DRK vs XMR warez

[Johnny Mnemonic]

any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

You have no idea who Satoshi is, nor whether he (or they) got paid.

If you'd rather developers steal coins from their users in the form of pre/insta-mines as opposed to asking for contributions, then you have a plethora of options. The rest of us have XMR.

[1714071289]

1714071289

[1714071289]

1714071289

[1714071289]

1714071289

[1714071289]

1714071289

[othe]

any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

You have no idea who Satoshi is, nor whether he (or they) got paid.

If you'd rather developers steal coins from their users in the form of pre/insta-mines as opposed to asking for contributions, then you have a plethora of options. The rest of us have XMR.

Not to mention that Bitcoin is also funded by donations since years...

[BCwinning]

any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

You have no idea who Satoshi is, nor whether he (or they) got paid.

If you'd rather developers steal coins from their users in the form of pre/insta-mines as opposed to asking for contributions, then you have a plethora of options. The rest of us have XMR.

Not to mention that Bitcoin is also funded by donations since years...

yes and there is nothing wrong with people making donations because they want to vs   developers begging for money and threatening to stop developing because of lack of donation support. There is a difference in my mind.
If its that good than someone will step in and donate their time because they believe in it. Or the community will raise funds to help. Not because some greedy developer feels their time isn't being compensated enough for a project they supposedly believed in enough to create.  It's your money, donate to whatever scam you want.
But you won't change my mind about investing in what I consider bad behavior.

[Este Nuno]

any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

You have no idea who Satoshi is, nor whether he (or they) got paid.

If you'd rather developers steal coins from their users in the form of pre/insta-mines as opposed to asking for contributions, then you have a plethora of options. The rest of us have XMR.

Not to mention that Bitcoin is also funded by donations since years...

yes and there is nothing wrong with people making donations because they want to vs   developers begging for money and threatening to stop developing because of lack of donation support. There is a difference in my mind.
If its that good than someone will step in and donate their time because they believe in it. Or the community will raise funds to help. Not because some greedy developer feels their time isn't being compensated enough for a project they supposedly believed in enough to create.  It's your money, donate to whatever scam you want.
But you won't change my mind about investing in what I consider bad behavior.

Lol. The XMR devs have never begged for money or threatened to stop developing. I have no idea where you're getting that idea from. All I was saying before is that if they had some huge instamine that they could fund themselves with it's likely that things would be a bit different now as having that much money to put towards development is a huge advantage. Even with minimal funding they've done a lot of work. They do obviously believe in it else they wouldn't have spent so much time and money on the project.

[BCwinning]

any coin that begs for money for the developer is a shitcoin.
Satoshi never did and I hold all developers to that standard.
Don't develop it than if you can't handle not getting handouts back from it.

You have no idea who Satoshi is, nor whether he (or they) got paid.

If you'd rather developers steal coins from their users in the form of pre/insta-mines as opposed to asking for contributions, then you have a plethora of options. The rest of us have XMR.

Not to mention that Bitcoin is also funded by donations since years...

yes and there is nothing wrong with people making donations because they want to vs   developers begging for money and threatening to stop developing because of lack of donation support. There is a difference in my mind.
If its that good than someone will step in and donate their time because they believe in it. Or the community will raise funds to help. Not because some greedy developer feels their time isn't being compensated enough for a project they supposedly believed in enough to create.  It's your money, donate to whatever scam you want.
But you won't change my mind about investing in what I consider bad behavior.

Lol. The XMR devs have never begged for money or threatened to stop developing. I have no idea where you're getting that idea from. All I was saying before is that if they had some huge instamine that they could fund themselves with it's likely that things would be a bit different now as having that much money to put towards development is a huge advantage. Even with minimal funding they've done a lot of work. They do obviously believe in it else they wouldn't have spent so much time and money on the project.

I don't know anything about monero, I don't want to know either. Too many fucking shills pumping the coin.
If it's good it will find its place. I was speaking in general like I thought you were.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I don't know anything about monero, I don't want to know either. Too many fucking shills pumping the coin.

So you don't want to know about the coin because too many people are enthusiastic about it?

If you're saying you're jaded by all the hype of crypto scams, I totally understand you there. But the project has been around for a while now and the developers have shown no lack of honesty and professionalism.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just want to understand your logic.

[pandher]

I don't know anything about monero, I don't want to know either. Too many fucking shills pumping the coin.

I'm not trying to pick a fight. I just want to understand your logic.

Unfortunately there is no logic

[Este Nuno]

Well, to be fair a lot of people were turned off by both the rhetoric surrounding XMR and a few of the worst offenders constantly posting zealotry. Since the price drop though those people haven't been posting at all from what I've seen and things have gone back to normal. There were two people I can think of that probably were mostly responsible for the public perception of 'shilling', Nekomata and Skinnavaj(sp?). Drawingthesun was somewhat similar for a while but he quickly realized that sort of attitude was doing more harm than good and did a good job of reigning it in.

And then someone came along and created Moneroman88 as a parody of XMR supporters. And it's safe to assume that a lot of people reading the forum didn't realize that the account was a 'reverse shill' meant to cause damage.

So it's not too hard to see why many people here have a bad impression of XMR from their readings here. That and a lot of people seemed to have a problem with the amount of separate XMR threads that were active at one point. But they were all legitimate separate topics though like mining, speculation ect. People here get offended easily though over the smallest things.

[Oscilson]

[1] - stop with the instamined crap. It wasn't and everyone's bored with that year-old stale fud

I could have sworn I saw some pretty good evidence that there was in fact a large instamine. I remember seeing graphs and such. The number 2 million seems to ring a bell, but I'm not sure.

Unlike conventional instamines where devs stash diminishes over time in this scam the dev stash gets bigger with his masternode payments every passing day, together with early whales making it totally centralized.
It is a dead coin walking, the only good thing no execution date is set.

That is the main concern.

[r0ach]

Who were the original authors and who are the devs today?


~BCX~

https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people

Heh, unrelated issue, but on the Monero team, I noticed for David Latapie it says, "David Latapie is a French publisher, transhumanist"

I've never understood this Ray Kurzweil and others cult.  If you transfer yourself into the digital world, you're obviously only creating a copy if the original can still exist at the same time.  The whole thing is a logical fallacy.  There's no such thing as "transhumanism", only a movement to create a copy machine for humans for some unknown reason.  We can already do this now for physical creatures with cloning, yet nobody does it.  Doing this with a digital creature is the same difference, except it would store and interpret data faster, but it's still a clone.

It might function similar to how a computer virus does.  Since it can process all sensory data in an extremely fast manner, it would do it very quickly, then lay dormant with idle bandwidth awaiting triggers for it to leap into action to do something.  The notion of time would either become irrelevant, or extremely monotonous, since you would process all external sensory very quickly and constantly wait on something new.  So there you are sitting at 0.0000001% CPU utilization forever.  

It's interesting that the human brain has low CPU utilization already with no known triggers to max it out.  Perhaps the system disabled it's processing power to conserve resources and/or avoid boredom or insanity, or perhaps monitoring the position of every photon provides no benefit, or is impossible due to quantum effects.  The law of diminishing returns at work.  

If the universe has a beginning, and travel is constrained by the speed of light, then processing of external data would have to be constrained at some point as well.  One constraint for external data available, limited by physical laws, and one constraint for available resources needed to process that data.  At this point, complexity could also be much higher than available means to detect it, so a real computer AI could also just sit at 100% CPU utilization forever, trying to track the position of every photon, failing, and accomplishing basically nothing.

Since all human debug systems are biological in nature, AI based off of humans would be in danger of being stuck in a hard loop with no way to recover.  Creating a digital AI would require a debug and error checking system to run on top of whatever you consider to be the real AI.  The only problem is that the debug and error checking system would define much of what the system actually was doing at any given time, and this element would obviously be rigidly human created and specified.  If the inflexible, human defined rules are that pronounced, can you really call it AI?  Have I just debunked the possibility of true AI entirely?

If you wanted to get really complex, the AI could possibly re-write it's debug systems itself.  The question here is, does the old version actually terminate on version updates, or does a new virtual and/or physical presence of the AI spawn each time, who then fight each other over resources.  It would basically be recreating evolution.

[BitcoinFX]

A better comparison would probably be DRK vs BBR (Boolberry)

Darkcoin provides a reasonable solution for making anonymous transactions. Boolberry has the best CryptoNote implementation to date, ihmo.

 

Let me sum this up for you. 

The technology behind cryptonote obliterates darkcoin.  It's mathematically provable, it doesn't have random nodes that mostly exist in the amazon cloud to mix shit.

Monero cons

Original authors are scam artists so other devs have taken it over (for XMR)
Low market cap
Mostly held up by bitcoin whales who have no experience in altcoins
Not enough money to fund development (devs are using their own money).  Probably will run out at some point and project will die.
Kinda fubar'd emission

Dark cons

Massive premine
Alternated emission curve to jack price up (make early guys rich on shoulders of late guys after the fact).  Use of node required funding to prop price up.
Spaghetti code
Hypeish name that attracts the wrong crowd
Project will die as soon as devs don't have more coins to unload on a market they create by releasing features.  Even if that isn't the case, changing emission curve as dramatically as it was PLUS the massive instamine will kill it longterm.

This I think is a very accurate description of the cons. I think the underlying theme is they are both bullshit and better can be done.

In terms of 'true' anonymity no coin offers this at present.

It is one thing to be able to make anonymous and obfuscated transactions, however the main issues still to be solved are that of acquisition / ownership and traffic analysis.

- The originator of an 'anonymous' transaction is perhaps much less likely to be identified by tracing a transaction. For example, researching individuals who are mining (or mined) coins in clear net mining pools or who brought and exchanged coins using a 3rd party service makes for a much easier starting point. In fact, simply running an 'anonymous' coins client wallet would most likely flag an individual in a sub-set in terms of the meta data alone.

A truly 'anonymous' coin would need to offer PoW pool mining through Tor (or a similar trusted anonymity network), with a strong focus on decentralization, from the get-go.

Stealthcoin is a good example of a coin that protects its users from traffic analysis using Tor. However, PoW mining is still a much better way to secure a network in terms of user based anonymity and privacy.

Bitcoin actually offered good anonymity when it was first released and users could mine solo in the wallet, without pools.

Creating 'truly anonymous' digital cash is not an easy task.

Privacy, Security, Anonymity and Trust. Pick any 3.

[illodin]

^ There is a debate going on currently whether DRK should move its whole network under tor (or i2p) - apparently that would mean pools as well then. Problem is I guess, that people would need to install tor separately, unless it is possible (does the license allow it? other problems?) to include tor client within the wallet itself so the users don't even have to know it's running under tor.

[Este Nuno]

A better comparison would probably be DRK vs BBR (Boolberry)

Darkcoin provides a reasonable solution for making anonymous transactions. Boolberry has the best CryptoNote implementation to date, ihmo.

 

Let me sum this up for you. 

The technology behind cryptonote obliterates darkcoin.  It's mathematically provable, it doesn't have random nodes that mostly exist in the amazon cloud to mix shit.

Monero cons

Original authors are scam artists so other devs have taken it over (for XMR)
Low market cap
Mostly held up by bitcoin whales who have no experience in altcoins
Not enough money to fund development (devs are using their own money).  Probably will run out at some point and project will die.
Kinda fubar'd emission

Dark cons

Massive premine
Alternated emission curve to jack price up (make early guys rich on shoulders of late guys after the fact).  Use of node required funding to prop price up.
Spaghetti code
Hypeish name that attracts the wrong crowd
Project will die as soon as devs don't have more coins to unload on a market they create by releasing features.  Even if that isn't the case, changing emission curve as dramatically as it was PLUS the massive instamine will kill it longterm.

This I think is a very accurate description of the cons. I think the underlying theme is they are both bullshit and better can be done.

In terms of 'true' anonymity no coin offers this at present.

It is one thing to be able to make anonymous and obfuscated transactions, however the main issues still to be solved are that of acquisition / ownership and traffic analysis.

- The originator of an 'anonymous' transaction is perhaps much less likely to be identified by tracing a transaction. For example, researching individuals who are mining (or mined) coins in clear net mining pools or who brought and exchanged coins using a 3rd party service makes for a much easier starting point. In fact, simply running an 'anonymous' coins client wallet would most likely flag an individual in a sub-set in terms of the meta data alone.

A truly 'anonymous' coin would need to offer PoW pool mining through Tor (or a similar trusted anonymity network), with a strong focus on decentralization, from the get-go.

Stealthcoin is a good example of a coin that protects its users from traffic analysis using Tor. However, PoW mining is still a much better way to secure a network in terms of user based anonymity and privacy.

Bitcoin actually offered good anonymity when it was first released and users could mine solo in the wallet, without pools.

Creating 'truly anonymous' digital cash is not an easy task.

Privacy, Security, Anonymity and Trust. Pick any 3.

This is what SuperNET is trying to achieve with BBR.

[othe]

No its not,
and you can mine every coin with tor or whatever, just host your mining pool at an onion address..goddamn tor is just a simple socks proxy.

PS: There are Bitcoin seednodes hosted at an .onion domains.
PS2: Miners don't even want that - bad latency is bad for mining.
PS3: Mining pools are already acting like a proxy.
PS4: You only see the nodes who broadcast the transactions around but not neccessarily from where they are originating.

[Este Nuno]

^ There is a debate going on currently whether DRK should move its whole network under tor (or i2p) - apparently that would mean pools as well then. Problem is I guess, that people would need to install tor separately, unless it is possible (does the license allow it? other problems?) to include tor client within the wallet itself so the users don't even have to know it's running under tor.

Monero is working on i2p implementation from what I understand.

Bitcoin Core already includes Tor and has forever so I'd assume there's no licencing issues. The problem is that a lot of people aren't very confident about Tor these days.

Network level anonymity is important though for sure. Whether it's through Telepathy, i2p, or some other proprietary solution. I thought I remembered a while ago reading that DRK was working on their own verison of Tor or something like that with the masternodes. What happened to that?

[rikkejohn]

I dislike both coins, but I have to admit that DRK has surprised me. I thought it wold have been out of the game now, given every alt, and BTC, is taking a bashing.

XMR, well I have no reason to see it beyond a small-time operation on Poloniex. I don't think DRK has been shilled anywhere near the extent of XMR. I have a litter of deleted posts from moderated XMR threads.

I have none from DRK thtreads, nor do I notice it being shilled so much.

Someone could do a count over 6 months, if they can be bothered.

In saying that, I see no point to DRK, it is a variation on everything else.

But it has been a success, there is no doubt of that.

Putting XMR against DRK is like putting Digitalcoin against Bitcoin.

The winner is not difficult to spot.

[pandher]

The winner is not difficult to spot.

The smart are interested in the core technology while the foolish are awestruck by the ricer looks

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I dislike both coins, but I have to admit that DRK has surprised me. I thought it wold have been out of the game now, given every alt, and BTC, is taking a bashing.

XMR, well I have no reason to see it beyond a small-time operation on Poloniex. I don't think DRK has been shilled anywhere near the extent of XMR. I have a litter of deleted posts from moderated XMR threads.

I have none from DRK thtreads, nor do I notice it being shilled so much.

Someone could do a count over 6 months, if they can be bothered.

In saying that, I see no point to DRK, it is a variation on everything else.

But it has been a success, there is no doubt of that.

Putting XMR against DRK is like putting Digitalcoin against Bitcoin.

The winner is not difficult to spot.

Compelling argument. Exactly none of your points addressed the technical merits of either coin.

[fluffypony]

Without getting into bloat issues of Monero, or Darkcoin instamine, a PoW coin, if actually able to achieve anonymous transactions, is in a difficult position.  Governments would regulate against it, and PoW mining data centers are large attack vectors to be legislated against or just taken over.  Yea, they would be located in many countries, but governments seem to cooperate a lot on things like drugs, so they might cooperate on issues like this too.  I guess you could say Bitcoin sort of faces this issue as well, but they haven't made any big moves against it yet.

I would say that Bitcoin is even more at risk due to the ongoing centralisation of mining.

Where Monero is in direct contrast is that the PoW algorithm closes the performance gap between CPU, GPU, and ASIC mining, so even if ASIC miners are eventually created they will not be so significantly more efficient than CPU mining so as to make CPU mining pointless. Thus, in practicality, Monero could operate completely and entirely on solo miners with no pools operating.

[David Latapie]

Heh, unrelated issue, but on the Monero team, I noticed for David Latapie it says, "David Latapie is a French publisher, transhumanist"

I've never understood this Ray Kurzweil and others cult.

Ad personam:

A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.

By the way, you also insulted a substantial amount of cryptocurrency enthusiasts (including several deeply respected ones), since I found out that cryptocurrency have an unusually large concentration of transhumanists.

That being said, if you wish to continue on this topic (since you seem to be interested to understand), I replied extensively to your consideration on the off-topic forum: Transhumanism.