Why the darkcoin/dash/dashpay instamine matters

[minersday]

I'm not focused on end users (ie consumers, ie lusers).  Last I checked, Windows isn't part of OpenStack.    

Sorry to break it to you, but openstack is barely a well tested hypervizor for any business, you would have to go with vsphere or hyper-v, hmm Windows=hyper-v, which is gaining market share in alarming rate for vmware, why because it's good and secure.

AFAIK, Fintech's core infrastructure runs on *nix (Debian, Red Hat, BSD, and Solaris variants, with Java.Scala overlays thrown about randomly).

Almost all of these nowadays run on top of...  wait for it hypervizors.

But never mind all that.  The point is Dash is a scam, and Monero is the only real alternative for security and privacy-centric applications.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Like PC is better then MAC
or Android is better then IOS

There are always opinions, there's nothing without them...

[illodin]

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.'

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

You can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain.  A house is only as strong as its foundation.

Do you think you answered the question?

Icebreaker doesn't like DASH's 2-layer architecture because it should be done at the protocol level, but loves sidechains and blightning network because they shouldn't be done at the protocol level. You know what they say about people who contradict themselves according to their agenda.  

Also, are you trying to imply Bitcoin protocol/blockchain is not strong enough of a foundation to build on?

[iCEBREAKER]

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.'

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

You can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain.  A house is only as strong as its foundation.

Do you think you answered the question?

Icebreaker doesn't like DASH's 2-layer architecture because it should be done at the protocol level, but loves sidechains and blightning network because they shouldn't be done at the protocol level. You know what they say about people who contradict themselves according to their agenda.  

Also, are you trying to imply Bitcoin protocol/blockchain is not strong enough of a foundation to build on?

I don't like DASH's 2-layer architecture because it is "bad crypto" and "snake oil."  I'd sooner invest in 2-layer toilet paper.

To paraphrase Szaboshi, "A "trusted third party" Masternode is a nice-sounding synonym for a wide-open security hole that a designer chooses to overlook."

OTOH, SC/LN are good crypto so I support them.  IOW, I'm saying we need to build on Bitcoin's Layer 1, not bloat it until it breaks.

Dash is just trash.  It doesn't belong in a discussion about legitimate cypto and coins.  Dash (and the other fraud/scam coins) are Layer F.   

[illodin]

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Dash is just trash.

So you don't like DASH, you should've just said that instead of contradicting yourself with illogicalities about building or not building on top of strong foundations.

[iCEBREAKER]

Privacy should be inherent at the protocol level, not attempted as an added feature

Why?

Because mathematically proven 'good crypto' is preferable to Dash's 'bad crypto.'

https://downloads.getmonero.org/whitepaper_review.pdf

You can't simply glue privacy onto a Bitcoin-like transparent protocol/blockchain.  A house is only as strong as its foundation.

So you don't like DASH, you should've just said that instead of contradicting yourself with illogicalities about building or not building on top of strong foundations.

I don't like Dash because of its "bad crypto" tech and "snake oil" marketing.

Dash's glued-on fake privacy kludge is a joke, not mathematically proven "good crypto."

[oaxaca]

I don't like Dash because of its "bad crypto" tech and "snake oil" marketing.

I've asked you repeatedly on numerous threads to explain (in detail) your statement, but all you do is repeat the same name-calling exercise.  Here is yet another chance to prove that you have more substance.  Back up your statements with facts, proof, theories, dam near anything or just shut up.

[iCEBREAKER]

I don't like Dash because of its "bad crypto" tech and "snake oil" marketing.

I've asked you repeatedly on numerous threads to explain (in detail) your statement, but all you do is repeat the same name-calling exercise.  Here is yet another chance to prove that you have more substance.  Back up your statements with facts, proof, theories, dam near anything or just shut up.

The burden of proving Dash's crypto isn't snake oil is on you DashHoles, not me.

But here's the best beat-down of Dash's "bad crypto" I've seen:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/cpmvogy

1.    Darkcoin had a problematic launch: 2 million Darkcoin were mined in the first day (incidentally, there are around 2 800 Darkcoin emitted daily right now, so that should give some level of contrast). This may not seem to relate to your question, but it is important to establish the legitimacy and technical competency of the developer. The fact that the block reward does not match either of the three block reward formulae published by the developer is worrying. This points to an outright scam at worst, pure incompetence at best.

2.   When dealing with a cryptocurrency you need to be able to cryptographically and mathematically prove a particular claim. So in the original Bitcoin whitepaper Satoshi was able to mathematically prove the validity of the longest chain rule. The rest of his cryptographic claims were backed by the papers he quotes (Adam Back's Hashcash paper in particular). Darkcoin has no cryptographic proofs of their claims. This is important, because a cryptocurrency is a manifestation of cryptographic theory, not the other way around. If you try and shoe-horn it the other way around you'll likely find your model unsafe under the most basic of assumptions.

3.    The developer seems to eschew well-defined, anti-fragile, and proven Bitcoin concepts (eg. building a model based on paying for services via micropayment channels) for bizarre models that are poorly implemented and fragile (eg. payments based on uptime make a MasterNode a ripe target for DDoS attacks null-routing that IP).

4.    I have seen no evidence that InstantX transactions are not susceptible to malleability. This means that it is trivially easy to disrupt every InstantX transaction, and the network will fall back to processing them as "normal" transactions.

5.    This malleability approach also allows for easy forking of the network if you own a subset of MasterNodes, whereby your malicious MasterNodes vote for both of your transactions and feed those votes to two groups of miners. The claim made in the InstantX "whitepaper" is that the conflicting messages will "cancel each other out", but once the network is forked that isn't the case, as half the conflicting messages won't even be received by the one part of the forked network. By continuing to run this group of malicious nodes, feeding sets of InstantX transactions that appear to be voted in as valid, you can keep the network split indefinitely.

6.    The entire basis for "anonymising" transactions is based on clients being online at a given point in time, which means that those clients are also open to leaking information via temporal association.

7.    The developer seems to have a grave lack of understanding when it comes to the danger of incentives. The clearest example of this is this table of MasterNode ROI. As you can clearly see, a MasterNode's ROI is substantially higher when there are fewer MasterNodes. Thus there is clear incentive for a MasterNode operator to systematically attack and destroy other MasterNodes, but not so much that the network ceases to exist. Just enough to double or triple his ROI. Incidentally, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy, as in a hypothetical future where Darkcoin is processing thousands of transactions an hour it will require quite a hefty server to act as a MasterNode. The fewer MasterNodes there are, the more work individual MasterNodes will have to do, which means that those run by non-technical people or on cheap VPS's will be the first to go, eventually leaving a group of big boys with big guns operating the remaining MasterNodes.

8.    We've already seen ample evidence of law enforcement turning seemingly anonymous people into informants (eg. Sabu), hacking servers, and infiltrating systems in other ways. It is safe to say that LEA could also outrightly purchase large portions of the MasterNode network. It is impossible to tell which MasterNodes are real and which are owned by LEA (in perpetuity). Unfortunately it appears that the developer's line of reasoning, with respects to "how much" privacy Darkcoin gives you, started with the assumption that a supermajority of the MasterNodes are honest / not being watched / not infiltrated by LEA. This leaves open a huge, gaping hole whereby all of the "mixing" MasterNodes are involved in can be revealed by an owned / compromised majority. I can guarantee that the bulk of all MasterNode operators do not know even the first piece of opsec required to keep from your tin from being tampered with.

9.    MasterNodes can be tricked into believing they can no longer accept new connections, simply by filling up all their file descriptors. It is somewhat trivial to force new connections to a group of MasterNodes under your control.

10.    The developer has no clue how dangerous and stupid it is to chain hashing algorithms, as you open them up to pre-image attacks among other things. As a security researcher who discovered a flaw in chained hashing algorithms in PHP concluded: "The underlying problem is that combining cryptographic operators that weren't designed to be combined can be disastrous. Is it possible to do so safely? Yes. Is it a good idea to do it? No. This particular case is just one example where combining operations can be exceedingly dangerous. But the bottom line: never roll your own crypto. It can have fatal consequences."

[AdamWhite]

Ok now it insta crashes when I type "setgenerate true".

Time to go to bed and try again next week?

Yeah, let's do that. I obviously need to do some more testing. Thanks everyone!

Best thing to do I guess. Please, confirm you won't be launching after some minutes/hours even if you fix it, and the sooner would be tomorrow, thanks.

Definitely not. I'll also follow up with this post when I do set a time.

"Definitely not."

[smooth]

That's why some new coins get listed on exchanges that previously were bitcoin and litecoin only.

Such as?

[oaxaca]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/cpmvogy

1.  2.  3....

I noticed that you didn't include a rebuttal.  For completeness, I have copied it here

[minersday]

That's why some new coins get listed on exchanges that previously were bitcoin and litecoin only.

Such as?

https://btc-e.com/
https://www.bitfinex.com/

[iCEBREAKER]

I noticed that Dash is getting #rekt.  For completeness, I have copied it here

Ok, thx.   

[smooth]

That's why some new coins get listed on exchanges that previously were bitcoin and litecoin only.

Such as?

https://btc-e.com/

Did Dash rename (again!) to Novacoin because otherwise I don't see it.

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/btc-e/

[minersday]

I noticed that Dash is getting #rekt.  For completeness, I have copied it here

Ok, thx.   

One example again, where money talks and nothing else, pure and simple.

[minersday]

That's why some new coins get listed on exchanges that previously were bitcoin and litecoin only.

Such as?

https://btc-e.com/

Did Dash rename (again!) to Novacoin because otherwise I don't see it.

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/btc-e/

why should it be there? I was talking about new coins getting listed.

[smooth]

That's why some new coins get listed on exchanges that previously were bitcoin and litecoin only.

Such as?

https://btc-e.com/

Did Dash rename (again!) to Novacoin because otherwise I don't see it.

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/btc-e/

why should it be there? I was talking about new coins getting listed.

My mistake. I thought you were suggesting that Dash was able to meet the standards of exchanges such as btc-e (not listed) and bitfinex (delisted). Obviously it is not.

[Furio]

When you think about it, it's impossible to justify the instamine with the statement that it gives "incentive to developer". Yea, that's awesome for the developer, but basically ruins the point of crypocurrencies in the first place where you're not supposed to have things like that happening. It's outright dishonest.

Yet Satoshi has 300mn worth in bitcoins.

He didnt change Bitcoins block reward or coin supply at all like what happened to darkcoin. So he mined those bitcoins fairly. Also bitcoin is the first cryptocoin and kind of immune from that, even if you consider Satoshi mining bitcoin a mistake, you shouldve learned from that mistake, not do the same thing and make it 10x worse.

How can it be 10x worse, when Satoshi's coins alone are worth 10x the entire DRK marketcap? Anyway.

? I'm not talking about prices of the coins, Marketcap is irrelevant in this discussion.

It's absoletely not irrelevant in this discussion, people are talking about fraud, Satoshi did exactly the same, and his coins alone are more than the TOTAL market cap of dash, how is that not relevant!?

[smooth]

When you think about it, it's impossible to justify the instamine with the statement that it gives "incentive to developer". Yea, that's awesome for the developer, but basically ruins the point of crypocurrencies in the first place where you're not supposed to have things like that happening. It's outright dishonest.

Yet Satoshi has 300mn worth in bitcoins.

He didnt change Bitcoins block reward or coin supply at all like what happened to darkcoin. So he mined those bitcoins fairly. Also bitcoin is the first cryptocoin and kind of immune from that, even if you consider Satoshi mining bitcoin a mistake, you shouldve learned from that mistake, not do the same thing and make it 10x worse.

How can it be 10x worse, when Satoshi's coins alone are worth 10x the entire DRK marketcap? Anyway.

? I'm not talking about prices of the coins, Marketcap is irrelevant in this discussion.

It's absoletely not irrelevant in this discussion, people are talking about fraud, Satoshi did exactly the same, and his coins alone are more than the TOTAL market cap of dash, how is that not relevant!?

Satoshi misled people about the launch time, mined >40% of the current outstanding coins in <2 days, withheld development plans until after the instamine, and then later cut the coin supply after launch? That's very interesting news. Thank you for revealing it, I had no idea.

[minersday]

That's why some new coins get listed on exchanges that previously were bitcoin and litecoin only.

Such as?

https://btc-e.com/

Did Dash rename (again!) to Novacoin because otherwise I don't see it.

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/btc-e/

why should it be there? I was talking about new coins getting listed.

My mistake. I thought you were suggesting that Dash was able to meet the standards of exchanges such as btc-e (not listed) and bitfinex (delisted). Obviously it is not.

And I repeat this again, so we are all clear on this.
One example again, where money talks and nothing else, pure and simple. There's no conspiracy behind there.
This is pointless, we will see the results in the future as I mentioned earlier.

And a COLD money fact,
Litecoin trading pairs listed in coinmarketcap 51
Dogecoin trading pairs listed in coinmarketcap 47
Dash trading pairs listed in coinmarketcap 31
Monero trading pairs listed in coinmarketcap 6

[smooth]

That's why some new coins get listed on exchanges that previously were bitcoin and litecoin only.

Such as?

https://btc-e.com/

Did Dash rename (again!) to Novacoin because otherwise I don't see it.

https://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/btc-e/

why should it be there? I was talking about new coins getting listed.

My mistake. I thought you were suggesting that Dash was able to meet the standards of exchanges such as btc-e (not listed) and bitfinex (delisted). Obviously it is not.

And I repeat this again, so we are all clear on this.
One example again, where money talks and nothing else, pure and simple. There's no conspiracy behind there.
This is pointless, we will see the results in the future as I mentioned earlier.

What the hell are you even talking about? The money is not going into Dash, that's exactly why bitfinex is pulling it.

persistently low demand for trading Darkcoin

There is little interest for something with that kind of ugly history and repetitional risk outside of a few existing true believers.

The true believers are for the most part incapable of making this analysis and saving themselves from a total loss because they are blind to how most people actually operate in the real world. They're mostly self-selected to not care about the issues of integrity and repetitional risk that actually matter to long term success. "Golden donkey? Sure, sign me up!"

What is important is to keep this information highly visible so that other people don't get sucked into involvement with something they would regret.