Quote from: GingerAle on March 30, 2015, 05:09:58 PM

Quote from: majamina on March 30, 2015, 04:29:10 PM

I get the feeling this thread has just about run it's course:

1. Lots of criticism, both technical and non-technical of DASH from the outset
2. Reasonable responses from myself, illodin and others
3. DASH critics fail to follow-up on critical technical points
4. Critics regurgitate old arguments, add very little new information and still fail to follow up on critical technical points
5. GOTO 2

I'm still ready to be persuaded that DASH is fatally flawed as the critics make out.

If we continue as above, that speaks volumes imo.

unfortunately, I don't have the chops to address the technical points - I never claimed to. And I hate to pull the dev worship card, but unfortunately those that really have the chops (xmr devs) are discouraged to respond, because they are accused of wasting their time and not developing their coin. So in that sense, this thread ran its course before it even started, because the XMR devs are probably exasperated with the cycle of providing critiques and then getting lambasted for providing critiques. Someone could probably index the existing responses.

I feel this is still relevant: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144471.msg9764161#msg9764161

and yes, I just routed that from someone elses post. This one: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/

As a relative noob, my analysis boils down to this (and I apologize if its just "continuing as above): both of the coins privacy technology, when distilled to a single factor, rely on 1 if-then statement.

DRK: if the masternode network is secure, then my transactions are private
XMR: if the cryptographic mechanism is secure, then my transactions are private

(but I could be totally wrong on either of them - this is just me presenting my formed opinion on the matter)

So, IMO, the DRK if-then is human-centric, whereas the XMR if-then is ... math-centric? cryptography-centric?

basically, you could give 1000 monkeys a bunch of computers with monero installed and if they managed to pound a bunch of keys that sent a transaction, there'd be no way to trace it.

On the other hand, if you gave 1000 monkeys a bunch of computers with DRK / DASH installed, you'd have to get them to keep X amount in a cold wallet and make sure their masternode was secure etc etc.

For me, this is the essence of cryptocurrencies - to remove the human element.

I, for one, welcome our algorithmic overlords.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPcB3vWGO9k

it's more like math hasn't got to the stage where it can describe complex systems, i.e. chaotic systems, e.g. weather, turbulence, market behaviour. That's not a 'human element', it's a 'chaotic element'. Cryptography's purpose is to obscure information for the purpose of un-obscuring it later. Which is essential for underpinnings of mechanics of crypto currency. But when you want to start to lose information like you do with anonymity, (in my opinion) it's not the best suited way. Because it's essentially reversible with the right tools (because the information is confined in one place, it security relies on your ability to decode it). Trying to lose information in a complex system, i don't think that approach is a good idea. You need to abstract the problem and use the system itself, in DRK's case, disparate location of the information, combining information to create ambiguity, across a chaotic network, is used to help 'lose' it - a cryptographic function can't do that; it's an alternative method. So just because there is not a mathematical proof to describe it doesn't matter, current math fails to describe most complex systems, forward brances are trying to like chaos theory. it's the application that counts and the efficacy of it's application which distils down to a statistic result, same as cryptography does IMO.