Unmoderated XC thread

[slapper]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

 closed source is trustless  ?

However, yes i get your point.

Says the prick with a known scam in his signature, not to mention promoting several scams because of his butthurt for a certain coin.

Oh ad hominems, that's a valid argument...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=639043 another coin that is trying to ride the anon dick ...

[humanitee]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

That's not what BTC core dev seems to think of DRK

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

True.

When DRK open sources then you'll only have to trust the current master node isn't logging the data. Evan is promising an improved anonymity after he fixes master nodes, although this is just a promise and is entirely vaporware at the moment. He hasn't indicated what the method would be. He was promising ring signatures before that, which would have annihilated master node spying, however it would have also annihilated the point of master nodes. Time will tell.

With XC you have to trust the mixer isn't logging the data and that the mixer won't steal your coins. Giving control of your coins to another entity is just asking for trouble.

[GhostPlayer]

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

 
Yet, interestingly, it is gmaxwell himself the first industry leader to be vetting the code. He clearly shows with this statement that he did not study DRK before commenting, because with DRK, the 1k deposit IS NOT to mix, but its PoS. A Masternode never knows who sends coins. Even if bad actor managed to get into a node. They wouldn't even be able to steal the 1k because they're in cold storage. It is impermeable to 51% attacks, the only way to "crack" the network is to own 100% of the Masternode network. Its ridiculously brilliant, the concept. And working ace in testnet. Only time can judge out opinions

 Lets see what he has to say AFTER he actually looks at the code.

 With the huge amount of shitcoins flying around, no wonder he rushed to that conclusion. At first sight, indeed DRK looks centralised. Kristov Atlas expressed interest in looking at the code, he's surely next.

 Anyone vetted XC yet, or at least showed interest?

[illodin]

He was promising ring signatures before that, which would have annihilated master node spying, however it would have also annihilated the point of master nodes. Time will tell.

Because of the scaling issues ring signatures would have annihilated any chance of going mainstream one day.

[phosphorush]

is that even a fair comparison when DRk has months and XC has weeks? For one thing i'm sure, DRK fan boys clearly show a lot of interest in XC

[sukottosan_d]

Again, you guys are confusing - it's like you don't want actual information.

This is one of the major issues with cryptocoins. The people will hold it back because no one wants to buy into a group with so many closed-minded people.

You attack people who showed you an issue and walked you through it.
DRK has testers - that have found bugs, that are being fixed. We said thank you - can you help us eliminate it from our product? And it's already been solved.

[illodin]

For one thing i'm sure, DRK fan boys clearly show a lot of interest in XC

That's probably because of all those ridiculous claims like "xc is only two weeks old and we have already surpassed darkcoin's tech", and "we are far superior to darkcoin", etc. The xc dev hasn't stated any of that (as far as I know), but it's the loud clueless minority that started and kept comparing xc to darkcoin. So when someone new comes to the scene and says I'm far better than you then obviously you become interested.

[illodin]

Again, you guys are confusing - it's like you don't want actual information.

This is one of the major issues with cryptocoins. The people will hold it back because no one wants to buy into a group with so many closed-minded people.

You attack people who showed you an issue and walked you through it.
DRK has testers - that have found bugs, that are being fixed. We said thank you - can you help us eliminate it from our product? And it's already been solved.

Most don't care about long term, only the speculative value. They are just hoping the price rises high enough so they can sell before the serious problems later on cause mass dumpage. If you think of it as a game played for real money, the fundamentals probably don't even matter. Get enough people who think the same way to participate and mix it with people who actually believe in it and you've got a game.

[phosphorush]

There is a difference between constructive criticism and destructiive. If FUD on official twitter is constructive.. well...

Anyway, i'm tired of all this biased bullshit, probably from both sides.

[humanitee]

There is a difference between constructive criticism and destructiive. If FUD on official twitter is constructive.. well...

Anyway, i'm tired of all this biased bullshit, probably from both sides.

Nobody really cares. The pump and dump trolls are the ones who started this whole thing by relentlessly plaguing DRK's thread for days and days and days. Then they came to your thread and tried to manipulate for days and days and days.

Now we all hate each other.

[chaeplin]

https://i.imgur.com/l653XP1.png

https://i.imgur.com/P4s9zCy.png

I do care.

[humanitee]

https://i.imgur.com/l653XP1.png

https://i.imgur.com/P4s9zCy.png

I do care.

I don't. It's clear that DRK is NOT based on anything Fedora related. Anybody with 2 brain cells and some programming experience could see that. I still think XC is a giant scam because of the dev's history and the way he grasps at straws. But if people want to throw money at it, whatever. So long as the DRK thread stays clear of them, I really don't care. I'm going to try and map their blockchain if I get some time, just for the lols. It looks like it wouldn't be too hard to do.

I don't blame you for caring though since they are such raging dicks to you over there. I thought the DRK thread was a vast echo chamber, but the XC thread is serious lols.

[phosphorush]

Yep, constructive You guys are too much.

[AlexGR]

In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC

Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal.

That's not what BTC core dev seems to think of DRK

More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.

True.

When DRK open sources then you'll only have to trust the current master node isn't logging the data. Evan is promising an improved anonymity after he fixes master nodes, although this is just a promise and is entirely vaporware at the moment. He hasn't indicated what the method would be. He was promising ring signatures before that, which would have annihilated master node spying, however it would have also annihilated the point of master nodes. Time will tell.

With XC you have to trust the mixer isn't logging the data and that the mixer won't steal your coins. Giving control of your coins to another entity is just asking for trouble.

Trust and trustless here, as I meant it, is in the context of transactions, not anonymity.

Trustless transactions = Satoshi's model.
Trusted transactions = the normal mode of 3rd party that is trusted to not tamper the transaction / run away with the money etc.

Anonymity is another issue altogether. XC is fundamentally flawed at the transaction level. The fact that its anonymity is broken is secondary.

[humanitee]

Trust and trustless here, as I meant it, is in the context of transactions, not anonymity.

Trustless transactions = Satoshi's model.
Trusted transactions = the normal mode of 3rd party that is trusted to not tamper the transaction / run away with the money etc.

Anonymity is another issue altogether. XC is fundamentally flawed at the transaction level. The fact that its anonymity is broken is secondary.

Yeah but there is so much more to 'trust' then just the transactions when it comes to anonymity so I segued into that. Phos isn't wrong, and neither are you.

[AlexGR]

Trust and trustless here, as I meant it, is in the context of transactions, not anonymity.

Trustless transactions = Satoshi's model.
Trusted transactions = the normal mode of 3rd party that is trusted to not tamper the transaction / run away with the money etc.

Anonymity is another issue altogether. XC is fundamentally flawed at the transaction level. The fact that its anonymity is broken is secondary.

Yeah but there is so much more to 'trust' then just the transactions when it comes to anonymity so I segued into that. Phos isn't wrong, and neither are you.

A monetary system that can't be trusted for its primary function (movement of money) is inherently problematic.

The anonymity part for DRK and the trust issue is more like percentages. If you DarkSend the money 5 times, and a bad actor controls like 30% of the network, it's like 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.25% => 99.75% that he'll miss the money flow. You play with probabilities. As you do when you use an IP obfuscation network that might reveal you anyway, whether you use DRK, or MRO.

[humanitee]

A monetary system that can't be trusted for its primary function (movement of money) is inherently problematic.

The anonymity part for DRK and the trust issue is more like percentages. If you DarkSend the money 5 times, and a bad actor controls like 30% of the network, it's like 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.25% => 99.75% that he'll miss the money flow. You play with probabilities. As you do when you use an IP obfuscation network that might reveal you anyway, whether you use DRK, or MRO.

DRK still doesn't handle change correctly though, which makes it super flawed at the moment (unless I missed the implementation of change denomination pools).

IMO all current implementations of anonymous coins suck. DRK has the most promise IMO, purely because of incentivized nodes, which is why I have money in it.

[slapper]

I do care.

I don't. It's clear that DRK is NOT based on anything Fedora related. Anybody with 2 brain cells and some programming experience could see that. I still think XC is a giant scam because of the dev's history and the way he grasps at straws. But if people want to throw money at it, whatever. So long as the DRK thread stays clear of them, I really don't care. I'm going to try and map their blockchain if I get some time, just for the lols. It looks like it wouldn't be too hard to do.

I don't blame you for caring though since they are such raging dicks to you over there. I thought the DRK thread was a vast echo chamber, but the XC thread is serious lols.

Yup, I have those two posts bookmarked as well and have posted about it earlier in the thread. XC is somehow a victim all of a sudden when they are forgetting that their trolling started way earlier in the DRK thread. Not surprising given the above screenshots.

[AlexGR]

A monetary system that can't be trusted for its primary function (movement of money) is inherently problematic.

The anonymity part for DRK and the trust issue is more like percentages. If you DarkSend the money 5 times, and a bad actor controls like 30% of the network, it's like 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.25% => 99.75% that he'll miss the money flow. You play with probabilities. As you do when you use an IP obfuscation network that might reveal you anyway, whether you use DRK, or MRO.

DRK still doesn't handle change correctly though, which makes it super flawed at the moment (unless I missed the implementation of change denomination pools).

RC4+ IIRC.

[chaeplin]

A monetary system that can't be trusted for its primary function (movement of money) is inherently problematic.

The anonymity part for DRK and the trust issue is more like percentages. If you DarkSend the money 5 times, and a bad actor controls like 30% of the network, it's like 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.25% => 99.75% that he'll miss the money flow. You play with probabilities. As you do when you use an IP obfuscation network that might reveal you anyway, whether you use DRK, or MRO.

DRK still doesn't handle change correctly though, which makes it super flawed at the moment (unless I missed the implementation of change denomination pools).

Correct Sir.

RC4 will fix the change issue and be pretty much untracable.