Re: [ANN][DASH] Dash | First Anonymous Coin | Inventor of X11, DGW, Darksend and InstantX
If you want significant security auditing for Dash, you'll have to pay for it.
It's unreasonable to expect anyone would use such valuable skills without compensation.
Your insulting, trivial non-bounty implies you don't really want people looking for flaws in Dash.
Perhaps you are afraid if you offered a reasonable bug bounty, someone might find something that Duffield can't fix.
Even Shadowcoin, which is a scam, had the guts to offer a bug bounty, which (after extensive public humiliation) they awarded to XMR dev Dr. Shen Noether.
To his credit, BigR has made supportive noises about establishing such a bounty, but nobody ever follows up on his enthusiasm.
I can only conclude that funding soda machines and grifter buses is more important to you guys than making sure your coin won't break under even casual amounts of scrutiny.
It's unreasonable to expect anyone would use such valuable skills without compensation.
Your insulting, trivial non-bounty implies you don't really want people looking for flaws in Dash.
Perhaps you are afraid if you offered a reasonable bug bounty, someone might find something that Duffield can't fix.
Even Shadowcoin, which is a scam, had the guts to offer a bug bounty, which (after extensive public humiliation) they awarded to XMR dev Dr. Shen Noether.
To his credit, BigR has made supportive noises about establishing such a bounty, but nobody ever follows up on his enthusiasm.
I can only conclude that funding soda machines and grifter buses is more important to you guys than making sure your coin won't break under even casual amounts of scrutiny.
So you are admitting that Dash's privacy features are so secure that it would require "significant security auditing" by people with "valuable skills" in order to even attempt the deanonymization of a PrivateSend transaction?
Your self-serving false inference is a textbook example of affirming the consequent, which is a logical fallacy.
"Affirming the consequent, sometimes called converse error, fallacy of the converse or confusion of necessity and sufficiency, is a formal fallacy of inferring the converse from the original statement."
IOW, you can't just assume Dash is secure because
A. nobody has bothered to break it yet, or
B. breaking it may (or may not) require a (potentially compensated) sophisticated adversary.
You fail Logic 101 and the freshman Intro To Cryptography seminar. No wonder you are a Dash True Believer.
Pretend you are talking to BigR. How would you explain to him that his desire for a non-trivial bug bounty is misguided, wrong, or (somehow using DashHole "logic") proof that Dash is already super-duper-uber secure?