Unveiling the truth over the major Monero scam

[MasterMined710]

In light of the fact that Trollero has just as much of a "shaddy" launch as any other crypto coin...

LoL ! You're very kind. They only had one of the unfairest launches in the history of crypto, (but it's ok, none of the dev-team benefited - they just delivered the scam unwittingly so that someone else could   ).

Not only that, having built their nest on the claim of a 'cleaned up Bytecoin' it now turns out they ported the very core facilitator of the Bytecoin scam to Monero which was duly levered over a period of 2 months to line the pockets of a couple of individuals at the expense of all other miners to the extent that a quarter of a million dollars in hosting fees was loose change down the back of the couch.

They then had the nerve to quote those same individuals in their defence !   (He was a comp-sci prof so that makes it all ok).

Maybe people can now appreciate the relevance of the term "trainspotters" I invoked a long time ago.

I think everyone of us in this ecosystem need to cut this shit out.

You'd think that would now be obvious. I'm sure "this shit" will have its die-hards though who will cling on till the bitter end.

[MasterMined710]

I am new to cryptocurrencies. Some of you are so familiar with the process that complicated steps are deemed simple to you. With that said I was able to download and mine bytecoin bcn. As of today I can not download bitmonero for windows. This I believe is  rush job attempting to be first to market and increase profit margin on very early knowledgeable adapters.

That may be true on many coins but this one has a very slow mining schedule, pretty close to bitcoin (years). Nobody is gobbling up all the coins early. No instamine here. Anyone involved in the first few years is an "early adopter."

trying to mislead noobs on monero's highly hyper inflationary emission curve.

i don't have a problem adding a instamine asterisk to DASH as long as they also add a 1.5 million cripplemine asterisk and a highly inflationary emissions curve asterisk to monero.
http://da-data.blogspot.com/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html

has almost half the supply of monero already been mined in the first year and a half? wow, holy hyper inflationary instamine batman! 

Dash launch date



Coins today



Monero launch date



Coins today



 

[MasterMined710]

DASH vs LTC Emission Curve

I was looking to compare the DASH emission curve to the highly inflationary bitmonero (rebranded to monero) emission curve but could not find the original launch thread on april 18th. where is it and why did they start so many threads in that chaotic launch y'all had?
seems it was a hidden ninja launch between april 18th-24th, how many coins were mined the first week of the wrong placed hidden monero ninja launch?

How many threads does this coin need?  

One in the right place, apparently  

also, how many of the total coin supply was mined in the first 2 months of the monero de-optimized cripple miner issue? smooth claims it was around 2.5% of moneros total supply that was unfair mined by insiders during the first two months.
others say it was around 5% of the total supply. (DASH instamine was around 10%)

Monero was mined by its creators for months with highly optimized miners.  They claimed that the original devs instantly dumped these coins as they were mined.  So technically there was not a premine or a fast instamine.  The devs were only in it to make money.  I think it was roughly 5% of the supply.  At that time it was over $100,000 they stole from miners.  Its ok though.  There was a community take over.  That wipes the scam slate clean.

purposely de-optimized crippled miner scam info...
http://da-data.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html

and then while researching monero i found this issue/emission bug that i had never heard of before...

April 23, 2014, 03:57:02 PM
comment #5
"Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth).
Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended.  We will correct this in the future," Tacotime
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6362559#msg6362559

how many coins spilled out during the monero double emission rate instamine bug?

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

[Spoetnik]

I have to be honest here i am not so sure Monero can be called a SCAM
For the same reason i defended iGotSpots.. i just don't see tangible proof.

Don't get me wrong i don't like Monero or their fanboys but.. scam ? i don't know about that.

- my 2 cents

Side Note:
i would consider something scammy (sketchy/fishy etc) but a confirmed scam would be 2 different things.
One would have a stinky air around it and the other would be concrete & proven.

[jwinterm]

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

[TanteStefana2]

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No?  Oh no, that's Dash isn't it?  Does morono have anything?  Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh?  Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me!  Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

[jwinterm]

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No?  Oh no, that's Dash isn't it?  Does morono have anything?  Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh?  Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me!  Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

Nice job completely avoiding the topic under discussion. Monero does have ring signatures and built in stealth addressing, neither of which DASH possesses. The blockchain is obfuscated, which is the point of ring signatures, however anyone can unveil their transactions by way of their view key if they choose to. IMO, privacy by default with the option to unveil transactions is a better architecture than attempting to tack on a convoluted coinjoin scheme (that oh by the way just happens to enrich large holders, i.e., instaminers) onto the bitcoin client, but to each their own.

[generalizethis]

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No?  Oh no, that's Dash isn't it?  Does morono have anything?  Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh?  Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me!  Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

An obfuscated blockchain is the only way to a fungible coin outside of quantum money--dash and it's amazing team must have missed that memo.  

[TanteStefana2]

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No?  Oh no, that's Dash isn't it?  Does morono have anything?  Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh?  Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me!  Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

Nice job completely avoiding the topic under discussion. Monero does have ring signatures and built in stealth addressing, neither of which DASH possesses. The blockchain is obfuscated, which is the point of ring signatures, however anyone can unveil their transactions by way of their view key if they choose to. IMO, privacy by default with the option to unveil transactions is a better architecture than attempting to tack on a convoluted coinjoin scheme (that oh by the way just happens to enrich large holders, i.e., instaminers) onto the bitcoin client, but to each their own.

Monero's privacy comes at a steep cost, block chain bloat.  And it's the only thing it offers.  It will never be able to keep full nodes running, for lack of incentive and it will always be super slow to load.  I don't see any competition myself for Dash in Monero, and after the year+ of trolling from those people, I no longer feel obligated to be nice either.

[smooth]

...

lastly, monero was launched about 3 months after DASH yet it already has almost twice the amount of coins mined. seems like a highly inflationary ongoing instamine that gives an unfair advantage to those early miners.

my conclusion, there has never been a coin with a perfect launch including bitcoin.

There's perfect, there's scam, and everything in between. Monero is a helluva lot closer to perfect than DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin could every hope to be.

You can look on the block explorer and see the amount of coins emitted at any block. For instance, by block 20000 ( http://moneroblocks.eu/search/20000 ), mined on May 1st, the total number of emitted coins was about 350k or about 3.5% of the total coins that exist today. So, 3.5% of the coins that exist were mined during the period of the crippled miner when a few folks (such as DGA, who is not a member of the development team) were mining with optimized miners. Around May 1st the optimized miner was made public by NoodleDoodle and other members of the actual dev-team that took over the coin from TFT.

Compare that with DASH, where around 1/3 of the coins that exist today were mined in the first 48 hours or so, and I think it's pretty plain to see which coin had the more fair launch. (This is not to mention the fact that there was zero windows clients and a promise to relaunch made by the Xcoin developer, while hundreds of AWS and DO nodes mined away). 33% of available coins mined in 2 days, or 3% of available coins mined in a few weeks - I don't think it's much of a comparison.

(This is also not to mention the fact that DASH/Darkcoin/Xcoin switched to a quasi-PoS system after their botched launch, allowing large holders to just sit on their coins and grow them, which is obviously not the case for Monero, which is pure PoW, where owning a chunk of coin doesn't allow one to do anything but dump it on an exchange.)

Is Monero instant?
Does monero have 4X smaller blockchain size despite being 1 1/2 times the age of Dash?
Is morano 100% compatible to Bitcoin technology so that it can be used inside current inroads that Bitcoin has made?
Does morano have an amazing developer team that constantly rolls out new improvements to the ecosystem?

No?  Oh no, that's Dash isn't it?  Does morono have anything?  Oh, a completely obfuscated and bloated blockchain, eh?  Sounds useful and completely trustworthy to me!  Good for Morono!

I didn't even touch the GUI, or lack thereof.

Nice job completely avoiding the topic under discussion. Monero does have ring signatures and built in stealth addressing, neither of which DASH possesses. The blockchain is obfuscated, which is the point of ring signatures, however anyone can unveil their transactions by way of their view key if they choose to. IMO, privacy by default with the option to unveil transactions is a better architecture than attempting to tack on a convoluted coinjoin scheme (that oh by the way just happens to enrich large holders, i.e., instaminers) onto the bitcoin client, but to each their own.

Monero's privacy comes at a steep cost, block chain bloat.  And it's the only thing it offers.  It will never be able to keep full nodes running, for lack of incentive and it will always be super slow to load.  I don't see any competition myself for Dash in Monero, and after the year+ of trolling from those people, I no longer feel obligated to be nice either.

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

[TanteStefana2]

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.  In the near future, most wallets won't be using full nodes.  Yet, they will still have the security of their wallet's information due to the distributed way the information will be downloaded through the DAPI, served up by Masternodes quorums.  Masternodes, being compensated through the system, can afford to run with terabytes of storage.  Yet, the Masternode network is fully distributed throughout the world and there are Masternodes on every continent.

*If* the new version of Dash has masternode blinding, there will be no need for multiple mixing sessions.  This will speed things up.  There is a lot of room for improvement, but our team has constantly made great progress.  After reading this thread, I have no doubt that one should stay as far away from Monero as one can.  In fact, I think this will be the last I say on the matter.  Say what ever FUD you like after me, I won't respond so enjoy.

[smooth]

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

In the near future, most wallets won't be using full nodes.

Every coin has the potential for thin clients with some (generally reasonable, though somewhat less than full node) degree of security, including Bitcoin and Monero.

After reading this thread, I have no doubt that one should stay as far away from Monero as one can. 

I doubt that you even read the whole thread you would have seen that virtually everything if not everything in the OP was refuted as nonsense.

[Gleb Gamow]

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash has fewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

In the near future, most wallets won't be using full nodes.

Every coin has the potential for thin clients with some (generally reasonable, though somewhat less than full node) degree of security, including Bitcoin and Monero.

After reading this thread, I have no doubt that one should stay as far away from Monero as one can.  

I doubt that you even read the whole thread you would have seen that virtually everything if not everything in the OP was refuted as nonsense.

I lean heavily toward to what's penned in the OP. That's all I'm sayin' for now with the exception somebody's damn lucky that I'm fully sexually satisfied currently fucking a Filipino (expat) daily up the ass. HAHAHA

[jwinterm]

...somebody's damn lucky that I'm fully sexually satisfied currently fucking a Filipino (expat) daily up the ass. HAHAHA

Wat. I guess that lucky somebody isn't the Filipino expat?

[illodin]

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash hasfewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

[generalizethis]

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash hasfewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

The question is why does dash use the inferior privacy of darksend at all? But to answer your question, no digital cash (cash being the important distinction being made) will work without privacy because privacy must happen for a coin to be fungible (excluding quantum money which works by alerting the user through quantum interaction that their money has been "viewed" by someone other than the sender and the recipient). So if dash wants to claim to be digital cash, the first thing they should be doing is making privacy happen at the protocol level. If it can't do that (or isn't quantum money), then dash isn't cash. So yeah there are other uses, but the "digital cash" that dash has branded itself as is a delusion wrapped inside of a hard-sell wrapped inside of a presumption of fact.

[illodin]

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash hasfewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

The question is why does dash use the inferior privacy of darksend at all? But to answer your question, no digital cash (cash being the important distinction being made) will work without privacy because privacy must happen for a coin to be fungible (excluding quantum money which works by alerting the user through quantum interaction that their money has been "viewed" by someone other than the sender and the recipient). So if dash wants to claim to be digital cash, the first thing they should be doing is making privacy happen at the protocol level. If it can't do that (or isn't quantum money), then dash isn't cash.

No, that wasn't the question.

[generalizethis]

TanteStefana2, it is pretty well explained in many places that isn't true. Any coin that employs mixing wlll have essentially the same bloat (linear factor expansion of transaction count and/or size), except that the base transaction size in Monero is much smaller than in Bitcoin, so even after applying the relevant multiple, the size may still be smaller. DarkSend specifically suffers from the same bloat as Monero, or worse, in terms of using standardized output denomination sizes (some other coinjoin-based systems don't do this and have other problems).

Dash hasfewer/smaller transactions (by smaller I mean making paying fewer payees) on its chain, and many, many fewer using DarkSend (the latter is probably the bigger factor). That is the only reason it's chain is smaller. There is no fundamental technological difference at work.

With Dash it's a choice, that choice has kept our blockchain smaller.

I don't see how a smaller blockchain is any benefit at all if it comes from less use rather than a technological advantage. That would make Truckcoin a great coin.

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

The question is why does dash use the inferior privacy of darksend at all? But to answer your question, no digital cash (cash being the important distinction being made) will work without privacy because privacy must happen for a coin to be fungible (excluding quantum money which works by alerting the user through quantum interaction that their money has been "viewed" by someone other than the sender and the recipient). So if dash wants to claim to be digital cash, the first thing they should be doing is making privacy happen at the protocol level. If it can't do that (or isn't quantum money), then dash isn't cash.

No, that wasn't the question.

Was editing as you responded--reread.

[generalizethis]

...
So yeah there are other uses, but the "digital cash" that dash has branded itself as is a delusion wrapped inside of a hard-sell wrapped inside of a presumption of fact.

As is this whole Dash v Monero make believe pissing contest because the real aim here isn't to promote one over the other, its to pit one against the other with the aim of neither succeeding along with anything else with a hint of innovation, up to and including open and constructive discussion on Bitcoins development. You and your accomplices are Luddites which is quite ironic considering there's a high likelihood your group has a direct lineage with the group that redirected the followers of the mythical Ned Ludd from opponents of those in control of the means of production to opponents of the means of production its self.

You can throw all the rebuttals you please my way because frankly I don't give a damn, you're looking for individual targets and can't see what you're really fighting against is an idea. Pumping a shitcoin like Doge as an anchor to Dash on the markets is a prime example of that, you only think in terms of markets and the idea has seen the failings of markets and has cut them out of the loop. Now the idea has seen the failings of anonymous discussion and the value of trust and you'll be cut out of the loop all over again, you're a problem and you'll be out evolved.

There is no digital cash without fungibility and there is no fungibliity without privacy. So yeah, the technicalities matter. It's a technology and should be evaluated like one. Does it do what it purports to do and how well does it do it? Everything else is hype and noise IE wasting our time. So thanks for nothing.

[OrientA]

Dash chain can be used to do other things than Darksend transactions. For example transparent transactions. That counts as use as well, no?

Can you also use Dash for transparent transactions? That is a very good feature of dash. Dash can be used both ways.