Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash?

[HCLivess]

I too haven't find a way yet to mix anonymity with security reliably
Since Monero is a joke piece of code, I would expect this charade to be over soon

[1714756743]

1714756743

[1714756743]

1714756743

[1714756743]

1714756743

[1714756743]

1714756743

[iCEBREAKER]

I too haven't find a way yet to mix anonymity with security reliably
Since Monero is a joke piece of code, I would expect this charade to be over soon

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/

Quick, go warn Vitalik he's making a huge mistake basing ETH's privacy on "a joke piece of code."

What he should be doing is designing soda machines, like the inestimable Dash community!   

[Rugtilf]

I too haven't find a way yet to mix anonymity with security reliably
Since Monero is a joke piece of code, I would expect this charade to be over soon

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/

Quick, go warn Vitalik he's making a huge mistake basing ETH's privacy on "a joke piece of code."

What he should be doing is designing soda machines, like the inestimable Dash community!   

If the anonymous transaction can be implemented on the Ethereum, that is be a big boost to Ethereum. Would that affect Monero's adoption?

[dadj]

A Dash vs Monero comparison:

http://blog.makemoneywhileyouwork.com/2016/01/11/using-alt-coins-to-mix-bitcoins/

[smoothie]

...

LOL the problem with your argument is that you assume everyone is going to premix what they want to send ahead of time.

We live in the year 2016 and time is money.

72 hours to mix 1000 dash through DARKSEND isn't very impressive when there are alternatives that take a second or a few seconds.

Mixing Dash is actually very simple and it does not take 72 hours.

Mixing Dash is actually very simple.

1) Sell Dash for XMR on Poloniex
2) Send XMR to own XMR address
3) Send XMR to a second XMR address with a mixin of say 5
4) Sell XMR for Dash on Shapeshift.io

Voila! Mixed Dash. No need to wait for weeks or worry about masternode blinding.

Edit: When sending the XMR to Shapeshift.io also use a mixin of say 5

Wrong, I know of at least two accounts where users have said they have spent days mixing dash.

The greater the amount of dash you are mixing....the longer it takes.

Any amount of time over 10-30 seconds is TOO LONG in this day and age.

[smoothie]

I too haven't find a way yet to mix anonymity with security reliably
Since Monero is a joke piece of code, I would expect this charade to be over soon

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/

Quick, go warn Vitalik he's making a huge mistake basing ETH's privacy on "a joke piece of code."

What he should be doing is designing soda machines, like the inestimable Dash community!   

If the anonymous transaction can be implemented on the Ethereum, that is be a big boost to Ethereum. Would that affect Monero's adoption?

1. Ethereum's implementation is not at the protocol level. Which means it isn't on by default for normal ETH users.

2. last I heard it was in alpha stage.

3. by having it not be at the protocol level you have a SUBSET of ETH that will be going into Ring Sigs and coming out of them which makes it possible to taint certain and coming out of that subset of ETH. This runs the risk of tracking and "blacklisting" certain ETH on the network because they are associated with using that subset of ETH.

[smoothie]

I too haven't find a way yet to mix anonymity with security reliably
Since Monero is a joke piece of code, I would expect this charade to be over soon

https://www.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/3tappe/early_alpha_monerolike_linkable_ring_signatures/

Quick, go warn Vitalik he's making a huge mistake basing ETH's privacy on "a joke piece of code."

What he should be doing is designing soda machines, like the inestimable Dash community!  

I guess that is why quite a few bitcoin developers have tipped their hat towards MONERO given what MONERO has accomplish in its code base... because it is  "a joke piece of code."

Don't you know that the bitcoin devs are all clowns/jokes?

j/k  

[AlexGR]

I guess that is why quite a few bitcoin developers have tipped their hat towards MONERO given what MONERO has accomplish in its code base... because it is  "a joke piece of code."

You are rewriting history. Bytecoin brought ring signatures and the codebase to play around with.

[generalizethis]

I guess that is why quite a few bitcoin developers have tipped their hat towards MONERO given what MONERO has accomplish in its code base... because it is  "a joke piece of code."

You are rewriting history. Bytecoin brought ring signatures and the codebase to play around with.

Wow, that's like saying if a company revamped an IBM BIOS that the developers praising the new BIOS are actually praising IBM. They're praising the iteration not the history. It's the equivalent of an ugly man whose sons gets his mom's looks, when people go "My God, what a handsome Boy!" They aren't complimenting the father.

[smooth]

I guess that is why quite a few bitcoin developers have tipped their hat towards MONERO given what MONERO has accomplish in its code base... because it is  "a joke piece of code."

You are rewriting history. Bytecoin brought ring signatures and the codebase to play around with.

Bytecoin, in addition to being an obvious fraud, was exactly the crap (most likely rushed, and developed in secret by a small overworked team) code that got criticized earlier by Peter Todd and others. It is Monero that brought the power of open source inclusive development to turn that into a quality implementation that continues to improve and rapidly evolve.

I don't so harshly criticize the Bytecoin code though, the way Peter Todd and others do. There is a lot of value in releasing something that may be messy and unoptimized, but works, that others can then refine and extend. Bitcoin was quite similar in fact. Likewise Linux, and many other open source projects that are very successful today.

[iCEBREAKER]

I guess that is why quite a few bitcoin developers have tipped their hat towards MONERO given what MONERO has accomplish in its code base... because it is  "a joke piece of code."

You are rewriting history. Bytecoin brought ring signatures and the codebase to play around with.

Cryptonote brought ring signatures and the codebase to play around with.  Bytecoin was just the first(?) implementation.

We don't know exactly what happened, and are thus unable to rewrite history that is not public knowledge.

What Monero has rewritten is Bytecoin's "atrocious" codebase and de-optimized proof of work.

That's a nice contrast to Dash's hamfisted rewriting of Bitcoin (or was it Litecoin, or was it Peercoin  ), which ruined the trustless architecture with a massive instamine, and "bad crypto" such as centralized Masternodes, a bamboo version of GreenAddress, broken CoinJoin, etc.

[AlexGR]

We don't know exactly what happened, and are thus unable to rewrite history that is not public knowledge.

What Monero has rewritten is Bytecoin's "atrocious" codebase and de-optimized proof of work.

Well, Monero took Bytecoin's codebase. That much we know.

[ArticMine]

There is another Bytecoin innovation that is not mentioned here namely Adaptive Blocksize Limits. This works by applying a penalty to the block reward in order to increase the blocksize, and very effectively addresses the blocksize debate in Bitcoin. The problem is that the implementation of Adaptive Blocksize Limits in Bytecoin is fundamentally flawed. What happens to the block reward penalty when the block reward runs out or becomes minimal? There is no penalty and effectively the blockszie becomes infinite and with no scarcity in the blocksize miner fees will fall to zero creating a situation where there is no incentive to maintain the Proof of Work network. Monero solved this very serious problem by having a tail emission. This is just one example of the myriad of technical problems in Bytecoin that Monero has solved.

As with a host of other issues mentioned before the original release of Bytecoin was likely rushed to market when it was far from ready. The Monero project has tuned this into a viable crypto currency. As for why Bytecoin was rushed to market before it was ready it is anyone's guess. I will take a stab at this and say that one possible reason was the release of Darkcoin/Dash.


Edit 1: Bytecoin may well become a good example of what could go terribly wrong in Bitcoin if one blindly increases the blocksize. We must keep in mind that those that are reluctant to increase the blocksize in Bitcoin are also making some very valid points.

Edit 2: Take a look at the chart for Darkcoin/Dash up to its peak in May 2014 of 0.0274 XBT. https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/cryptsy/drkbtc That could easily fuel the greed of the Bytecoin developers who also decided to wildly outdo the Darkcoin/Dash instamine with a massive approximately 82% premine/ninjamine.

[generalizethis]

We don't know exactly what happened, and are thus unable to rewrite history that is not public knowledge.

What Monero has rewritten is Bytecoin's "atrocious" codebase and de-optimized proof of work.

Well, Monero took Bytecoin's codebase. That much we know.

Monero changed it for the better, so your point is? Do you have one? I'm guessing you don't understand how forks work and think the first iteration of any technology is somehow a sacred cow that can't be touched or improved. Have you gone through Monero and Bytecoin's code? If you had, you'd understand the many changes and wouldn't be on here making stupid non-points.

[AlexGR]

We don't know exactly what happened, and are thus unable to rewrite history that is not public knowledge.

What Monero has rewritten is Bytecoin's "atrocious" codebase and de-optimized proof of work.

Well, Monero took Bytecoin's codebase. That much we know.

Monero changed it for the better, so your point is? Do you have one? I'm guessing you don't understand how forks work and think the first iteration of any technology is somehow a sacred cow that can't be touched or improved. Have you gone through Monero and Bytecoin's code? If you had, you'd understand the many changes and wouldn't be on here making stupid non-points.

I can't code shit, in terms of cryptocurrency code, but I do know that a few tweaks here and there are not anything special.

Whether it is "x11", a fancy block reward, a fixed or adaptive block size, these are fairly trivial in terms of code - if someone knows how to code. If you have the general algorithm in your mind, on what you want to achieve, the rest are easy. But coding a currency from scratch, well, that's another issue altogether.

For example, dash and monero devs, didn't develop a crypto from scratch. They are just adding brush strokes on what was an already existing currency. Dash more so than monero, due to introducing new systems (instantx, masternodes, decentralized voting, darksend etc) but still, the essence is that it is more like brush strokes. If you add a lot more code to what you started, then you start to be more "legit" as an actual coder that can take credit, rather than making tweaks.

That's how I see it at least. That's how I always saw it. People were saying "oh DRK has this, that" I was like, ok guys, let's not brag about that, it's not something THAT special - if I felt the coding effort wasn't anything to brag about, despite the fact that I can't code it (but I know that it's not THAT much of an effort). I feel the same for Monero tweaking the adaptive block size, or doing similar tweaks. I feel the same for people claiming there is some kind of "development" going on with BTC because some punk will fork BTC and make a BTC clone with a different brand (XT, unlimited, superultraunlimited, etc). Like changing a constant is ...development, or a "solution" to the scaling issue. This is bullshit.

Fixing crypto from scratch is the difficult part. Fixing new crypto subsystems is second in difficulty. Tweaking an existing system or making improvements in things that were not-so-optimal, is not the hard part and I can't give much credit for that. People who have no clue, and are in crypto as investors without knowing much about how programming works, might be impressed by apparent "development". I think that's where all the hype is ultimately aimed. "Oh we are so good devs, we did this and that, and allll that. We deserve your investment money". I call bullshit when there is little effort behind it. I will make an exception in genius solutions, like saying a guy comes along and reduces BTC tx bloat by 80-90%, without serious tradeoffs - even if that involves a few lines patch.

[generalizethis]

We don't know exactly what happened, and are thus unable to rewrite history that is not public knowledge.

What Monero has rewritten is Bytecoin's "atrocious" codebase and de-optimized proof of work.

Well, Monero took Bytecoin's codebase. That much we know.

Monero changed it for the better, so your point is? Do you have one? I'm guessing you don't understand how forks work and think the first iteration of any technology is somehow a sacred cow that can't be touched or improved. Have you gone through Monero and Bytecoin's code? If you had, you'd understand the many changes and wouldn't be on here making stupid non-points.

I can't code shit, in terms of cryptocurrency code, but I do know that a few tweaks here and there are not anything special.

Whether it is "x11", a fancy block reward, a fixed or adaptive block size, these are fairly trivial in terms of code - if someone knows how to code. If you have the general algorithm in your mind, on what you want to achieve, the rest are easy. But coding a currency from scratch, well, that's another issue altogether.

For example, dash and monero devs, didn't develop a crypto from scratch. They are just adding brush strokes on what was an already existing currency. Dash more so than monero, due to introducing new systems (instantx, masternodes, decentralized voting, darksend etc) but still, the essence is that it is more like brush strokes. If you add a lot more code to what you started, then you start to be more "legit" as an actual coder that can take credit, rather than making tweaks.

That's how I see it at least. That's how I always saw it. People were saying "oh DRK has this, that" I was like, ok guys, let's not brag about that, it's not something THAT special - if I felt the coding effort wasn't anything to brag about, despite the fact that I can't code it (but I know that it's not THAT much of an effort). I feel the same for Monero tweaking the adaptive block size, or doing similar tweaks. I feel the same for people claiming there is some kind of "development" going on with BTC because some punk will fork BTC and make a BTC clone with a different brand (XT, unlimited, superultraunlimited, etc). Like changing a constant is ...development, or a "solution" to the scaling issue. This is bullshit.

Fixing crypto from scratch is the difficult part. Fixing new crypto subsystems is second in difficulty. Tweaking an existing system or making improvements in things that were not-so-optimal, is not the hard part and I can't give much credit for that. People who have no clue, and are in crypto as investors without knowing much about how programming works, might be impressed by apparent "development". I think that's where all the hype is ultimately aimed. "Oh we are so good devs, we did this and that, and allll that. We deserve your investment money". I call bullshit when there is little effort behind it. I will make an exception in genius solutions, like saying a guy comes along and reduces BTC tx bloat by 80-90%, without serious tradeoffs - even if that involves a few lines patch.

You don't know how to code yet are stating that the improvements were easy? Do you always infer so much from so little? I could say that I don't know how to paint, but Caravaggio's changes made to earlier interpretations of "gospel" paintings were easy--I'd be wrong. Most things go from novel to good to genius. It's not by accident that Shakespeare (easily the greatest English playwright) rarely started from scratch. I see little difference between art and technology and evolution in general. But you are entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to point out how inane it is.

By the way, Dash's innovations are the copying of bad ideas. At the very least, Monero copied a good idea. Though I'm sure smooth or fluffy will be here shortly to tell you how wrong your assumptions on development are.

[iCEBREAKER]

which is better? Monero or Dash?

Many Monero Mustangs warned people about Cryptsy, months before shit hit the fan.

Meanwhile, the Dash community was white knighting for the scam exchange where their scam coin mainly traded:

Darkcoin/Dash and Cryptsy - WTF is going on here?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1325765sh?

[AlexGR]

You don't know how to code yet are stating that the improvements were easy? Do you always infer so much from so little?

I said I can't code shit in terms of cryptocurrency code but I do have some programming background and experience - although it's not that recent / it's more like in the distant past (with an exception in tweaking cpu and gpu miners in '13 and '14 for scrypt and x11 - primarily for myself). So I know how these things work.

I could say that I don't know how to paint, but Caravaggio's changes made to earlier interpretations of "gospel" paintings were easy--I'd be wrong.

Art is a whole different animal.

By the way, Dash's innovations are the copying of bad ideas. At the very least, Monero copied a good idea. Though I'm sure smooth or fluffy will be here shortly to tell you how wrong your assumptions on development are.

I'm not sure I even care what anyone says about things that I can judge on my own. It's not going to change my mind on things that I know how they are done.

To relate: For someone with zero pc knowledge, most of tech savy people are like gods if they help others to fix their laptop, or save their data in the event of a crash. The knowledgeable people know what they did is not hard. They just formatted the system or run a data recovery program. Now they can either sell that they were awesome, or they could say that it's not that big of a deal. If you sell the "I am awesome" angle and another tech guy comes along, he'll be like "huh? He just run a frickin' program to undelete your data - how is is he awesome?".

Likewise, in cryptoland the coders are selling the "we are awesome" angle / we are tremendous in what we are developing, etc etc. I'm not buying it because I can understand how the thing works. I only acknowledge real work, based on my own criteria.

[generalizethis]

You don't know how to code yet are stating that the improvements were easy? Do you always infer so much from so little?

I said I can't code shit in terms of cryptocurrency code but I do have some programming background and experience - although it's not that recent / it's more like in the distant past (with an exception in tweaking cpu and gpu miners in '13 and '14 for scrypt and x11 - primarily for myself). So I know how these things work.

I could say that I don't know how to paint, but Caravaggio's changes made to earlier interpretations of "gospel" paintings were easy--I'd be wrong.

Art is a whole different animal.

By the way, Dash's innovations are the copying of bad ideas. At the very least, Monero copied a good idea. Though I'm sure smooth or fluffy will be here shortly to tell you how wrong your assumptions on development are.

I'm not sure I even care what anyone says about things that I can judge on my own. It's not going to change my mind on things that I know how they are done.

To relate: For someone with zero pc knowledge, most of tech savy people are like gods if they help others to fix their laptop, or save their data in the event of a crash. The knowledgeable people know what they did is not hard. They just formatted the system or run a data recovery program. Now they can either sell that they were awesome, or they could say that it's not that big of a deal. If you sell the "I am awesome" angle and another tech guy comes along, he'll be like "huh? He just run a frickin' program to undelete your data - how is is he awesome?".

Likewise, in cryptoland the coders are selling the "we are awesome" angle / we are tremendous in what we are developing, etc etc. I'm not buying it because I can understand how the thing works. I only acknowledge real work, based on my own criteria.

Art is not a whole different animal. It's expertise used to craft a user experience (how good or bad that experience that is is dependent on the user/viewer). Nevermind that over a 100,000 lines of code have been attributed to the Monero Devs; the question should be does it significantly improve on what Bytecoin did? Yes. Does it outshine the competitor in this thread for which it is being compared to? Yes. Your perception of work seems to miss what the thread is about. Evan explicitly stated that he doesn't want off protocol anonymity after months of him and the dash community defending it--duh, people have been saying this from the start. Now, if he gets a clue, we'll see the same change of mind when it comes to X11 and instantx, as TPTB_need_war has pointed out the flaws in both to Evan--though Evan's response AFAIK is crickets. Monero is superior to Dash on every technical level and all you are doing is niggling on what qualifies as hard work. Sad.

[illodin]

We don't know exactly what happened, and are thus unable to rewrite history that is not public knowledge.

What Monero has rewritten is Bytecoin's "atrocious" codebase and de-optimized proof of work.

Well, Monero took Bytecoin's codebase. That much we know.

Monero changed it for the better, so your point is? Do you have one?

I guess his point is that the original innovation and design was in Bytecoin, not Monero. Whether you accept that or not Monero will still be 0.001 tomorrow.