Honestly, which is better? Monero or Dash?

[toknormal]

I am engineer and a mass marketer

You could have fooled me. You don't seem to have much experience of engineering design principles. Your posts read more like those of a court prosecutor.

Make it widely adopted, and that will not be a philosophical concern. Of course stupid shit echo chambers where the insiders own all the coins and there are no users will never be attacked based on stake.

There's no practical project in existence - whether bedroom hobby or industrial scale - which doesn't come riddled with "philosophical" and theoretical adversities that have been either engineered out of them or judged as being practically insignificant.

That goes for household furniture, domestic appliances, modern airliners or interplanetary space vehicles. In fact, if anything the larger the scale the more theoretical reasons there are usually are as to why "it shouldn't work".

Of course it works the other way as well. Practical issues can blow up a project that was theoretically perfect on paper.

Thats why I don't hold much store by your theoretical naval gazing, nor are you justified in going around arrogantly trashing and insulting anyone that challenges your analyses on that basis.

[noah tall]

...nor are you justified in going around arrogantly trashing and insulting anyone that challenges your analyses.

He trashed me and I haven't even challenged him yet.  After I read the treatice, I will respond.  I can even put in footnotes .

[TPTB_need_war]

I am engineer and a mass marketer

You could have fooled me. You don't seem to have much experience of engineering design principles. Your posts read more like those of a court prosecutor.

Make it widely adopted, and that will not be a philosophical concern. Of course stupid shit echo chambers where the insiders own all the coins and there are no users will never be attacked based on stake.

There's no practical project in existence - whether bedroom hobby or industrial scale - which doesn't come riddled with "philosophical" and theoretical adversities that have been either engineered out of them or judged as being practically insignificant.

That goes for household furniture, domestic appliances, modern airliners or interplanetary space vehicles. In fact, if anything the larger the scale the more theoretical reasons there are usually are as to why "it shouldn't work".

Of course it works the other way as well. Practical issues can blow up a project that was theoretically perfect on paper.

Thats why I don't hold much store by your theoretical naval gazing, nor are you justified in going around arrogantly trashing and insulting anyone that challenges your analyses on that basis.

The engineering warnings I wrote about Bitcoin in 2013 came true.

Any way, continue your echo chamber bliss.

What is Dash's usership again? All the fake volume of insiders buying from themselves.

The masternodes get paid how much again.

And the illegal unregistered investment securities along with violating FinCEN regs by being unlicensed money transmitters.

Hope you enjoy the fraud while it lasts. Prison will be waiting for you.

[toknormal]

The engineering warnings I wrote about Bitcoin in 2013 came true.

Have a gold star.

All the fake volume of insiders buying from themselves.....Hope you enjoy the fraud while it lasts. Prison will be waiting for you.

Really ? Well having already experienced your delusional, make-it-up-as-you-go-along takes on exotic topics such as fungibility then that might not be as bad as it appears.

Lets just say I'm not packing my chess set just yet 

[noah tall]

When you start following ethical academic principles of citing and documenting from prior art, then you will have the high ground. Not until then. Period.

The next post from you better be a quotation from the prior discussion and coherent logic documenting your  claim.

Otherwise you are disingenuous.

The references you cite on the very first page "even 0.1% stake can attack the coin because block solutions are exclusive to some stake holder so the stake holder can delay transactions[1]" are your own prior utterances.  That's what passes for academia in your world?

I couldn't get past your second post before feeling naseous.  Would you care to expand on the theory that even 0.1% stake can attack the coin because block solutions are exclusive to some stake holder so the stake holder can delay transactions?  I would argue that this makes no sense whatsoever[2].




[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg13488432#msg13488432

[2] http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gibberish

[toknormal]

Would you care to expand on the theory that even 0.1% stake can attack the coin because block solutions are exclusive to some stake holder

I think he's talking about the situation where a block solution is delegated to specific nodes at random rather than having the network aggregate a majority solution by way of the longest chain.

Dash is in fact proposing to do something like this with its 'quorum' approach.

[smooth]

First of all, masternodes will still be paid even if they don't serve lock requests. They're not being paid for performing the service. They are being paid and they perform the service, if they feel like it.

They are being paid for continuous uptime.  Part of that uptime is locking txes.  There is no reason to opt out of tx locking (or future services).  What would that accomplish, saving a few CPU cycles?

I'll leave that to people who want to figure out how to exploit it. I'm not going to give them a free cookbook any more than I already have.

But I'd point out that even "a few CPU cycles" would be very significant if the system actually had real usage and adoption. TPTB makes good points on that.

[noah tall]

But I'd point out that even "a few CPU cycles" would be very significant if the system actually had real usage and adoption.

That's a reach.

TPTB makes good points on that.

That's an even bigger reach.

[TPTB_need_war]

I see that monkey has no clue what he is reading. And yet he thinks he is knowledgeable enough to speak about block chain technology. Neither of those 2 monkeys even understand that PoS is never random because the entropy is bounded. Sigh.

Any way I think the only thing these dumb baboons will comprehend is that YOU HAVE NO USERSHIP. YOUR ECOSYSTEM IS FAKE.

They need simple words in ALL CAPS. Anything more than that is beyond their knowledge set.

[smooth]

YOU HAVE NO USERSHIP. YOUR ECOSYSTEM IS FAKE.

But there is a soda machine, I heard.

[noah tall]

But there is a soda machine, I heard.

Some people can only see a soda.  So sad they're missing the meaning.

[TPTB_need_war]

But there is a soda machine, I heard.

Some people can only see a soda.  So sad they're missing the meaning.

The only people who can see the soda machine are the ones there near to it. Your self-criticism is admirable but don't be too sad because it is your destiny. Accept and embrace your limitations with grace.

We only heard about it.

[noah tall]

But there is a soda machine, I heard.

Some people can only see a soda.  So sad they're missing the meaning.

The only people who can see the soda machine are the ones there near to it. Your self-criticism is admirable but don't be too sad because it is your destiny. Accept and embrace your limitations with grace.

We only heard about it.

With your years of experience to guide you, can you venture a guess as to what it means?

[TPTB_need_war]

But there is a soda machine, I heard.

Some people can only see a soda.  So sad they're missing the meaning.

The only people who can see the soda machine are the ones there near to it. Your self-criticism is admirable but don't be too sad because it is your destiny. Accept and embrace your limitations with grace.

We only heard about it.

With your years of experience to guide you, can you venture a guess as to what it means?

I see you are a master of wasting time on nonsense.

[noah tall]

I see you are a master of wasting time on nonsense.

OK, give up?  I'll tell you what I see.

An Instant, Secure, Retail transaction.

No 0-conf, no double spend risk, no need for trust, no 3rd party.


Do you still see nonsense?

[dadj]

OK, give up?  I'll tell you what I see.

An Instant, Secure, Retail transaction.

No 0-conf, no double spend risk, no need for trust, no 3rd party.


Do you still see nonsense?

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

[TPTB_need_war]

I see you are a master of wasting time on nonsense.

OK, give up?  I'll tell you what I see.

An Instant, Secure, Retail transaction.

No 0-conf, no double spend risk, no need for trust, no 3rd party.


Do you still see nonsense?

If I even bothered to explain it again since I already explained Dash's flaws upthread, you would just waste more of my time with nonsense.

You go ahead. You will get no where. Guaranteed.

[toknormal]

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.

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.

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.

[TPTB_need_war]

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.

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

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

Keeping piling on the delusional bullshit and time wasting nonsense.

[toknormal]

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".

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.

Apart from that you haven't even understood or questioned what aspect of "transparency" I'm alluding to - again that doesn't surprise me since you seem happy to make baseless assumptions about everything else in order to fuel your rambling diatribe and field well made arguments with all the grace of throwing your toys out of the pram.