[XMR] Monero Speculation

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I don't see an issue with discussing the merits of darkcoin in relation to xmr, as this is a speculation thread and darkcoin's future can play a significant role Monero's adoption/success.

I think smooth's point regarding off-chain/on-chain privacy leads to an important question: if you're going to depend entirely on off-chain privacy, why not just use bitcoin?

[1713873426]

1713873426

[1713873426]

1713873426

[1713873426]

1713873426

[smooth]

In your mature scenario, Darkcoin would already be broken if that's the case (with every single masternode owner sharing data for $).

Yes that is my point. The design is broken. It can't work longer term. That is my opinion.

This does not mean that "DRK [the coin] is dead" after all the technology is still evolving and who knows how it might be improved. It might even evolve into something useful and valuable that has nothing to do with privacy. I have no idea. The current design is a fail IMO.

And that's where we'll continue to disagree. You assign very high probabilities to your scenario playing out with the majority (if not all) masternode owners sharing data whereas I assign low probabilities of this being as large of an issue as you make it sound like it will be--strictly from an incentive trade off between data revenue streams vs risk of value loss to underlying holdings.

The problem is that it is set up as a many-way prisoner's dilemma. The data trackers won't go to a masternode convention and try to get a collective body of masternode operators to make a collective decision to share data. They will go to individual masterede operators and pay for data. The only rational decision for an individual operator is to accept the money. His individual decision to do so won't harm the privacy of the coin much at all. In fact according to your arguments about probabilities across multiple rounds and blinding making each operator individually insignficant, it won't hurt at all.

I suppose there is another possibility, which is that masternodes all end u being operated by the same party, in which case they can, possibly, make a rational decision to refuse. That's not very decentralized though is it?

[smooth]

I don't see an issue with discussing the merits of darkcoin in relation to xmr, as this is a speculation thread and darkcoin's future can play a significant role Monero's adoption/success.

I think smooth's point regarding off-chain/on-chain privacy leads to an important question: if you're going to depend entirely on off-chain privacy, why not just use bitcoin?

Bitcoin plus dark wallet is probably better than DRK, assuming it gets popular enough, and maybe already. For one thing it has stealth addresses and DRK does not.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Dark wallet is exactly what I had in mind with that question.

[oblox]

If DRK's anon doesn't work, prove it. Should be easy.

That is and has always been a stupid argument. For example, it was recently reported that internet tracking companies are watching searches that you make for medical conditions and that data is being traded around by data brokers. Obviously that is possible and is being widely done, but I can't personally do it, because I'm not one of these companies:



Full size: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/display_advertising_ecosystem_011011-1024x741.png

It's not a stupid argument because the end result will always be a probability of 1 in 3^(# of rounds) pathways. You aren't going to prove anything without reasonable doubt, especially as the rounds increase (up to 16). To blindly say "DRK's anon doesn't work" should have some backing behind why... I have yet to see the logic other then bias investor mentality.

That's not the argument you made above. It was "prove it. Should be easy" which I took to mean saying that we should go an "de-anonymize" transactions. If that was not your argument, I apologize for the misunderstanding, but this silly argument has been presented before many times. It is a fallacy because I am not Google or Facebook or any of the 100+ other known major players in the tracking data industry (or the NSA).

As for logic, I have presented my argument based on: 1) game theory, 2) economics, 3) the real world experience with commercial and government data sharing generally. I do not believe that argument is an instance of investor bias.

Kazuki stating that DRK's anon tx's doesn't work is investor bias by definition. He doesn't want to hear any evidence from the "other team" if it contradicts his feel-goods holding XMR only. Even with all the data tracking available from large corporations, governmental entities, and blockchain crawling, it still comes down to probabilities (and reasonable doubt) and from a statistical standpoint, Darkcoin's anonymity through obscurity remains functional and viable.

[oblox]

I don't see an issue with discussing the merits of darkcoin in relation to xmr, as this is a speculation thread and darkcoin's future can play a significant role Monero's adoption/success.

I think smooth's point regarding off-chain/on-chain privacy leads to an important question: if you're going to depend entirely on off-chain privacy, why not just use bitcoin?

Bitcoin plus dark wallet is probably better than DRK, assuming it gets popular enough, and maybe already. For one thing it has stealth addresses and DRK does not.

Stealth addresses are a trivial addition, even for Dark. I'd be more concerned about fee structure and flaws in CS implementation (last I checked that was the route they were going) with Darkwallet.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I don't like looking at potential security issues from a perspective of probability. That's a recipe for disaster. The compromise of masternode data WILL be an issue if darkcoin becomes popular and valuable enough. It's a design issue that wasn't fully thought out.

A similar concern with Monero (and any PoW coin) is mining centralization: if an entity can control the 2 or 3 largest mining pools, then the entire network can be compromised. It's a problem that definitely will become an issue in the future if not addressed. Again, I think this is fundamental design issue with the winner-take-all approach to block rewards. I don't have a solution

[smooth]

I don't see an issue with discussing the merits of darkcoin in relation to xmr, as this is a speculation thread and darkcoin's future can play a significant role Monero's adoption/success.

I think smooth's point regarding off-chain/on-chain privacy leads to an important question: if you're going to depend entirely on off-chain privacy, why not just use bitcoin?

Bitcoin plus dark wallet is probably better than DRK, assuming it gets popular enough, and maybe already. For one thing it has stealth addresses and DRK does not.

Stealth addresses are a trivial addition, even for Dark. I'd be more concerned about fee structure and flaws in CS implementation (last I checked that was the route they were going) with Darkwallet.

The point is, its not there. So comparing the two I'd give the edge to Dark Wallet. I'd give the edge to DRK in doing premixing. They're comparable in maturity and stability (not much in either case). Maybe that is close to a tie overall. Huge advantage to DW in operating with BTC though.

[generalizethis]

In your mature scenario, Darkcoin would already be broken if that's the case (with every single masternode owner sharing data for $).

Yes that is my point. The design is broken. It can't work longer term. That is my opinion.

This does not mean that "DRK [the coin] is dead" after all the technology is still evolving and who knows how it might be improved. It might even evolve into something useful and valuable that has nothing to do with privacy. I have no idea. The current design is a fail IMO.

And that's where we'll continue to disagree. You assign very high probabilities to your scenario playing out with the majority (if not all) masternode owners sharing data whereas I assign low probabilities of this being as large of an issue as you make it sound like it will be--strictly from an incentive trade off between data revenue streams vs risk of value loss to underlying holdings.

If the government is paying your operators in gold, dollars, or monero, and substantially more than what they make from fees; then what incentive do they have to care what the price of darkcoin is?

[smooth]

A similar concern with Monero (and any PoW coin) is mining centralization: if an entity can control the 2 or 3 largest mining pools, then the entire network can be compromised. It's a problem that definitely will become an issue in the future if not addressed.

What? It can be blocked (miners can refuse to mine opaque transactions), or taxed to oblivion (miners can raise tx fees) but miners can't themselves compromise current or past encrypted transactions. Impossible.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

You're saying I can't double spend if I control 60% of the hashrate? Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of consensus?

[smooth]

You're saying I can't double spend if I control 60% of the hashrate? Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of consensus?

Oh sure, I misunderstood, I thought you were (still) talking about the privacy issue.

[ArticMine]

Isn't a instamine == premine when it's done before anyone else has time to ramp up?

If the implication is that releasing the mining software on GNU/Linux ahead of Microsoft Windows converts an instamine into a premine the answer is most emphatically NO.

It would be YES if there were 500 coins per block during the first few hours while the mining software was restricted to the very small pool of Linux users.

oh wait...Did I just describe something?

I have zero sympathy here. Those who choose propriety DRM and malware infected operating systems sold licensed by large multinational monopolies such as Microsoft and Apple need to learn that by their choice of operating systems they are cutting themselves off from many extremely profitable opportunities. This is especially the case when dealing with crypto - currencies that by their very nature rely on FLOSS and computing devices under their owner's sole control for their security. My own personal experience was purchasing XBT in the 2 -6 USD range in late 2011/2012. Many of those XBT were subsequently sold at an 10000% profit for XMR after Apple gave the iSheep permission to purchase XBT. I am a strong critic of DRK and believe the coin is fundamentally flawed at a structural level; however one thing the DRK developers got right is releasing the mining software on GNU/Linux ahead of Microsoft Windows. There are many valid security reasons why one would do that. Furthermore this also sends a clear message that if one wants privacy one should not be using DRM and malware infected propriety operating systems, where the vendors have, in addition to the DRM and malware risk, made data sharing arrangements with multiple national spy agencies.

What? No offence, but what are you talking about? Releasing the mining on Linux instead of Windows at the start has absolutely nothing to do with security. Why are you even bringing up "national spy agencies" anyway? When Darkcoin(rather xcoin), first came out, it was not intended to be an anonymous coin. It was simply an altcoin just like any other crappy altcoin. The mining was restricted to linux only so that the early linux miners and evan himself could gain most of the coins that happened during the 500, then 200 coins per block instamine the first few hours of the release.

Nothing else, and definitely nothing to do with "national spy agencies", rofl. If there weren't 500 coins per block at the start, then what you're saying would be slightly(emphasis on slightly) plausible. But the 500 coins per block at the start+restricted to linux only+block reward getting reduced dramatically after over 1million coins have been mined in a few hours=instamine. You can further tell that the instamine was intended, even planned for because of the high # of hash that was thrown at the mining early on when it was restricted to linux only, along with the block reward being cut several times after the instamine(to make evan's instamined coins more valuable).

The security argument is very simple. By delaying the Microsoft Windows release a POW coin that uses CPU mining can avoid a botnet 51% attack when it is at its most vulnerable point just after release. This is because botnets are powered by compromised Microsoft Windows computers.

As for security agencies take a look at the PRISM program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 In particular at the following slide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29#mediaviewer/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg. When on entrusts one's data to Microsoft or Apple, and this happens every time one uses their propriety software, one also must assume that this data is also shared with the NSA. But this is only the beginning Microsoft for example also has source code sharing arrangements with the PLA and FSB. This gives these agencies a massive advantage in the design of spying malware. Ever wonder what the real origin of all the Chinese hacking allegations is?

If this is not enough consider the  recent Lenovo / Superfish incident. To make a long story short, Lenovo partnered with Superfish to break SSL connections on certain Microsoft Windows laptops they sold in order to insert ads into SSL connections. This was accomplished by placing a fake certificate into the trusted root of the computer during the manufacturing process. The net result is that anyone with the password to the fake certificate, komodia, could decrypt the SSL connection and for example steal login credentials, empty people's bank accounts, place malware to steal crypto - currency etc. Komodia is by the way the name of a company with ties to the Mossad that was involved in the development of the spying software. Microsoft is not an innocent bystander here, since they tightly control how computers with Microsoft Windows are distributed and sold.

If one is truly serious about privacy and security one must avoid propriety operating systems particularly those from Microsoft and Apple. In practice for many people this means GNU/Linux on desktop / laptop and rooted Android on mobile.

As much as many here are critical of DRK and with good reason, on the issue of giving GNU/Linux preference over Microsoft Windows the DRK developers deserve praise rather than criticism.

Edit: smooth's comments on the commercial incentives for the DRK masternodes to sell data for profit are right on the money.

[stopsigningbitch]

Isn't a instamine == premine when it's done before anyone else has time to ramp up?

If the implication is that releasing the mining software on GNU/Linux ahead of Microsoft Windows converts an instamine into a premine the answer is most emphatically NO.

It would be YES if there were 500 coins per block during the first few hours while the mining software was restricted to the very small pool of Linux users.

oh wait...Did I just describe something?

I have zero sympathy here. Those who choose propriety DRM and malware infected operating systems sold licensed by large multinational monopolies such as Microsoft and Apple need to learn that by their choice of operating systems they are cutting themselves off from many extremely profitable opportunities. This is especially the case when dealing with crypto - currencies that by their very nature rely on FLOSS and computing devices under their owner's sole control for their security. My own personal experience was purchasing XBT in the 2 -6 USD range in late 2011/2012. Many of those XBT were subsequently sold at an 10000% profit for XMR after Apple gave the iSheep permission to purchase XBT. I am a strong critic of DRK and believe the coin is fundamentally flawed at a structural level; however one thing the DRK developers got right is releasing the mining software on GNU/Linux ahead of Microsoft Windows. There are many valid security reasons why one would do that. Furthermore this also sends a clear message that if one wants privacy one should not be using DRM and malware infected propriety operating systems, where the vendors have, in addition to the DRM and malware risk, made data sharing arrangements with multiple national spy agencies.

What? No offence, but what are you talking about? Releasing the mining on Linux instead of Windows at the start has absolutely nothing to do with security. Why are you even bringing up "national spy agencies" anyway? When Darkcoin(rather xcoin), first came out, it was not intended to be an anonymous coin. It was simply an altcoin just like any other crappy altcoin. The mining was restricted to linux only so that the early linux miners and evan himself could gain most of the coins that happened during the 500, then 200 coins per block instamine the first few hours of the release.

Nothing else, and definitely nothing to do with "national spy agencies", rofl. If there weren't 500 coins per block at the start, then what you're saying would be slightly(emphasis on slightly) plausible. But the 500 coins per block at the start+restricted to linux only+block reward getting reduced dramatically after over 1million coins have been mined in a few hours=instamine. You can further tell that the instamine was intended, even planned for because of the high # of hash that was thrown at the mining early on when it was restricted to linux only, along with the block reward being cut several times after the instamine(to make evan's instamined coins more valuable).

The security argument is very simple. By delaying the Microsoft Windows release a POW coin that uses CPU mining can avoid a botnet 51% attack when it is at its most vulnerable point just after release. This is because botnets are powered by compromised Microsoft Windows computers.

As for security agencies take a look at the PRISM program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29 In particular at the following slide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29#mediaviewer/File:Prism_slide_5.jpg. When on entrusts one's data to Microsoft or Apple, and this happens every time one uses their propriety software, one also must assume that this data is also shared with the NSA. But this is only the beginning Microsoft for example also has source code sharing arrangements with the PLA and FSB. This gives these agencies a massive advantage in the design of spying malware. Ever wonder what the real origin of all the Chinese hacking allegations is?

If this is not enough consider the  recent Lenovo / Superfish incident. To make a long story short, Lenovo partnered with Superfish to break SSL connections on certain Microsoft Windows laptops they sold in order to insert ads into SSL connections. This was accomplished by placing a fake certificate into the trusted root of the computer during the manufacturing process. The net result is that anyone with the password to the fake certificate, komodia, could decrypt the SSL connection and for example steal login credentials, empty people's bank accounts, place malware to steal crypto - currency etc. Komodia is by the way the name of a company with ties to the Mossad that was involved in the development of the spying software. Microsoft is not an innocent bystander here, since they tightly control how computers with Microsoft Windows are distributed and sold.

If one is truly serious about privacy and security one must avoid propriety operating systems particularly those from Microsoft and Apple. In practice for many people this means GNU/Linux on desktop/ laptop and rooted Android on mobile.

As much as many here are critical of DRK and with good reason, on the issue of giving GNU/Linux preference over Microsoft Windows the DRK developers deserve praise rather than criticism.

Again, your argument would only be valid if there weren't 500, then 200 coin blocks being emitted at that time, then being drastically cut shortly after a large amount of coins have been mined. The hash rate thrown at the coin at that time with no clear future goals, along with it only being minable on linux(which hardly anyone uses), clearly shows an intended instamine by the developers(evan).

[Johnny Mnemonic]

You're saying I can't double spend if I control 60% of the hashrate? Wouldn't that defeat the entire purpose of consensus?

Oh sure, I misunderstood, I thought you were (still) talking about the privacy issue.

I was just pointing out that the design flaw that "probably won't be an issue" always turns out to be because it remains the one gaping attack vector that everyone ignores.

[ArticMine]

...

Again, your argument would only be valid if there weren't 500 coin blocks being emitted at that time, then being drastically cut shortly after a large amount of coins have been mined. The hash rate thrown at the coin at that time with no clear future goals, along with it only being minable on linux(which hardly anyone uses), clearly shows an intended instamine by the developers(evan).

If one takes out the part of "along with it only being minable on linux(which hardly anyone uses)" I am in agreement with you.

[stopsigningbitch]

...

Again, your argument would only be valid if there weren't 500 coin blocks being emitted at that time, then being drastically cut shortly after a large amount of coins have been mined. The hash rate thrown at the coin at that time with no clear future goals, along with it only being minable on linux(which hardly anyone uses), clearly shows an intended instamine by the developers(evan).

If one takes out the part of "along with it only being minable on linux(which hardly anyone uses)" I am in agreement with you.

I know wikipedia isn't usually that credible unless they list sources. But I did a quick google search and found here. Even if the statistics arent errors free, windows is still far more widely used than linux.


"Desktop operating system browsing statistics
Windows 7           55.92%
Windows XP   18.93%
Windows 8/8.1   15.22%
OS X                   7.11%
Windows Vista   2.44%
Linux                   1.34%
Other                   0.51%
Desktop OS market share as of December 2014 according to Net Applications[1]"  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

[ArticMine]

...

Again, your argument would only be valid if there weren't 500 coin blocks being emitted at that time, then being drastically cut shortly after a large amount of coins have been mined. The hash rate thrown at the coin at that time with no clear future goals, along with it only being minable on linux(which hardly anyone uses), clearly shows an intended instamine by the developers(evan).

If one takes out the part of "along with it only being minable on linux(which hardly anyone uses)" I am in agreement with you.

I know wikipedia isn't usually that credible unless they list sources. But I did a quick google search and found here. Even if the statistics arent errors free, windows is still far more widely used than linux.


"Desktop operating system browsing statistics
Windows 7           55.92%why
Windows XP   18.93%
Windows 8/8.1   15.22%
OS X                   7.11%
Windows Vista   2.44%
Linux                   1.34%
Other                   0.51%
Desktop OS market share as of December 2014 according to Net Applications[1]"  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems

No debate there. This is the primary reason why most people have little of no privacy. It is also the main reason why there are so many breaches of computer security affecting individuals, organizations, corporations, governments etc. worldwide.

[smooth]

This is getting OT but "desktop" is increasingly irrelevant.

[ArticMine]

This is getting OT but "desktop" is increasingly irrelevant.

Desktop in this context also means laptops. Mobile is another issue entirely. Apple is a dominant player and IOS is literally a portable version of the telescreen in George Orwell's 1984. One should forget about any kind of privacy there. Android on the other hand can be made to respect the user's privacy. Unfortunately most Android devices are sold to the end user without root access. This again makes an un-rooted Android device a portable version of the telescreen in George Orwell's 1984, though with considerably more freedom than the Apple version, but also lacking in privacy. The solution is to root the Android device thereby wresting control away from the manufacturer and or telecom. Then one can lock the device down and have privacy and security. So again we are left a small fraction of people that truly have privacy and security.