Bitcoin vs Monero

[Ayers]

the truth about monero usage on deep web markets:

ah this prove that full anonymity can be detrimental, and that bitcoin is actually the king in the dark web too, i always thought that monero was rising because it was used but now that you posted this i think it was a pump and dump

[1714938860]

1714938860

[1714938860]

1714938860

[1714938860]

1714938860

[1714938860]

1714938860

[aleix]

the truth about monero usage on deep web markets:

That's simply wrong. 
https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/user-guides/prove-payment
What monero is still lacking, but I think it is in the making, is multisig, needed for escrow.

And it's not Monero's fault that those AB users don't know how to use it....that guys an idiot or a lier either way he's not worth my time.

Are you serious ?

This has nothing to do with 'faulty users'. By any satisfactory auditory definition, a transaction is successful when one address balance has been depleted and another credited. (I realise there are other ‘geeky’ definitions that involve transaction IDs but thats not what matters to users and it's not what would matter to any self respecting professional auditor).

In the abscence of a trusted 3rd party arbitor, you therefore need to see the movements at both address balances. The sending and receiving.

Furthermore, the parties that have an interest in auditing it are:

1. The sending participating party (to verify they’re liability is cancelled)
2. The receiving participating party (for obvious reasons)
3. Non-participating keyholders (because they are exposed to the value of the blockchain based asset and have an interest in the public confidence of the blockchain integrity)
4. Non-participating, non-keyholders (because they are expected to supply goods, services and other currencies in support of your blockchain asset's exchange rate).

(You would not want to eat a piece of fruit out of a bowl of rotten apples, even if one of them looked ok. In Bitcoin (and Dash for that matter), everyone sees the whole fruitbowl and everyone has access to the same information without condition or recourse to a third party).

The reason Bitcoin’s blockchain is anonymous but transparent is because there IS no 3rd party arbitor to resolve disputes. Blockchain transparency therefore makes the asset resistant to confidence attacks through rumour, dispute, aspersion and theft. It also gives transacting parties huge protection by supporting the interests of veracity in anecdotal accounts of failed transfers, whether they be due to mis-addressed funds, lack of confirmations, deception, hacks or otherwise.

The problem with the Cryptonote approach (who’s original conception was intended to support trusted party backed ‘credit money’ anyway b.t.w.) is that the participating parties are *on their own* mate. Nobody can see a thing and they’re each dependent on the other’s co-operation for verifying the transaction. If Poloniex say my deposit ‘went through’ and no funds turn up and don’t supply me a TXID or viewkey I’m stuffed. Nor do I have recourse to “the rest of the world”. Take a look at the last 6 years of Bitcoin forums. They’re littered with discussions about addresses, transactions where something went, where it didn’t go.

Thats what gives a blockchain confidence and confidence is what supports its value. If all you have is one end of the transaction or a poxy TXID that you have to beg for, then you’ve a recipe for catastrophe. A while back I said that “encryption” was the cancer of cryptocurrency. I didn’t mean that from the point of view of technical failure, I meant it from the perspective that ANY kind of obfuscation in an unbacked asset is corrosive to confidence and it’s only a matter of time before all it’s good for is a temporary payment rail thats valueless.

The reason these coins have no future isn’t because they don’t have good ‘tech’. It’s because ‘encrypting stuff’ is dirt cheap these days and doesn’t add any value. (Sticking a gold bar or a diamond in a safe might cost you a small premium, but the price of the safe, not the price of the gold).

In fact, when it comes to cryptocurrency, “encrypting stuff” positively detracts form its potential value because we’re talking about a bearer token which draws its worth from authenticity, not obscurity.

How much evidence of that do you need ? If not the above posts (which will be the tip of the Iceberg), try this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg17896089#msg17896089

[darkota]

anonymous is not necessary for a cryptocurrence, monero can't replace bitcoin even in deep web.

Yes it is, Bitcoin's pseudoanonymity mean's it fails at protecting the privacy of those using it as a currency, especially on TOR sites/deep web

[darkota]

the truth about monero usage on deep web markets:

Except, that has nothing to do with anonymity. People can and have done the exact same thing with Bitcoin..

[phr0stbyt3]

I have indeed heard a lot that monero is used in deep web for transactions as many people claim it to be more secure and has more anonymity than bitcoin. I don't know so much how anonymity actually works nor I care much as I don't do anything illegal. But the only reason I actually like monero is because of its price and returns it has been providing laterly.

[Spoetnik]

Make a new topic.. Bitcoin + Mixers etc vs Monero

Make a REAL comparison  

Mixing on an FBI server

The Internet is run on US Dept Of Defense Servers.
Many ISP's have a first hop to a traced IP at the DOD.. i know i checked this in Canada 10 years ago.
Further more the ISP's are 101% govt compliant.
Hell this Forum is as i said since mid-2013..
If any govt agency serves a warrant to ANY ISP in America it will get compliance in a heartbeat.
I am not talking about hypothetical shit i am talking about what actually does in fact happen 24/7.

Users on DM's use mixer services etc and usually manage to get away with it.
Otherwise there would be no Dark Market in the first place.

There for i am right as always and i have shown how much of a stupid pile of bullshit this topic is.

You are all comparing and anon coin against Bitcoin used "naked" when you should be comparing it like i said earlier.
How many times do i have to say cut the crap ?  

[dinofelis]

Make a new topic.. Bitcoin + Mixers etc vs Monero

Make a REAL comparison  

Mixing on an FBI server

The Internet is run on US Dept Of Defense Servers.
Many ISP's have a first hop to a traced IP at the DOD.. i know i checked this in Canada 10 years ago.
Further more the ISP's are 101% govt compliant.

There's a difference.  If you run a full node, it is very difficult to find out whether your full node processed *your own* transaction, or a transaction coming from a light client connected to you (of which maybe one is yours).  This is why you should run your own monero full node and why it is a bad idea to use light wallets in the first place.  The encrypted tunnels to a full node don't reveal what's inside, only that there was a connection. In order to even start untangling that, you'd need a global surveillance of all local connections too.  This can be done only for specific targets, and even then, it is difficult if several jurisdictions are at work.
So you only run this danger if you are already targeted, after which, it is just a matter of collecting proof.

But when you mix your coins on an FBI mixer, you are 1) signalling yourself and 2) making the mixing useless because they KNOW who brought what, and got out what on what address ; they don't need to pre-target victims, they come themselves, and they bring the proof of their own to their servers.  The first thing is a multi-billion dollar surveillance program with doubtful utility and results, the second is a less-than-one-million program that is a honeypot for people wanting to hide something.

Setting up several FBI mixers is much, much, much lower budget than global internet surveillance and is directly targeting the people they are after without the legal hassle of global surveillance.

A guy buys coins on coinbase, goes to a mixer at the FBI's site, thinks he's safe and buys drugs on a dark market.  The FBI agent looks at the analysis the next morning, sees the buying at a dark market wallet, sees that it comes from coinbase's wallets before mixing, asks a subpoena for coinbase, and knock, knock on the door if he happens to be in the US jurisdiction, or an e-mail to a collegue of a befriended jurisdiction to do the same.

You don't need global internet surveillance for that.  If I were an FBI agent, I'd ask for $1 million budget to set up a few hundred of mixers around the world, and ask for a promotion the next year when I brought down 10 dark markets.

What you fail to see is, all else equal, when you use a bitcoin mixer, you fully trust the owner of the mixer, and you reveal him what you want to hide.  BTW, DASH has exactly the same problem, with the master nodes which are nothing else but trusted mixers.  Only, DASH protects this somewhat more with the fact that you cannot "Sybil attack" the DASH masternode network, as you can "Sybil attack" the bitcoin mixer population like I proposed. 
The counter side to DASH is that most masternodes are in the hands of Evans, so in a certain way, you have to trust Evans for your mixing.  That's probably somewhat safer than trusting the FBI agent, but still.

[dinofelis]

the truth about monero usage on deep web markets:

That's simply wrong. 
https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/user-guides/prove-payment
What monero is still lacking, but I think it is in the making, is multisig, needed for escrow.

And it's not Monero's fault that those AB users don't know how to use it....that guys an idiot or a lier either way he's not worth my time.

Are you serious ?

This has nothing to do with 'faulty users'. By any satisfactory auditory definition, a transaction is successful when one address balance has been depleted and another credited. (I realise there are other ‘geeky’ definitions that involve transaction IDs but thats not what matters to users and it's not what would matter to any self respecting professional auditor).

In the abscence of a trusted 3rd party arbitor, you therefore need to see the movements at both address balances. The sending and receiving.

Furthermore, the parties that have an interest in auditing it are:

1. The sending participating party (to verify they’re liability is cancelled)
2. The receiving participating party (for obvious reasons)
3. Non-participating keyholders (because they are exposed to the value of the blockchain based asset and have an interest in the public confidence of the blockchain integrity)
4. Non-participating, non-keyholders (because they are expected to supply goods, services and other currencies in support of your blockchain asset's exchange rate).

(You would not want to eat a piece of fruit out of a bowl of rotten apples, even if one of them looked ok. In Bitcoin (and Dash for that matter), everyone sees the whole fruitbowl and everyone has access to the same information without condition or recourse to a third party).

The reason Bitcoin’s blockchain is anonymous but transparent is because there IS no 3rd party arbitor to resolve disputes. Blockchain transparency therefore makes the asset resistant to confidence attacks through rumour, dispute, aspersion and theft. It also gives transacting parties huge protection by supporting the interests of veracity in anecdotal accounts of failed transfers, whether they be due to mis-addressed funds, lack of confirmations, deception, hacks or otherwise.

The problem with the Cryptonote approach (who’s original conception was intended to support trusted party backed ‘credit money’ anyway b.t.w.) is that the participating parties are *on their own* mate. Nobody can see a thing and they’re each dependent on the other’s co-operation for verifying the transaction. If Poloniex say my deposit ‘went through’ and no funds turn up and don’t supply me a TXID or viewkey I’m stuffed. Nor do I have recourse to “the rest of the world”. Take a look at the last 6 years of Bitcoin forums. They’re littered with discussions about addresses, transactions where something went, where it didn’t go.

Thats what gives a blockchain confidence and confidence is what supports its value. If all you have is one end of the transaction or a poxy TXID that you have to beg for, then you’ve a recipe for catastrophe. A while back I said that “encryption” was the cancer of cryptocurrency. I didn’t mean that from the point of view of technical failure, I meant it from the perspective that ANY kind of obfuscation in an unbacked asset is corrosive to confidence and it’s only a matter of time before all it’s good for is a temporary payment rail thats valueless.

The reason these coins have no future isn’t because they don’t have good ‘tech’. It’s because ‘encrypting stuff’ is dirt cheap these days and doesn’t add any value. (Sticking a gold bar or a diamond in a safe might cost you a small premium, but the price of the safe, not the price of the gold).

In fact, when it comes to cryptocurrency, “encrypting stuff” positively detracts form its potential value because we’re talking about a bearer token which draws its worth from authenticity, not obscurity.

How much evidence of that do you need ? If not the above posts (which will be the tip of the Iceberg), try this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg17896089#msg17896089

Ah, Toknormal's aberrant monetary definitions again

There's a difference between two aspects of a monetary asset.  One is the BELIEF IN THE SYSTEM.  The belief in the system resides in the fact that you are willing to accept monetary assets against goods and services, because you believe that others share that belief, and that you will be able to obtain goods and services against these assets.
That belief needs (but it is not sufficient) a kind of belief in the respect of the rules of the system.  For a crypto currency, that belief in the respect of the rules is based upon the belief that the cryptography is sound, and the consensus mechanism is working correctly (that there is not a 51% attack going on for instance, and that such an attack is not imminent).

Again, the "technical" belief is necessary, but not sufficient, for the monetary belief to hold.  If you don't believe that the crypto currencies' rules are correctly implemented (for instance, that there's a cheap trick to generate extra coins, or to reverse transactions), you can hardly believe the monetary value of it.  But it is not because a crypto currency is working correctly, that you believe that people will accept it against goods and services.

So the "monetary belief" is ONE aspect.

The different aspect is a single transaction.  One has already to assume the monetary belief, otherwise you won't bother getting involved into a transaction.
If you're on the receiving side, it is simple to believe in a transaction: you see that you obtained the funds.  Given your belief in the functioning of the system, that's enough to convince you.
If you're on the sending side, it is also simple to believe in the transaction: you see that you don't have the funds any more and you can verify that you did the transaction.

So both parties can convince themselves easily about the veracity of a transaction.  However, the receiver of funds has an incentive to *pretend* that he didn't get paid, because he's supposed to deliver goods and services for it.   This only matters if the sender needs some form of social pressure on the receiver; that is, if he did his payment before being sure that he obtained his goods and services ; or if the receiver of funds thinks he can manipulate social pressure on the sender to get more out of him (more money, or getting the goods back).

So the only potential liar in this case is the receiver of funds (who knows he's lying), and he's lying to a particular audience.

The sender can prove to this audience that the payment took place (and has to sacrifice anonymity for this transaction in that case).

With monero, the sender can prove it to ANYBODY he estimates needs to be informed about the receiver's lie.  If he sends the transaction key, the transaction ID and the receiver's address, ANYBODY can check that this transaction took place.

But it is up to the sender to give this information to the people he estimates, need to have this information (although these people can re-transmit this information further, which is an error in this system: it is not a zero-knowledge proof, it is full proof).

The revelation of this particular transaction has nothing to do with the monetary belief in the overall system.  The overall belief is partially built upon the belief of the correctness of the cryptographic system, and the absence of 51% attack, and partially on the inavoidable belief in the group-think of it having value.

One doesn't need to know how to reveal an individual transaction: one has cryptographic proof that they are all correctly linked together.

The revelation of a particular transaction is only needed to correct a lie of a receiver of funds to an audience for which you, as a sender, think it is important to correct this.

These are two different aspects.

[btcxyzzz]

anonymous is not necessary for a cryptocurrence, monero can't replace bitcoin even in deep web.

LOL, you live in inversed world )

[iamnotback]

... (although these people can re-transmit this information further, which is an error in this system: it is not a zero-knowledge proof, it is full proof).

+1 . Overall very well elucidated. And interesting point about that proof not being a NIZKP. Thanks for pointing that out.

[cryptworld]

It all depends on what you are looking for if you want anonymity then you go for monero. It's that simple

[machinek20]

Yes for anonymity Monero is better than bitcoin, Monero can be one of the greatest alt coin in the future, but the Monero user still not a lot and the place to spend Monero is limited, when a big company invest in Monero I think it has chance to compete with bitcoin

[toknormal]

So the only potential liar in this case is the receiver of funds (who knows he's lying), and he's lying to a particular audience.

The sender can prove to this audience that the payment took place (and has to sacrifice anonymity for this transaction in that case).

You should become an architect. With such elaborate philosophical meanderings I'm sure you could successfully argue that since "most buildings are rectangular" therefore "most rectangular structures will stand up".  

(It'll also be easier for you than trying to convince anyone who understands money and 'audits').

[dinofelis]

So the only potential liar in this case is the receiver of funds (who knows he's lying), and he's lying to a particular audience.

The sender can prove to this audience that the payment took place (and has to sacrifice anonymity for this transaction in that case).

You should become an architect. With such elaborate philosophical meanderings I'm sure you could successfully argue that since "most buildings are rectangular" therefore "most rectangular structures will stand up".  

(It'll also be easier for you than trying to convince anyone who understands money and 'audits').

I'm sure people like you said that to Euclid too, when he tried to explain geometry.

[iamnotback]

Hope you Monero folks are aware of my conjecture:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1796575.msg17968724#msg17968724

[blockcha1n]

I was thinking about getting into monero but now that I hear that it is used for deepweb or darknet purposes have turned me off it all together,
I don't want to be part of or support something that makes me feel bad everytime I use it.
Atleast bitcoin has had it's bad times but it is trying very hard to separate it's self from those "Dark Days" of it's questionable beginnings.
So atleast it is trying to make a new dawn in a good light for itself.

[iamnotback]

I was thinking about getting into monero but now that I hear that it is used for deepweb or darknet purposes have turned me off it all together,
I don't want to be part of or support something that makes me feel bad everytime I use it.
Atleast bitcoin has had it's bad times but it is trying very hard to separate it's self from those "Dark Days" of it's questionable beginnings.
So atleast it is trying to make a new dawn in a good light for itself.

Btw, I agree that the focus on marketing to dark markets is not wise. Isn't a mainstream nor appropriate way to teach thinking about organizing for freedom. I've been happy to stand back and watch Monero shoot themselves in the foot.

Please understand that Bitcoin joining the fiat system is not a good thing:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1798356.msg17966654#msg17966654  <--- READ @dinofelis's point please
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1798356.msg17960724#msg17960724

Instead we need anonymity that is compliant with a civilized society:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1796575.msg17968724#msg17968724

Note anonymity will never be 100% iron-clad. The bad guys can still be tracked down. But we need privacy, else we will have totalitarianism. We can't take away the power of the little guy because then we will end up with an asymmetrically all-powerful corrupt State (1984).

[dinofelis]

Hope you Monero folks are aware of my conjecture:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1796575.msg17968724#msg17968724

I have to think about the first conjecture, about spamming transactions to undo anonymity.

However, the second thing, about "tax declarations".  Taxes as a function of economic relationship are extortion.  Taxes to pay for public services are normal.  So I don't even consider "declaring crypto transactions".  If you want to declare it, do it with fiat.  Use crypto when you don't want to declare it, or when you don't care at all about anonymity (use bitcoin).

I have a totally different proposal for taxes, if they need to exist.  Note that as an anarchist, I think that the state shouldn't exist, and hence taxes are not a useful concept.  But if a form of state has to exist and must be financed, I propose the following.  The first is that you pay for services, like "police and law protection".  Ownership you didn't declare (and didn't pay the "protection premium" on) will not be protected by law, but you are free to do so.  If you don't declare your house, police will not come and kick out squatters: it is not legally recognised to be yours.  If you declare it, you pay a permium as a function of its value.
The second is that nobody can own natural resources, including land.  You can only lease land and natural resources.  This essentially kills the real estate market as collectible, because you can't own a house for ever, given that it can only be yours as long as the leasing period of the land lasts, something you negotiated when making your offer for that piece of land.  This is an old and wise American-Indian principle: land cannot be owned.  Maybe you have a leasing for 50 years or so.  Society ("the state") decides upon what parts of nature are open to bidding and what remain public ; people make different proposals (leasing price, period, usage restrictions....), and the state picks out the most lucrative one.    When a leasing comes to an end (either because the contractor didn't pay, or because the period comes at the end), the state decides anew whether this piece of land (and every capital on it, like real estate) goes back into the public domain, or is leased out again.  The former leaser can of course, bid again.  This bidding can even be done 10 or 20 years before the end, so that the actual leaser knows whether to invest or not on it.

All the income of those leasings of land and natural resources is the "tax income" of the state.  No more compulsory declarations, no more limitations of economic freedom because of taxes.

[btcB2]

the truth about monero usage on deep web markets:

https://i.imgur.com/7sWDQHh.png

ah this prove that full anonymity can be detrimental, and that bitcoin is actually the king in the dark web too, i always thought that monero was rising because it was used but now that you posted this i think it was a pump and dump

It's pretty easy to prove payments with Monero, it has nothing to do with anonymity. Here is all you need to know: https://getmonero.org/resources/user-guides/prove-payment.html

[King Bounty]

I think monero does not match than bitcoin, because it is so far compared. and in my opinion the match compared to monero is ethereum.