Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash?

[dadj]

Dash is not instant when used anonymously (you must wait hours/days for premixing) and you rely on many 3rd parties; Masternodes/VPS companies.

The objective of Dash's design is to raise the level of fungibility of the coin supply as a whole without recourse to obfuscation - or put another way, without loss of blockchain transparency.

If this is indeed the objective, Dash is not succeeding without obfuscation. Darksend is all about obfuscation and people who never use it by default destroy its fungibility.

As such, the coin supply is being mixed on an ongoing basis - pre-emptively and post emptively. When you acquire any portion of the supply, it will have been mixed by pevious holders and the ones previous to them and previous to them. When you spend it, that portion of the supply will be mixed by subsequent holders. This ongoing, iterative process has an aggregate effect on the money supply over time which is to mitigate the significance of any distinction between one address and another, however, on top of all that, a holder can still target the specific portion of the supply that they control and re-anonymise that in background if they so wish.

The net result is a public blockchain, fully transparent currency who's level of fungibility/anonymity is way superior to bitcoin's and which can confirm almost instantly. That is the design objective and the basis on which it should be judged.

Except there is not full transparency, nor full anonymity.

Sure, at the point of spending, the receiver is able to know the sending address in the transaction and the payer is able to see the receiving address. But that is a good thing and consistent with Dash's design objectives which are to retain commercial compatability with bitcoin. From a monetary perspective, it's also not a bad thing because the transaction itself is the one place where you DO want to see everything since anonymity is then in conflict with other priorities such as accountability, confidence etc. This has been true for all historical base monetary media, for example no-one's going to pay you for your gold while it's under your floorboards.

The person receiving will be able to tell if the sender used Darksend or not. The gold under the floorboards analogy doesn't make sense in the context of crypto-currency.

[1714752232]

1714752232

[1714752232]

1714752232

[1714752232]

1714752232

[1714752232]

1714752232

[TPTB_need_war]

Anonymity != fungibility. They are not reliant on each other. They have some minor overlap but not really. This argument is just mostly delusional bullshit.

I already went through this with you so I won't re-rehearse those arguments here ad-nauseum. Suffice to say that to someone who makes up their definitions as they go along to suit their argument, it doesn't surprise me that everything else looks like "delusional bullshit".

Bitcoin is not fungible because it is not anonymous. Bullshit. Period. Carry on with your delusion if you want. Smart readers can smell your bullshit.

There is no transparency when a transaction on the block chain has mixing inputs and outputs. More bullshit.

It is not "more bullshit", otherwise cryptographic obfuscation technologies wouldn't go to the lengths they do to limit their end user's ability to verify their transaction movements on public block explorers.

Hahaha you entirely missed the point. The point is that whether the mixing is done with opaque cryptography on chain or by mixing the inputs and outputs of a transparent transaction, both are opaque. Thus you had no point from the start.

Do you realize how boring it is to talk to idiots who think they are smart?

Apart from that you haven't even understood or questioned what aspect of "transparency" I'm alluding to

Try to invent something to save face.

[toknormal]

Bitcoin is not fungible because it is not anonymous. Bullshit. Period.

If I shared your flawed understanding of "anonymous" I'd of course agree with you. Fortunately I don't.

Do you realize how boring it is to talk to idiots who think they are smart?

I do now.

[TPTB_need_war]

If I shared your flawed understanding of "anonymous" I'd of course agree with you. Fortunately I don't.

You spoke nonsense in my thread in the past. I tried to engage you a bit until I realize it is pointless/impossible to argue with an idiot who thinks he is smart.

The only anonymity that might be worthwhile will be Zerocash.

Monero might have some limited uses interim.

Dash is like a windup rubberband driven toy. Cute but not useful for anything serious.

[toknormal]

The only anonymity that might be worthwhile will be Zerocash.

You are obsessed with pursuing theoretical absolutes. No useful solutions come from such an exclusive approach.

Successful practical solutions need a whole lot of characteristics and properties in an appropriate balance. For example, as we've seen, anonymity is at best a vague concept which means different things to different people at different stages of the monetary cycle. Bitcoin's basis for being called "anonymous" is that the addresses are decoupled from their owners, unlike credit money which can only exist when synonymous with a legal entity who's state of debt/credit it reflects.

That is an acceptable basis for being called "anonymous" by most accounts.

On the other hand, you use the term with specific regard to a transaction where one party can associate a known identity with a payment address due to information gleaned off-blockchain. That is a specific interpretation which may or may not be relevant to certain design priorities. If you A. obsessively deploy such exclusive definitions to to appraise every solution and B. make the assumption that such a technical property is desirable over all others, then yes I can see why you call Dash a "rubber band".

But that is not engineering. That's myopic zealotry.

For example, there is no way that something like Zerocash can ever be anything other than a highly specialised, niche transport mechanism that is in fact more suited to encrypted record keeping than transferring money - never mind aspiring to BE money. It simply is not a popular requirement to place that level of obfuscation at the top of the tree in a base monetary medium, in fact the reverse is true. Nobody generally gives a f*ck about privacy when they don't own it - they care about value.

As far as the fungibility-anonymity association goes, I already defined what I meant in that regard which was the mitigation of distinction between one address and another (and consequently one associated off-blockchain identity and another) so you can give your insults a rest.

[mathgal23]

It makes no sense that the vote is so close.

[noah tall]

Dash is like a windup rubberband driven toy. Cute but not useful for anything serious.

Me: "Hello Mr. Merchant.  Would you like to use a payment system that is Instant, Secure, Doesn't rely on a third party charging you 3-5% in fees, and leaves all of the funds in YOUR control?"

Merchant: "No, those things sound terrible"


Somehow, I don't think that would be their answer.

[dadj]

http://blog.makemoneywhileyouwork.com/2016/01/15/using-alt-coins-to-mix-bitcoins_zh/
http://blog.makemoneywhileyouwork.com/2016/01/15/using-alt-coins-to-mix-bitcoins_zh_TW/

[dadj]

Dash is like a windup rubberband driven toy. Cute but not useful for anything serious.

Me: "Hello Mr. Merchant.  Would you like to use a payment system that is Instant, Secure, Doesn't rely on a third party charging you 3-5% in fees, and leaves all of the funds in YOUR control?"

Merchant: "No, those things sound terrible"


Somehow, I don't think that would be their answer.

You'd be surprised how common that answer is among merchants. Most merchants don't want to change their payment systems because they know the digital currency market is small. They have a working system that they're used to, taxes to account for (their system in most cases will be set up already) - why would they take on the risks of downtime, computer security & volatility?

Merchant adoption of Bitcoin is happening so slowly, not saying it's impossible for the same to happen with alt coins but it'll be a tough sell, especially in Dash's case because its main touted advantages over Bitcoin are more privacy & faster transactions. Right now Dash has either privacy or faster transactions, but not both. When merchants discover these kinds of dishonest marketing tactics it will be very difficult to restore Dash's reputation.

[GTO911]

Me: "Hello Mr. Merchant.  Would you like to use a payment system that is Instant, Secure, Doesn't rely on a third party charging you 3-5% in fees, and leaves all of the funds in YOUR control?"

Merchant: "No, those things sound terrible"


Somehow, I don't think that would be their answer.

Does rely on third party "masternodes"

Classic Dashtard, understands nothing

[Macrochip]

Dash is not instant when used anonymously (you must wait hours/days for premixing) and you rely on many 3rd parties; Masternodes/VPS companies.

You said it yourself: PREmixing. Even with non-finished mixing you have a partial anonymized balance which can be spent instantly. DarkSend is becoming default in Evolution rendering mixing obsolete anyway.

Bitcoin/Bitclones also rely on many 3rd parties. They're called miners. And they are nothing other than nodes collaborating in self-interest. Exactly like the Masternode network.

Right now Dash has either privacy or faster transactions, but not both.

Proven wrong by the above.

Does rely on third party "masternodes"

Classic Dashtard, understands nothing

Relying on miners to mine your transaction? Oh my god, third party! Shut. Down. Everything!

Classic Moronero faillacy.

[ArticMine]

First we have

CryptoNote has just ONE selling point.
Without anonymity it's just a terrible Bitcoin clone. Imagine Bitcoin with such a bloated and slow blockchain...
Why would anyone choose ring signature anonymity when on-demand mixing is much more efficient and bloat-avoidant? The adopting masses have no real-life use case were every single transaction must be anonymous. I don't give a flying fuck if the government knows that I bought a freaking hamburger at CrapDonald's with crypto. Optional anonymity has the clear advantage here. The user decides on his own terms which transaction is no one's business. No need to bloat our blockchain with millions of anonymous beer purchases. Improving a working and proven system like Bitcoin is always better than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Mandatory anonymity at the expense of efficiency & usability was a terrible idea.
...

... but then we have

...
 DarkSend is becoming default in Evolution rendering mixing obsolete anyway.
...

So which is it? Is mandatory mixing a good thing or a bad thing?

Or did Dash come to the realization that Monero was right all along and decided to implement mandatory mixing in Evolution whenever Dash Evolution comes out in 2 -5 years?

[Macrochip]

Nice going ignoring my previous points.
Alright you wanna play shitcoiner, let's play:

I chose these words extremely carefully, which you failed to recognize. Let's change emphasis a little to make it clear...

Mandatory anonymity at the expense of efficiency & usability was a terrible idea.

At the expense of efficiency & usability... which doesn't happen in Evolution.

whenever Dash Evolution comes out in 2 -5 years?

lol.
When our devs say: 1-2 years it's 6-9 months.
When your devs say: 1-2 years it's 6-9..... years.

What has Monero achieved in 2015 btw?
Oh right: Fixing bugs
Here's DASH

Nice official GUI btw.
How much does your butt hurt?

Next, please.

[smooth]

At the expense of efficiency & usability... which doesn't happen in Evolution.

The "efficiency" of Evolution remains to be seen as not enough details have been released to evaluate it.

Efficiency can't ever be measured, or even defined, without comparing benefits relative to costs. Higher or lower costs in and of themselves do not equate to higher or lower efficiency. Bitcoin, for example, has orders of magnitude higher costs than traditional banking, but Bitcoin provides (at least some measure of) censorship resistance which banking does not. Thus Bitcoin can't be said to be "less efficient" than banking because it isn't even doing the same thing. Likewise for these other systems.

Any form of mixing will carry a cost, so we will have to await further details to see how that cost plays out in Evolution, and compare that cost to the value of the benefits delivered.

Also, I realize this is an old post but it was quoted here so I'll respond to it:

CryptoNote has just ONE selling point.
Without anonymity it's just a terrible Bitcoin clone. Imagine Bitcoin with such a bloated and slow blockchain...

CryptoNote does not have one one selling point, and it also isn't "bloated and slow" compared to Bitcoin. If you look at the white paper, section 2.1 addresses privacy but sections 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 address other shortcomings of Bitcoin addressed in CryptoNote, including efficiency. When compared on an apples-to-apples (equivalent functionality -- see above) it is faster and more compact (section 2.5).

[TPTB_need_war]

Does rely on third party "masternodes"

Classic Dashtard, understands nothing

Relying on miners to mine your transaction? Oh my god, third party! Shut. Down. Everything!

Classic Moronero faillacy.

It is the math of attack vectors which thus converts Dash into a PoS(hit) coin. Smooth appears to have forgotten the conclusions we arrived at in the prior technical discussion on this matter (or I have).

In any case, Dash has shown their technology is always half-assed, and this is indicative of the intellectual capabilities of its developer(s). Not to mention the fraud and the fact that masternodes are illegal unregistered money transmitters under FinCIN regulations, since they transfer value to the developers.

On top of all that, Dash has NO USERSHIP and NO ACTUAL MARKETS (other than some delusional speculators playing greater fool game theory with each other).

Enjoy the circle jerk.

[ArticMine]

Nice going ignoring my previous points.
Alright you wanna play shitcoiner, let's play:

I chose these words extremely carefully, which you failed to recognize. Let's change emphasis a little to make it clear...

Mandatory anonymity at the expense of efficiency & usability was a terrible idea.

At the expense of efficiency & usability... which doesn't happen in Evolution.

whenever Dash Evolution comes out in 2 -5 years?

lol.
When our devs say: 1-2 years it's 6-9 months.
When your devs say: 1-2 years it's 6-9..... years.

What has Monero achieved in 2015 btw?
Oh right: Fixing bugs
Here's DASH

Nice official GUI btw.
How much does your butt hurt?

Next, please.

You still have not answered my question:  Is mandatory mixing a good thing or a bad thing? As for ignoring your posts I am focusing on the bold part of your post. It was bold for emphasis when it was posted.

Optional anonymity has the clear advantage here

There is no need to get into a font shouting match here.

As to what Dash and Monero have accomplished it depends one one's priority. If flashy marketing is the priority then by all means pick Dash, if building a solid foundation is the priority then pick Monero. I pick Monero and frankly when I see see flashy marketing with little substance to back it up, I run as fast as I can.

[Macrochip]

The "efficiency" of Evolution remains to be seen as not enough details have been released to evaluate it.

True.

Evolution is also advertised to be able to handle millions of tx per second outpacing traditional FIAT systems, which would indisputably tower over any currency system in efficiency. Since anyone can claim this kind of thing it would be easy to yell "vaporware". Thing is: We're talking about Evan Duffield here, not some, say, random Hashfast scammer with non-existent ASICs.

Let's check his track record, shall we:

Announced DarkSend - Delivered DarkSend
Announced opensourcing DarkSend - opensourced DarkSend
Announced Masternode functionality - delivered Masternode functionality
Announced instantly confirmed transactions - delivered InstantX
Announced Decentralized Governance by blockchain - Delivered DGBB

I'd say tirelessly working on this project qualifies as a pretty damn good indicator that the promised features will also be delivered.

[Macrochip]

You still have not answered my question:  Is mandatory mixing a good thing or a bad thing? As for ignoring your posts I am focusing on the bold part of your post. It was bold for emphasis when it was posted.

Optional anonymity has the clear advantage here

Depends. That's why I choose words carefully. Let's change emphasis again:

Optional anonymity has the clear advantage here

There's your answer.


As for Anonymint: I'm ignoring you on grounds of insanity. Yours.

[dadj]

Dash is not instant when used anonymously (you must wait hours/days for premixing) and you rely on many 3rd parties; Masternodes/VPS companies.

You said it yourself: PREmixing. Even with non-finished mixing you have a partial anonymized balance which can be spent instantly. DarkSend is becoming default in Evolution rendering mixing obsolete anyway.

What do you mean "DarkSend is becoming default in Evolution rendering mixing obsolete"? Is DarkSend not mixing? Is Dash cancelling the privacy aspect of their coin? Or are you suggesting DarkSend will work instantly and by default whenever Evolution is released? Now I see you're saying:

Mandatory anonymity at the expense of efficiency & usability was a terrible idea.

So Dash is actually just a clone of Bitcoin with unmixed coins and tainted coins with the one innovation of a currently closed source instantX feature?

If so, great - ppl in Dash should stop marketing it as having better fungibility, untraceability and privacy!

Bitcoin/Bitclones also rely on many 3rd parties. They're called miners. And they are nothing other than nodes collaborating in self-interest. Exactly like the MasterNode network.

Yes, exactly; with the small difference that the third party MasterNodes will not be involved in the mixing process nor (I guess) collecting fees for services not rendered. That leaves them with instantX transaction fees (3 cents each) and

After the upcoming Dash Evolution release, this fee will be omitted for most transactions

So MasterNodes will likely compete with Miners to sell dash with the only incentive to hold being speculation on adoption.

Right now Dash has either privacy or faster transactions, but not both.

Proven wrong by the above.

So you've proven my fact wrong by ignoring it and saying it's going to work different soon?

[Macrochip]

with the one innovation of a currently closed source instantX feature?

Sorry, you just disqualified yourself from any further discussion due to massive willful ignorance.
"Closed source" Epic LOL.

*ignored*