Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash?

[noah tall]

Care to answer my question posted above, or are you running away?

Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.

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).

Attack 50% of the masternodes, huh?  Pray tell, how is anybody going to accomplish that feat?

[generalizethis]

So if Evan or the decentralized budget, issued a bounty for third parties to break InstantX, would you break it or would you say "oh, but we don't have the X million dollars required to buy the necessary amount of masternodes that are necessary for our attack to work"?

Don't Evan and Otoh own enough of the network for this type of attack? Don't authorities (if they noticed this little sham) have the means to induce Evan and Otoh to spy on or break dash? My guess is it could be done less dramatically, but in a world where you are claiming to replace national currency and do it anonymously, this would be the easiest attack by those in power: KISS

[noah tall]

attack

[AlexGR]

So if Evan or the decentralized budget, issued a bounty for third parties to break InstantX, would you break it or would you say "oh, but we don't have the X million dollars required to buy the necessary amount of masternodes that are necessary for our attack to work"?

Don't Evan and Otoh own enough of the network for this type of attack? Don't authorities (if they noticed this little sham) have the means to induce Evan and Otoh to spy on or break dash?

See how the discussion moved from code and maths to "the police will come for your coins"

[noah tall]

I'm still waiting to hear how General Itis is going to attack 50% of the masternodes.

[dadj]

So if Evan or the decentralized budget, issued a bounty for third parties to break InstantX, would you break it or would you say "oh, but we don't have the X million dollars required to buy the necessary amount of masternodes that are necessary for our attack to work"?

Don't Evan and Otoh own enough of the network for this type of attack? Don't authorities (if they noticed this little sham) have the means to induce Evan and Otoh to spy on or break dash?

See how the discussion moved from code and maths to "the police will come for your coins"

The police coming for coins is the least of worries. The government will be content knowing who's behind every transaction.

[noah tall]

General, how are you going to deliver the "death blow"?

[generalizethis]

General, how are you going to deliver the "death blow"?

TPTB_need_war already did. So I'm not sure why you are prodding me.

[noah tall]

Come after you?  Because you posted this:

Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.

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).

How is attacking 50% of the masternodes going to work?  Your hero TPTB doesn't say, I thought you might know since you claim it is the "death blow".

[generalizethis]

Come after you?  Because you posted this:

Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.

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).

How is attacking 50% of the masternodes going to work?  Your hero TPTB doesn't say, I thought you might know since you claim it is the "death blow".

I already answered  up thread how over 50% of the masternodes could be controlled which makes them pretty easy to attack. I'm not sure what you don't get. Prodding isn't necessarily coming after someone by the way. It means trying to provoke a reaction--iit could be threatening, but it's more petty and annoying in our context.

[noah tall]

I already answered  up thread how over 50% of the masternodes could be controlled which makes them pretty easy to attack. I'm not sure what you don't get. Prodding isn't coming after someone by the way. It means trying to provoke a reaction--iit could be threatening, but it's more petty and annoying in our context.

OK, how are you (or anyone else) going to control them?

[smooth]

Come after you?  Because you posted this:

Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.

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).

How is attacking 50% of the masternodes going to work?  Your hero TPTB doesn't say, I thought you might know since you claim it is the "death blow".

He doesn't say that you need 50% of the masternodes to perform any attack (and you indeed don't). Read more carefully.

[noah tall]

Come after you?  Because you posted this:

Here's the death blow. You can skim around those posts for more details.

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).

How is attacking 50% of the masternodes going to work?  Your hero TPTB doesn't say, I thought you might know since you claim it is the "death blow".

He doesn't say that you need 50% of the masternodes to perform any attack (and you indeed don't). Read more carefully.

What does "given a 50% attack on the masternodes" mean?

[generalizethis]

I already answered  up thread how over 50% of the masternodes could be controlled which makes them pretty easy to attack. I'm not sure what you don't get. Prodding isn't coming after someone by the way. It means trying to provoke a reaction--iit could be threatening, but it's more petty and annoying in our context.

OK, how are you (or anyone else) going to control them?

LOL. It's not where the masternodes are, but who controls them. How many are under the control of each service provider, whose jurisdiction are they in, who owns the masternodes and do the countries or companies comply with domestic and foreign interests? I would say there are just two people (maybe one) who need to be brought in the fold in order for compliance (and he happens to be the lead dev in a country known for getting secret cooperation for data capture}. The real problem isn't how this is done, it's how did so much power get centralized in a few hands of a system that depends on trusting nodes? Seems like piss poor design work.

But  as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).

[AlexGR]

But  as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).

The game theory doesn't add up in terms of cost/benefit. You buy 10% of the nodes with millions of dollars in order to ...jam one out of every several hundred IXs. And you gain what for that?

It would be far cheaper to just buy/rent hashpower and make 51% double spends based on PoW.

[noah tall]

So your argument is:

"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of DASH to force their cooperation.

How is this different to:

"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of BTC to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of Monero to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of Doge to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of ETH to force their cooperation.


By your logic, every crypto currency in the world is superior to DASH.  Makes perfect sense.

[generalizethis]

But  as smooth just pointed out, TPTB_need_war's point was that you don't even need 50% and he'll have to explain that to you (the math is beyond me and apparently Evan and yourself as well).

The game theory doesn't add up in terms of cost/benefit. You buy 10% of the nodes with millions of dollars in order to ...jam one out of every several hundred IXs. And you gain what for that?

It would be far cheaper to just buy/rent hashpower and make 51% double spends based on PoW.

You don't need to buy the nodes when you have a the owner of most of them under your thumb via escaping a fincen investigation through cooperation. Are you guys really this naïve? Chimerical? On one hand you say dash will compete with global currencies and on the other you think the authorities won't have incentive to attack or destroy dash if it becomes plausible that it could do so.

[generalizethis]

So your argument is:

"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of DASH to force their cooperation.

How is this different to:

"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of BTC to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of Monero to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of Doge to force their cooperation.
"Those in power" could put pressure on the developers of ETH to force their cooperation.


By your logic, every crypto currency in the world is superior to DASH.  Makes perfect sense.

Those on the list are, but what you are missing is that having security dependent on masternodes is the problem, not government cooperation. Your brilliant leader built a flawed system that will only work when it's small potatoes, you look up and see the moon, but fail to notice the bullet proof glass ceiling with trigger happy FBI and NSA operatives standing in wait. I doubt it will ever be a problem, so you shouldn't worry; dash won't reach those kind of heights playing a game of greater fool musical chairs.

[noah tall]

... what you are missing is that having security dependent on masternodes is the problem, not government cooperation. Your brilliant leader built a flawed system that will only work when it's small potatoes, you look up and see the moon, but fail to notice the bullet proof glass ceiling with trigger happy FBI and NSA operatives standing in wait. I doubt it will ever be a problem, so you shouldn't worry; dash won't reach those kind of heights playing a game of greater fool musical chairs.

Really?  That's your argument?  "trigger happy FBI and NSA operatives standing in wait"?

bye.

[smoothie]

What is funny is that even with all of the dash sock puppet accounts voting the total votes is still lower for DASH.