Quote from: toknormal on March 19, 2015, 01:52:47 AM

Quote from: othe on March 19, 2015, 12:44:53 AM

Nothing is centralized, the only centralized shit is a masternode system.

How are masternodes 'centralised' ? They are just regular nodes performing an enhanced role. Any 'node' can perform a masternode function and there's not even a question of recourse to any central authority when setting one up - you just fire up your daemon, point it at a collateral address and thats it. I think what your alluding to is the fact that the mixing process bounces off a few nodes before it returns to your wallet but calling that 'centralised' is stretching it a bit. It isn't much different from the steps that lead to bits of a transaction ending up in change addresses in a regular QT wallet.

Like I said in the last post, attaining extreme levels of encryption just isn't the objective when it comes to money (at least IMO). Who gives a f*ck if your transactions are encrypted to kingdom come when you can't access half the service infrastructure in the industry because you had to build your own railway as well as the train since it had the wrong gauge.

Cryptonote fell at the very first hurdle on this one because they couldn't even get the most basic infrastructure of all - a useable wallet - off the ground. It was "farmed out to third parties" due to lack of development capacity.

Anonymity isn't just the money. Although I accept that cryptonote - as an encryption system - is a nice solution and notionally bullet proof, there's not much point in travelling by concorde for 50 miles when you've got to walk the next 10. The number of ways that a transaction can be 'de-anonymised' by means other than simply looking at the blockchain is immense (like simply 'buying something' Wink

)

Quote from: Joshuar on March 19, 2015, 01:08:54 AM

There are over 2k masternodes, that's over 200,000 darkcoins taken out of the ecosystem alone in 1 year, not even mentioning darkcoin's instamine. This means that Darkcoin has/will have extremely poor liquidity

Liquidity isn't a question of how many coins are in circulation numerically, it's a question of how much monetary value there is across the entire coin supply. The coin with the most 'liquidity' is therefore the one with the highest marketcap, not the 'most coins'. Emission curves don't have jack to say about liquidity unless the valuation is there to support it.

Quote from: Joshuar on March 19, 2015, 01:08:54 AM

Comparing on chain anonymity to centralization is the most absurd thing I've seen in a while.

You like using that word 'centralisation'. Thats one of the reasons I always find these assertions you guys make about Darkcoin so unconvincing. Call it 'centralisation' if you like, but service oriented networks are everywhere because there's not much you can do without them and anyway, in Darkcoin the client server relationship is mutual, just like in any other cryptocurrency. A 2-tier (or dual role) network where the nodes are diversified in function has nothing to do with the term "decentralisation" as commonly used in cryptocurrencies to mean lack of a central liquidity issuing authority.

Masternodes are centralized because they are hosted on servers online, which are centralized. The large majority of masternode owners host their nodes on the internet, I'd say that's pretty centralized. The masternode concept is "trivial" in ways, as I'm sure Satoshi foresaw that there might be lack of incentives to use nodes, however disregarded implementing such a service because it adds more centralization to the coin, as well as more vectors of attack.

Concerning the lack of infrastructure around Cryptonote. That's actually a good thing, that means the market is new and ripe for potential business owners to be the leading companies/people in their field. Using the Bitcoin code to fork an altcoin means you're essentially making a clone of Bitcoin. Why use an altcoin that uses Bitcoin's codebase when you can use an altcoin that has entirely different code. It's like having a clone of Bitcoin compete against Bitcoin, it just isn't logical.

The "useable wallet" statement is false. If what you say is true, then that means any Bitcoin wallet besides the QT wallet is unusable and shows the incompetence of the Bitcoin devs? Really, especially when most Bitcoin users have multibit wallets installed? The success of a currency isn't only determined by the developers, but the community as well. Having extra, 3rd party wallets shows that others besides the devs are interested in the welfare of the currency, and that's a huge plus. Also, the approach the Monero devs are taking is similar to that of the Bitcoin devs, they are taking it the way it should be, carefully thought out and in a decentralized manner, unlike Darkcoin where a name change was made without even consulting the community first.

The definition of liquidity: The degree to which an asset or security can be bought or sold in the market without affecting the asset's price.

Masternodes taking coins out of circulation, in this case, over 2million DRK's are in Masternodes themselves, plus users holding coins, plus lost/instamined coins, means that it's liquidity is taking a huge hit. Liquidity is essential for a currency, and Darkcoin's masternode concept makes/will make DRK one of the most volatile cryptocoins in history. It's basically a commodity from the start.