixable	No	No	Yes	100+ TX/sec
Instant txns	Broken, Unfixable	No	No	Yes	No
Network & security model	Fixed cost Vulnerable[1] Proof-of-Stake	Unbounded cost Satoshi proof-of-work	Unbounded cost Satoshi proof-of-work	Unbounded cost Perfected proof-of-work	Fixed cost Vulnerable[1] Proof-of-Stake

[smoothie]

He's a doer.

Doer of what?

Feature	Dash	Monero	ShadowCoin	AnonyMint's "VaporCoin"	BitShares DPOS
Anonymity	Spyware	Unprovable	Unprovable	No	Incomplete
Mass-scale txns	Broken, Unfixable	No	No	Yes	100+ TX/sec
Instant txns	Broken, Unfixable	No	No	Yes	No
Network & security model	Fixed cost Vulnerable[1] Proof-of-Stake	Unbounded cost Satoshi proof-of-work	Unbounded cost Satoshi proof-of-work	Unbounded cost Perfected proof-of-work	Fixed cost Vulnerable[1] Proof-of-Stake

Anonymint, has Evan responded to your long post you made a day or so ago calling him out?

or did he tuck his tail between his legs and run away?

Props to you for calling out DASH for what it is.

[TPTB_need_war]

Anonymint, has Evan responded to your long post you made a day or so ago calling him out?

The only reply I saw was this one. If you mean my reply to that, then I suppose the answer is no (unless he replied and deleted it before I saw it... we have to consider such possibilities of disappearing money supply and posts).

[smoothie]

Anonymint, has Evan responded to your long post you made a day or so ago calling him out?

The only reply I saw was this one. If you mean my reply to that, then I suppose the answer is no (unless he replied and deleted it before I saw it... we have to consider such possibilities of disappearing money supply and posts).

Yeah I was talking about after that post.

Wasn't sure if he PMs you etc. or if a post was made and then deleted either.

[TPTB_need_war]

Anonymint, has Evan responded to your long post you made a day or so ago calling him out?

The only reply I saw was this one. If you mean my reply to that, then I suppose the answer is no (unless he replied and deleted it before I saw it... we have to consider such possibilities of disappearing money supply and posts).

Yeah I was talking about after that post.

Wasn't sure if he PMs you etc. or if a post was made and then deleted either.

Nada on PMs recently. Perhaps one or two many moons ago, but I've forgotten.

[AlexGR]

Where exactly is the "spyware" aspect of DASH located?

It's an open source project, so please, if possible, name of file and line of code...

[dEBRUYNE]

You're a talker.

And a doer. But I use more precision in my doing. I can accomplish with 10,000 LOC (which is roughly what I am approaching now) what Evan couldn't with 1 million LOC.

Evan can dig canals with spoons and I will wait until the backhoe is available.

I haven't studied to see how many LOC of code he wrote. Didn't he start from Bitcoin code base? My code base is original (except where clearly noted in the source code). I've never even looked at the Bitcoin code.

He's a doer.

Doer of what?

Feature	Dash	Monero	ShadowCoin	AnonyMint's "VaporCoin"	BitShares DPOS
Anonymity	Spyware	Unprovable	Unprovable	No	Incomplete
Mass-scale txns	Broken, Unfixable	No	No	Yes	100+ TX/sec
Instant txns	Broken, Unfixable	No	No	Yes	No
Network & security model	Fixed cost Vulnerable[1] Proof-of-Stake	Unbounded cost Satoshi proof-of-work	Unbounded cost Satoshi proof-of-work	Unbounded cost Perfected proof-of-work	Fixed cost Vulnerable[1] Proof-of-Stake

Correct, see the following conversation:

This comparison is pretty much meaningless imo but in case you want to continue it's better to compare similar branches. For Dash corresponding Bitcoin branch is 0.10, not master.



So difference is somewhere around 2100 commits currently

Thank you for the correction. That seems an impressive number, and indeed somewhat an indication of a lot of development work being done that is independent of Bitcoin. If you look back in the actual commits there were indeed many commits for clean ups, tweaks, etc., especially during the summer (around the time of the version 12 release), so the 2000 number seems to pass a quick reality check.
 
Are you no longer merging new Bitcoin commits, or is it planned to freeze for a while and then catch up at some point?

In case the corresponding Bitcoin branch is 0.10, this probably gives the best and most fair comparison:



Also: "Showing  300 changed files  with 5,718 additions and 3,542 deletions."

[TPTB_need_war]

Where exactly is the "spyware" aspect of DASH located?

It's an open source project, so please, if possible, name of file and line of code...

Here is what I wrote:

I claim that Dash is spyware because the anonymity is trusted to masternodes which are an obvious target for the NSA or anyone who can profit on breaking anonymity (e.g. those who want to blackmail you or whatever).

I don't need to dig in the source. It is a conceptual truth in terms of the way the anonymity has been described (at least the last time I paid attention).

Evan mentioned he was going to improve it for Evolution, but even if he shifts to onion routing across masternodes, that won't entirely absolve the attacks on anonymity from colluding masternodes (although it can improve the statistics on the masternode coverage needed for breaking anonymity). Ditto any mixnet he employs, including if he prefers to implement CoinShuffle.

Instead if he implements Cryptonote then he won't have RingCT's features. If implements RingCT, then he is copying Monero's recent research. Also I doubt he is capable of understanding the RingCT white paper and implementing it. He will probably have to work by copying source code or hiring some expert crypto assistance.

In any case, that won't correct the other flaws in InstantX and mass-scale transactions that are his other big selling points of Evolution. And none of that will correct the fact that masternodes reduces Dash to an inferior proof-of-stake security/politics model.

I will correct the comparison chart to indicate the anonymity may be improving for Evolution.

[ArticMine]

...
Please notify me of any corrections I need to make and I will edit the table.

Some notes:

1) ShadowCash is proof of stake.
2) Monero does support mass TXs and has a market based solution in place to allow the main chain blocksize to grow to accommodate them. This is done without the need for a secondary level that is subject to government regulation. It is by the way a classic case of take care of the long term and the short term will take care of itself.
3) The proof of stake vulnerability in Dash is actually much higher than in regular proof of stake coins because of the 1000 Dash requirement for masternodes.
4) Lumping "IPO or mineable by speculators" into one makes no sense from a US or global regulatory point of view.

I will elaborate on 4. The critical US government agency for crypto currency regulation is FinCEN and not the SEC. The SEC has already argued before the courts that Bitcoin is money. This was critical in the Trendon Shavers / pirateat40 case since Trendon Shavers argued that he was not issuing securities with out SEC registration because Bitcoin was not money.. Furthermore internationally we see crypto currency regulation moving on the direction of treating crypto currency as money. The European Union being a good example.  It is for this reason that FinCEN has issued clear guidance close to three years ago, https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html, while the SEC has not.  There are three further FinCEN rulings that are also very significant.
https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/pdf/FIN-2014-R001.pdf
https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/html/FIN-2014-R011.html
https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/rp/rulings/html/FIN-2014-R011.html

The first question and this is critical is whether the crypto currency is classified as a centralized virtual currency or a de-centralized virtual currency. The definition of de-centralized virtual currency is as follows from FIN-2013-G001

c. De-Centralized Virtual Currencies

A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort.

Mining of POW coins has been clarified in FIN-2014-R001.

Now for my thoughts, First I am not a lawyer.
A POW coin with no premine, such as Bitcoin or Monero is a de-centralized virtual currency. Developers and miners are not MSBs. This is the ideal case. This requires that development of the coin be funded solely by donation of time, money or both. Any attempt to use the emission to fund development will require one or more of the players to register as an MSB.
Dash will likely require an army of lawyers to figure out. As far as I see it, miners are likely MSBs (since they are required to turn over a part of the mined coins to the masternodes) masternodes are also likely MSBs (since they are required to turn over a portion of their coins to development) and the holders of the spork keys are also likely MSBs (since they have in effect been given central administrator responsibilities). Anyone involved with Dash in the above capacities, especially those in the US, would be wise to get professional legal advice and get a ruling from FinCEN on their particular situation.
Delegated structures have also a high regulatory risk.
Issuers of crypto - currencies (such as those behind Ripple, Ethereum etc.) are MSBs

I do not know what issuance model is being proposed by the OP.

[AlexGR]

Where exactly is the "spyware" aspect of DASH located?

It's an open source project, so please, if possible, name of file and line of code...

Here is what I wrote:

I claim that Dash is spyware because the anonymity is trusted to masternodes which are an obvious target for the NSA or anyone who can profit on breaking anonymity (e.g. those who want to blackmail you or whatever).

I don't need to dig in the source. It is a conceptual truth in terms of the way the anonymity has been described (at least the last time I paid attention).

OK, I missed that (just got to the thread), but Spyware, as a term, is something entirely different.

It's one thing to say that an obfuscation model could be vulnerable under XYZ circumstances with a probability of x% of that happening, and another thing altogether to say "spyware". This is sensationalist crap. Especially when the masternode model as is implemented right now can use multiple rounds of laundering where each round reduces the probability of that happening to an insanely low percentage.

Sybil attacks with those you are mixing with is a very overlooked -yet much weaker point- than masternodes being crooked. Pretending to be a mixing partner does not require NSA-level resources. Unfortunately, all mixing systems will have this problem to one degree or the other.

[TPTB_need_war]

1) ShadowCash is proof of stake.

Ah yes, I actually knew that at one time. Corrected.

[TPTB_need_war]

Where exactly is the "spyware" aspect of DASH located?

It's an open source project, so please, if possible, name of file and line of code...

Here is what I wrote:

I claim that Dash is spyware because the anonymity is trusted to masternodes which are an obvious target for the NSA or anyone who can profit on breaking anonymity (e.g. those who want to blackmail you or whatever).

I don't need to dig in the source. It is a conceptual truth in terms of the way the anonymity has been described (at least the last time I paid attention).

OK, I missed that (just got to the thread), but Spyware, as a term, is something entirely different.

It's one thing to say that an obfuscation model could be vulnerable under XYZ circumstances with a probability of x% of that happening, and another thing altogether to say "spyware". This is sensationalist crap. Especially when the masternode model as is implemented right now can use multiple rounds of laundering where each round reduces the probability of that happening to an insanely low percentage.

Sybil attacks with those you are mixing with is a very overlooked -yet much weaker point- than masternodes being crooked. Pretending to be a mixing partner does not require NSA-level resources. Unfortunately, all mixing systems will have this problem to one degree or the other.

I disagree with the probability miscalculation that says many mixers assures the probability of unmasking is reduced asymptotically towards 0. There are patterns that develop and can be correlated. The more visibility, the more correlation. For me to enumerate all scenarios would require writing a research paper.

When all the masternodes are hosted, it is not crap to say the NSA can probably get access trivially. When most are hosted on one cloud provider (something I read, don't know if it is true), then even an employee could potentially get access trivially.

You simply can't get anonymity without cryptography. The masternodes see everything in clear text. Dash is more likely to be spyware than anonymity. In fact, I've conjectured the wild speculation that Evan hasn't been worried about SEC because he might be on the dole of the NSA (but that is too conspiratorial to assert as likely).

Dark my ass. Dark where the NSA got its fist up the users' buttholes. I have often returned to the wild speculation that Dark(Vader)Coin was really a big data harvesting coin.

The official definition of spyware is any software that exposes your data out on the wire. It doesn't have to actually be intended to do that. Just opening the security hole is sufficient to meet the definition.

[AlexGR]

The official definition of spyware is any software that exposes your data out on the wire. It doesn't have to actually be intended to do that. Just opening the security hole is sufficient to meet the definition.

It's your table / your labels / your definitions so I don't mind really. I just needed some clarification because it was stated as fact that dash is ...spyware.