Quote from: theymos on August 17, 2017, 07:18:41 PM

Quote from: Midas111 on August 16, 2017, 09:24:35 PM

agree on all points except monero would get .1 for unlimited supply

That's not a factor that I'm evaluating here.

Research in 2016 has modelled that PoW (on Bitcoin and any other) diverges into chaos when the block reward declines to insignificant relative to the revenue from transaction fees. Thus no PoW cryptocurrency will be able to survive without perpetual inflation unless it is controlled by an oligarchy. Moneros tail reward is insufficient because eventually revenue from transaction fees will be significantly higher than the tail reward. There is a new document coming out soon which will explain this in irrefutable detail.

PoW is dying or must become an oligarchy in order to survive. But a new design is coming which will be perpetually deflationary (money supply perpetually decreases) and fixes this problem (without PoW nor PoS), but with some tradeoffs in security-model that some may find objectionable. Yet after we see what happens to the security of Bitcoin over the coming months, minds will be opened as to what is plausible and optimum.

Quote from: theymos on August 17, 2017, 07:18:41 PM

Quote from: Traxo on August 17, 2017, 02:26:05 AM

Incorrect. It has a horrible historical record as proven by Andrew Miller a widely respected cryptographer.

As for the increase in minimum ring signature mixin level, the Cryptonote upgrade to RingCT, and the 2014 MNL-001 Monero labs research report, that was all rebutted in great detail.

I am aware of all of those potential attacks, and I mentioned in my post that Monero is not the black box that it is often assumed to be. (And I went into more detail here.) But despite those issues, Monero is typically far better than any Bitcoin mixer, for example.

I mentioned that zcash is theoretically more anonymous than Monero, but its software is basically unusable for most people right now.

Agreed. Your original summary seemed to lack this detail, which I think most readers would not have known if we had not delved into it as we have.

Whether Monero is far better than Bitcoin mixers is also perhaps irrelevant. For the time being since there is no rigorous math model to give us assurance, is an 80% risk of honeypot better than 20% of the transactions deanonymized honeypot? Even if the mixin levels of Monero are increased to insane levels (after some rigorous math to better model what those levels should be), well probably still have a risk of a few tenths or hundredths of a percent of being deanonymized, which is entirely unacceptable for many use cases to depend on.

You only gave it a 4, which seemed large in comparison to the scores you assigned to other altcoin technologies, but I guess relative to the 106 youve assigned to Bitcoin, that puts into perspective your extremely low valuation of Moneros innovation.

Quote from: theymos on August 17, 2017, 07:18:41 PM

Quote from: Traxo on August 17, 2017, 03:46:09 AM

I'm surprised to see you promoting such a scam:

That criticism of IOTA may ultimately be correct, but it's not clear to me. It mentions facts about IOTA which I already know, and then claims that this obviously makes IOTA broken. I am not convinced that IOTA is convergent, which is why I only gave it a score of 0.1, but it strikes me as possible, and a good area for research.

Someone should create an IOTA simulation where there's double-spending attempts, latency, etc. with no coordinators and a large volume of transactions.

Why are simulations necessary? Theyve been challenged to remove the centralized server Coordinator, so as to find out if it blows up or not when decentralized. They refuse to do so, because the experts know it will blow up.

The onus is on them. They are running a centralized cryptocurrency, thus they have shown no innovation whatsoever. Anyone can write some technobabble BS in a whitepaper and then create a centralized server driven system and claim they created something. But all they did was reinvent Visa with some BS deception on top.

As for the scam aspect of it, isnt it well documented already what they did with the ICO, Jinn Labs, and besides everyone knows that Come-from-Beyond originates from the Nxt scam wherein the entire money supply was awarded to 73 founders. IOTA is in the same breed of scams being perpetuated over and over again here. We had Steem with its sneaky mine awarding the new created money supply to a few insiders and then a system where whales can control where the ongoing money supply goes (for the most part). And then masternode scheme (Dash and PIVX) wherein the instamine or ICO buying from themselves so that the masternodes are held mostly by the insiders (which no one can prove or disprove because of ability to Sybil attack the identities of who owns them) who then award most of the newly created money supply to themselves. When doing the math of financial compounding, it is reasonably inarguable that the masternodes of Dash (also probably PIVX) are not predominately owned by the insiders.

Any way, I appreciate your clarification.