[XMR] Monero Speculation

[wpalczynski]

Bitshares 2.0 is more anonymous than Monero with mandatory stealth addresses and an implementation of Confidential Transactions already live on the blockchain..... it seems less speculative than Monero's plans to implement their own version of Confidential Transactions.  

CT plus stealth is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.

Privacy/anonymity consists of:

A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)

Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.

Currently Monero lacks C though.

I don't see how Bitshares 2.0 transactions are traceable since they do both A and C? I'm not arguing that having A+B+C will be less anonymous than A+C, however I see A+C as being more anonymous than A+B.

Really? LMAO

[kazuki49]

Currently Monero lacks C though.

You came to the wrong neighborhood to shill shitcoins

Monero does not lacks C friend, you still can't know the correct amount that was transactioned, you can know it was a big amount or a small amount, in the future you'll not be able to know any amount.

[smooth]

Bitshares 2.0 is more anonymous than Monero with mandatory stealth addresses and an implementation of Confidential Transactions already live on the blockchain..... it seems less speculative than Monero's plans to implement their own version of Confidential Transactions. 

CT plus stealth is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.

Privacy/anonymity consists of:

A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)

Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.

Currently Monero lacks C though.

Not completely. It deliberately includes some extra coins in the transaction and then sends them back as change. You can't tell which outputs go to the recipient, so you can't identify the amount. Some sort of range or candidates can be inferred.

I don't see how Bitshares 2.0 transactions are traceable since they do both A and C?

Neither A nor C address tracing at all. Every connection in the blockchain is still 100% visible.

Read what Greg Maxwell and Blockstream has written about transaction metadata, since they invented the thing. CT doesn't solve it.

I'm not arguing that having A+B+C will be less anonymous than A+C, however I see A+C being more anonymous than A+B.

As I said they are not comparable. Neither is more anonymous than the other in any objective mathematical sense. You are entitled to your opinion as to qualitative superiority of course.

[chennan]

(various bitshares spam)....   That is why you've never seen me on the Monero train.

Dude, I spent like thirty seconds googling to try to ascertain some of these claims and immediately ran into this silliness.   
 

Here is the tricky part: for the moment, those Bitshares flavored PTS are mined on a Bitcoin clone and THESE are the PTS exchanged and traded on the pair PTS/BTC (bter). The idea to proceed that way, temporary with a bitcoin clone, is to gain traction quickly and investors on board. In the future, holding Bitshares flavored PTS (on a address with the corresponding private key) will give a new distribution 1:1 for real PTS Protoshares.

 
 
In the most drill sergeant voice I can manage -  hollllllly fucking shit private, are you kidding me?  Hey, I got an idea.  I'm gonna issue a bitcoin clone called "quantum coin" and it will be a bitcoin clone *but* will be 1:1 redeemable for the first quantum encrypted crypto one day.    
 
Oh, but it gets better...   
 

Limit of 2,000,000 AGS (shares of the project) can be bought by BTC or PTS through an "ingenious" bidding system, where 10,000 AGS per day are distributed. The round will end the 19th July after 200 days.

 
 
Get the fuck out of here with this weak ass bullshit.  I don't usually curse, but this is straight idiotic.  Ingenious bidding system huh?  Fuck right off.  Scheme scam spam bullshit.  One more reason why anyone involved in Monero is lucky to be here in a sea of shit like this. 

lololol... AP, what's your drink of choice today?  I want to get on your level of drunk today so I can watch football, get hammered, and yell and curse at other users who claim that BTS is a better currency than monero through this forum... Sounds like the kind of fun/stress relief I need today

[CoinHoarder]

Really? LMAO

Yes, I am probably dumb but please explain in laymen's terms how Bitshares 2.0 transactions are traceable.

rabble rabble

Bitshares has been one of the most innovative developments in the Cryptocoin world that actually had a public release. Don't dis it.  

https://bitshares.org/technology/

[smooth]

Really? LMAO

Yes, I am probably dumb but please explain in laymen's terms how Bitshares 2.0 transactions are traceable.

I'd draw a picture for the laymen.

Without CT

A ---- 3.1 BTC ----> B

With CT:

A ----- ?? BTC ---> B

There is no difference in terms of tracing.

[kazuki49]

Yes, I am probably dumb but please explain in laymen's terms how Bitshares 2.0 transactions are traceable.

You may actually not know but same argument is used by the dash/darkcoin side, just because people don't care to trace it don't make it anonymous, it also don't fool mathematicians and cryptographers that see right through the snake oil.

I have nothing against ppl who hold or trade these coins just to profit, if you make more money congratulations to you. I just think crypto is too small and uninteresting (apart from few coins like Monero) to bother holding and speculating the long term future.

[CoinHoarder]

Bitshares 2.0 is more anonymous than Monero with mandatory stealth addresses and an implementation of Confidential Transactions already live on the blockchain..... it seems less speculative than Monero's plans to implement their own version of Confidential Transactions.  

CT plus stealth is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.

Privacy/anonymity consists of:

A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)

Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.

Currently Monero lacks C though.

Not completely. It deliberately includes some extra coins in the transaction and then sends them back as change. You can't tell which outputs go to the recipient, so you can't identify the amount. Some sort of range or candidates can be inferred.

I don't see how Bitshares 2.0 transactions are traceable since they do both A and C?

Neither A nor C address tracing at all. Every connection in the blockchain is still 100% visible.

Read what Greg Maxwell and Blockstream has written about transaction metadata, since they invented the thing. CT doesn't solve it.

I'm not arguing that having A+B+C will be less anonymous than A+C, however I see A+C being more anonymous than A+B.

As I said they are not comparable. Neither is more anonymous than the other in any objective mathematical sense. You are entitled to your opinion as to qualitative superiority of course.

Thank you for the explanation and being more reasonable than the other Monero peeps. I guess I was wrong. Both seem pretty untraceable to me though. I think Monero will be a good option for privacy concerned people, especially after releasing its own version of Confidential Transactions.

I just can't see purely privacy focused coins as being a good investment. Nothing is stopping super DACs from adopting AB and C, but Monero seems uninterested in expanding into other avenues of decentralized development. It is the coins that embrace and implement many decentralized technologies and features that will rise above the rest IMO. I personally would choose the anon coin that did AB and C, along with encrypted messaging, decentralized market, etc..... before choosing a coin that only did AB and C, etc.

I am hypothesizing that the masses agree with me.

This post better explains my hypothesis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1154832.msg12784761#msg12784761

[smooth]

I just can't see purely privacy focused coins as being a good investment. Nothing is stopping super DACs from adopting AB and C, but Monero seems uninterested in expanding into other avenues of decentralized development. It is the coins that embrace and implement many decentralized technologies and features that will rise above the rest IMO. I personally would choose the anon coin that did AB and C, along with encrypted messaging, decentralized market, etc..... before choosing a coin that only did AB and C, etc.

I am hypothesizing that the masses agree with me.

You make some good points that there is no one silver bullet feature. I think few if any would disagree with you on that. Coins and projects each have to find their own way and deliver value to users. Thank you for pointing out the new CT feature in Bitshares, I don't think I was aware of it.

[chennan]

Bitshares 2.0 is more anonymous than Monero with mandatory stealth addresses and an implementation of Confidential Transactions already live on the blockchain..... it seems less speculative than Monero's plans to implement their own version of Confidential Transactions. 

CT plus stealth is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.

Privacy/anonymity consists of:

A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)

Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.

Currently Monero lacks C though.

Not completely. It deliberately includes some extra coins in the transaction and then sends them back as change. You can't tell which outputs go to the recipient, so you can't identify the amount. Some sort of range or candidates can be inferred.

I don't see how Bitshares 2.0 transactions are traceable since they do both A and C?

Neither A nor C address tracing at all. Every connection in the blockchain is still 100% visible.

Read what Greg Maxwell and Blockstream has written about transaction metadata, since they invented the thing. CT doesn't solve it.

I'm not arguing that having A+B+C will be less anonymous than A+C, however I see A+C being more anonymous than A+B.

As I said they are not comparable. Neither is more anonymous than the other in any objective mathematical sense. You are entitled to your opinion as to qualitative superiority of course.

Thank you for the explanation and being more reasonable than the other Monero peeps. I guess I was wrong. Both seem pretty untraceable to me though. I think Monero will be a good option for privacy concerned people, especially after releasing its own version of Confidential Transactions.

I just can't see purely privacy focused coins as being a good investment. Nothing is stopping super DACs from adopting AB and C, but Monero seems uninterested in expanding into other avenues of decentralized development. It is the coins that embrace and implement many decentralized technologies and features that will rise above the rest IMO. I personally would choose the anon coin that did AB and C, along with encrypted messaging, decentralized market, etc..... before choosing a coin that only did AB and C, etc.

I am hypothesizing that the masses agree with me.

I would have to disagree with you about the bolded text above... we have monero developers here (Smooth) who are working on AEON as a test bed to test out different tactics of getting everyone interested in mining through a very decentralized platform that allows low hashing rates to effectively mine small amounts of coins...  At least that's what I think is going on, please correct me if I'm wrong Smooth.

[americanpegasus]

Bitshares has been one of the most innovative developments in the Cryptocoin world that actually had a public release. Don't dis it.  

https://bitshares.org/technology/

Bitshares may be marginally less of a scheme/scam than every other altcoin out there but still fails spectacularly on certain tests of mining fairness.  As well, it's likely a lot of hard work went into it.  
  
That doesn't matter.  The free market and reality don't care that your distribution was only a little unfair, or how much work you put into it.  
  
If it wasn't a clean PoW mining situation from Genesis to present with no pre-sales, burns, 1:1 exchanges, swaps, hops, chops, or stops then it doesn't matter.  
  
n-person game theory doesn't give a shit, and you will not reach critical mass necessary to achieve exit velocity from the altcoin scene into the mainstream.  If you have no chance of reaching exit velocity you are peddling and playing a sell-to-the-greater-fool game where you stand a dangerous chance of being the greatest fool.  
  
As well the fact that (as the developers have pointed out) the technical features will fall short of Monero soon (and debatable fall short now) only ensures it's eventual collapse.  Do you know how finely honed of a bullshit detector I have after all these years immersing myself in it?  
  
Monero isn't perfect, but it passes the "launch fairness test" and is light years ahead of anything else here on the altcoin scene, and that includes Ethereum and Bitshares.  
  
If you can make money on bitshares, I don't fault you.  Just don't try to pretend you're not playing a greater fool game.  
  
And for the record, I drank my signature drink: a Vanilla Latte with two pumps of vanilla syrup and an extra shot of expresso.

[generalizethis]

Bitshares 2.0 is more anonymous than Monero with mandatory stealth addresses and an implementation of Confidential Transactions already live on the blockchain..... it seems less speculative than Monero's plans to implement their own version of Confidential Transactions. 

CT plus stealth is not "more anonymous" than Monero. Mostly the two aren't comparable (both do something the other doesn't), although Monero is arguably somewhat more anonymous, as I will explain.

Privacy/anonymity consists of:

A. unlinkability (can't tell two transactions are to the same recipient): stealth (or just not reusing addresses)
B. untraceability (can't trace paths between tranasctions): ring signatures (or coinjoin, coinswap, though with many complications and hazards, etc.)
C. content privacy (can't see amount being spent): CT (or limited ambiguity of which outputs are change)

Bitshares with CT gives you A and C, but nothing at all for B. Monero gives you A and B, and somewhat C (via ambiguity of change outputs). Monero with ringCT will give A,B, and C, for a comprehensive solution.

Currently Monero lacks C though.

Not completely. It deliberately includes some extra coins in the transaction and then sends them back as change. You can't tell which outputs go to the recipient, so you can't identify the amount. Some sort of range or candidates can be inferred.

I don't see how Bitshares 2.0 transactions are traceable since they do both A and C?

Neither A nor C address tracing at all. Every connection in the blockchain is still 100% visible.

Read what Greg Maxwell and Blockstream has written about transaction metadata, since they invented the thing. CT doesn't solve it.

I'm not arguing that having A+B+C will be less anonymous than A+C, however I see A+C being more anonymous than A+B.

As I said they are not comparable. Neither is more anonymous than the other in any objective mathematical sense. You are entitled to your opinion as to qualitative superiority of course.

Thank you for the explanation and being more reasonable than the other Monero peeps. I guess I was wrong. Both seem pretty untraceable to me though. I think Monero will be a good option for privacy concerned people, especially after releasing its own version of Confidential Transactions.

I just can't see purely privacy focused coins as being a good investment. Nothing is stopping super DACs from adopting AB and C, but Monero seems uninterested in expanding into other avenues of decentralized development. It is the coins that embrace and implement many decentralized technologies and features that will rise above the rest IMO. I personally would choose the anon coin that did AB and C, along with encrypted messaging, decentralized market, etc..... before choosing a coin that only did AB and C, etc.

I am hypothesizing that the masses agree with me.

Where did you read that Monero won't explore other technologies when they get done with the core?

https://getmonero.org/design-goals/

[smooth]

I would have to disagree with you about the bolded text above... we have monero developers here (Smooth) who are working on AEON as a test bed to test out different tactics of getting everyone interested in mining through a very decentralized platform that allows low hashing rates to effectively mine small amounts of coins...  At least that's what I think is going on, please correct me if I'm wrong Smooth.

You are right there are a lot of different arms of the Monero ecosystem and different on-ramps for development. We also have people making crowdfunding pitches. Right now that is somewhat centralized in the sense that it goes through a forum (though still decentralized in the sense that any developers and sponsors are eligible), but who knows in time that can perhaps be done in a more decentralized manner too.

In a lot of ways I feel that the sustainability of a project and its associated community matters more than it's current feature set. We all know every viable coin will be quite different in five years than today. Arguing about today's feature set and implementation is silly.

[CoinHoarder]

rabble rabble unfair distribution rabble rabble

So you are one of the "I missed the boat so therefore I hate it" types- Gotchya.

Where did you read that Monero won't explore other technologies when they get done with the core?

https://getmonero.org/design-goals/

My bad, it seems Monero has pivoted since I last researched the project. I haven't been around much the past couple years.

[wpalczynski]

rabble rabble unfair distribution rabble rabble

So you are one of the "I missed the boat so therefore I hate it" types- Gotchya.

Where did you read that Monero won't explore other technologies when they get done with the core?

https://getmonero.org/design-goals/

My bad, it seems Monero has pivoted since I last researched the project. I haven't been around much the past couple years.

Funny you say that, Monero has not been around for 2 years.  I think you stopped by for a quick afternoon Shill.

[CoinHoarder]

rabble rabble unfair distribution rabble rabble

So you are one of the "I missed the boat so therefore I hate it" types- Gotchya.

Where did you read that Monero won't explore other technologies when they get done with the core?

https://getmonero.org/design-goals/

My bad, it seems Monero has pivoted since I last researched the project. I haven't been around much the past couple years.

Funny you say that, Monero has not been around for 2 years.

I almost forgot how many keyboard warriors Monero has. The validity of my statement still stands as I have been around occasionally during the past two years, hence the use of the word 'much' in my sentence. Since I have been around occasionally it would mean that I could be previously aware of the Monero project. I'm going to go do something else. Discussing semantics and defending Bitshares in a Monero thread is a waste of my time, as I am not invested in either.

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers Monero fan boys.

[americanpegasus]

rabble rabble unfair distribution rabble rabble

So you are one of the "I missed the boat so therefore I hate it" types- Gotchya.

No, there are certain qualities and constraints that define a fairly launched coin that can survive an initially worthless magic-token n-person pirate game where the tokens only have value if each successive player agrees they have value and convinces more to join the game.  
  
A pre-sale of any type causes the chances of success to plummet to abysmal levels.  
  
I promise you, if Monero had any sort of presale or IPO I would not be here, and I would be still backing Bitcoin, which I most certainly missed the boat on.

[americanpegasus]

Funny you say that, Monero has not been around for 2 years.  I think you stopped by for a quick afternoon Shill.

A cursory glance at his history shows a multi year agenda to pump bitshares and attack Monero... Unfortunately for him, math is not an opinion.

[wpalczynski]

rabble rabble unfair distribution rabble rabble

So you are one of the "I missed the boat so therefore I hate it" types- Gotchya.

Where did you read that Monero won't explore other technologies when they get done with the core?

https://getmonero.org/design-goals/

My bad, it seems Monero has pivoted since I last researched the project. I haven't been around much the past couple years.

Funny you say that, Monero has not been around for 2 years.

I almost forgot how many keyboard warriors Monero has. The validity of my statement still stands as I have been around occasionally during the past two years, hence the use of the word 'much' in my sentence. Since I have been around occasionally it would mean that I could be previously aware of the Monero project. I'm going to go do something else. Discussing semantics and defending Bitshares in a Monero thread is a waste of my time, as I am not invested in either.

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers Monero fan boys.

Thanks for coming out bud.

[chennan]

rabble rabble unfair distribution rabble rabble

So you are one of the "I missed the boat so therefore I hate it" types- Gotchya.

No, there are certain qualities and constraints that define a fairly launched coin that can survive an initially worthless magic-token n-person pirate game where the tokens only have value if each successive player agrees they have value and convinces more to join the game. 
 
A pre-sale of any type causes the chances of success to plummet to abysmal levels. 
 
I promise you, if Monero had any sort of presale or IPO I would not be here, and I would be still backing Bitcoin, which I most certainly missed the boat on.

Honestly, I'm not really that concerned about "missing the boat" when it comes to acquiring cryptos to gain the most "profit" in terms of fiat... Sure it is always nice to acquire more coins when prices are really cheap, but it seems that people really miss out on the notion that getting these coins allows you to be one of the first to a brand new currency the world will need rather than want in the future... if you really believe that a coin is the best thing since sliced bread, then why would you really care about how much profit one will make when they cash back out to fiat.

Note: I'm not really talking to anyone directly by this post, I'm just stating that a majority of people who get into bitcoin or any other altcoin go in with a stock market mindset... and they will most certainly cash out if they reach the ROI they deem fit.  I would imagine in the future it would be silly to think that people did this merely to make a small profit, when they will then realize that they just went against everything they initially stood for in terms of getting away from government mandated currencies.