Quote from: toknormal on March 06, 2015, 08:25:58 PM

And you (nor any of your Monero fudding cohorts) are not understanding the difference between academic research and practical implementation.

Silly duck, of course we understand the difference. Maybe you should take the time to look at our Design and Development goals, which will likely take us several years to achieve, but which are based on solid cryptographic principles instead of imagining that you can shortcut consensus.

Quote from: toknormal on March 06, 2015, 08:25:58 PM

A "cryptographer" is not a coin developer (not even a Monero one) but someone who sits in a University lab for years developing cryptographic algorithms and writing research papers that get accepted by academic journals.

Thankfully Monero has both.

Quote from: toknormal on March 06, 2015, 08:25:58 PM

They may or may not be coders but you don't have to be a cryptographer to implement successful applications anymore than you need to be an aerodynamicist to fly a plane. In fact they are usually completely distinct disciplines. All coin technologies are based on published academic research of one kind or another (Darkcoin's is - see white paper on blind signatures) but you don't have to be the researcher to do the implementation - you do have to be a coder.

I'm glad you brought up the Darkcoin whitepaper, because it includes this gem: "DarkCoin replaces abrupt reward halving with a reward curve, 2222222/(((Difficulty+2600)/9)^2). The maximum and minimum amounts are set to 25 and five respectively."

This would mean a maximum daily block reward of 576 x 25 = 14 400 DRK. Reality begs to differ:

If implementing such a simple formula can't even be done correctly, then it would seem your trust in your "dev" is deeply misplaced.

Quote from: toknormal on March 06, 2015, 08:25:58 PM

One of the reasons Monero never got off the ground is because it tried to base it's whole value offering on a piece of academic theory rather than trying to produce something of practical value. Anyone who's ever used it will discover that in about 10 seconds.

Consequently, since that's the only 'hammer' in your box then everything else has to be a nail - including having to make other coin devs the target of baseless accusations such as "lack of understanding" about cryptography.

It's cheap, unsupported nonsense of the most unimaginative kind but as long as you keep sticking to that line no-one else will have anything to worry about.

It's crazy how you misstate this. Let me ask you this: what has Darkcoin ever done for Bitcoin? You throw the "based on Bitcoin" card around, but what has it EVER contributed to the community that is responsible for 98% of its lines of code? On the other hand, Monero created the OpenAlias standard, and then went on to create and submit an implementation of the OpenAlias standard that is included in Electrum 2.0, directly contributing to the growth and usefulness of Bitcoin, despite Monero not sharing a single line of Bitcoin code. Hey - even Darkcoin could implement OpenAlias!

OpenAlias also goes directly against your "practical value" comment - it has given more practical value to the new cryptocurrency user than literally anything Darkcoin has done.

I guess the only cheap, unsupported nonsense in this thread is coming off of your keyboard.