Quote from: toknormal on September 21, 2017, 01:38:48 AM

Quote from: profitgenerator212 on September 21, 2017, 01:28:33 AM

* What if nodes/miners decide to censor or discriminate transactions above 10,000$...

You're conflating fungibility of the coin supply with "fungibility" of the transacting environment.

They are distinct.

No they are not. You either have fungibility or not. You can't pretend to have fungibility while actually not having it.

It's the same as privacy on Dash. You either have it or you dont. If the TX can be traced back via some blockchain analysis, then you neither have privacy nor fungibility. So why pretend that you do?

Quote from: toknormal on September 21, 2017, 02:47:06 AM

Quote from: profitgenerator212 on September 21, 2017, 01:28:33 AM

you literally have to enforce equality on the blockchain, by anonymizing everything, but leaving it cryptographically verifiable and secure.[/b]

Information for you:

Encrypted blockchains are far less "verifiable" and far less "secure" than unencrypted ones.

Yeah it's called public key cryptography, you can verify the encrypted block with the public key, that is why Monero supplies a pubkey as well as an additional layer of privacy which you would normally not share.

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 21, 2017, 02:32:04 AM

Quote from: profitgenerator212 on September 21, 2017, 01:09:20 AM

Quote from: afbitcoins on September 20, 2017, 09:24:36 PM

Not to mention slow transaction times, bloated blockchain, almost non existant official releases, not very many full nodes on the network, and of course the opaque blockchain in which you have to trust there is no bad actor stealthily minting coins they shouldn't. But apart from that. Hey at least Monero has a graphical UI these days. It took a while.

Whoah hold on there buddy that is pure disinformation.

From what I researched Monero has over 1k nodes, well geographically dispersed, pretty decent for a project of it's size, while Dash's Masternode allegations still stand, due to it's costly nature we don't know whether it's the orignal devs setup the Masternodes or not, I personally highly doubt that many people have that much money to throw out on a node so, at the very least people should be vigilant about the Masternodes. So a sybil attack is more probable on Dash.

And you also seem to confuse Monero with Zcash. It's Zcash that has a totally non-transparent blockchain with "trusted" initialization. Monero is decentralized and trustless.

Now I don't know about "bloated blockchain", that's such a redundant term, almost everyone uses it to criticize a competitor. And the last time I sent a Monero TX (wasn't that long ago), the TX confirmed pretty quickly with decent fees.

So I think you are just trying to discredit Monero here from a competitor's point of view.

You are right on the GUI part though, I really had to learn the console commands just to make a wallet, pretty gruesome nerdy work, but I think it was worth it. A better GUI and possible mobile apps and such should be put out in the future though.

Thanks for tackling the FUD generated by the Evan's Gate cult to keep their members brainwashed. Mind if I pile on?

The lies about XMR nodes are a deflection from criticism of Dash's many problems and easily proven false (which makes the initial lie more shameful/less forgivable). Accordingn to https://monerohash.com/nodes-distribution.html there are "Total nodes: 1451" ATM.

Now let's consider how 1500 XMR nodes stack up against 4500 Masternodes.

The hardware footprint is similar for now, but we should keep in mind Evan is already acting to create expensive, obligatory, proprietary Masternode hardware because he insists on shoving every transaction into Layer1 like some kind of derpy crypto-clown.

So both nodes run on a simple $5/month Vultr, no problem. That's good for decentralization, which is measured by the cost of the option to run a full node.

But Dash artificially raises the barrier to entry by 1000 Dash, which brings CONOP to ~$300k and thus destroys any illusion about the Dash network being diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.

Another aspect is how the nodes work together to instantiate their respective protocols. Monero nodes do not have to trust each other because their protocol is trustless and does not leak exploitable metadata. But Masternodes do not 'blind' their connections and so must trust their fellow Masternodes are not malicious or otherwise compromised. The Masternode protocol was supposedly going to add blinding, but that never happened because Duffield isn't a good enough programmer and doesn't care about shredding his credibility with fanciful plans which are announced to great fanfare and then silently abandoned.

As for Sybil attacks, there exists in Dash an incentive to attack fellow Masternodes which has no counterpart in Monero. IE, Masternode owners may increase the amount and frequency of their own Masternode Ponzi payments by removing other Masternodes from the payment queue (accomplished by knocking them offline).

Similarly, there exists in Dash an incentive to sabotage InstantSend because Masternodes reap higher tx fees processing regular (and especially PrivateSend) transactions.

Dash has no fucking business talking about a "bloated blockchain" when Evan is planning on moving Masternodes to exotic custom verification ASICs just to get around his failure to implement segwit and enable payments being moved to higher layers. This moron is buddies with all the Big Blockers like Roger Ver, and in his diseased imagination he believes $500k Masternodes hosted in $1k/month data centers processing 500mb blocks is going to be the wave of future.

Compared to the latest Bitcoin Core, Dash's blockchain is bloated because Dash transactions still must use precious block space for mostly-useless witness data at the cost of excluding additional transactions. This bloat cannot be pruned, unlike the user-definable pruning levels available in Core.

Where is the Dash supporter willing to honestly compare the total cumulative size ("blockchain bloat") of a PrivateSend Dash transaction versus one from Monero?

Of course the best privacy in the world isn't free. Only a bloated blue-hair SJW with hideous extra-thick cankles and zero understanding of computer science would expect otherwise.

Having said that, let's keep in mind Monero's RingCT is the initial release, with amazing sub-log optimizations (google "RuffCT") coming Soon(tm).

The best party of Monero's CLI is that it kept Dash clowns from buying during the years of cheap sub-dollar XMR.

They were not willing to learn and apply themselves so they didn't get the XMR gains.

Back in the day, I spent a couple of weeks cursing like a sailor and popping telomeres just getting cgminer to work, followed by months of fighting with thermal paste/fans/firmware/drivers/clock speeds/mem timings/pools/orphans/rejects/variance. That "gruesome nerdy work" was the most valuable experience of my life.... Cool

That's how crypto is supposed to work; it's not a free ride for the MOAR GIBS PLZ leeches.

We are now experiencing Peak Eternal September as evidenced by the voluntary transfer of wealth to useless shitlibs lacking any redeeming talent or ability.

People have accused me of being a Monero shill, while I said at the begginning that I try to be impartial, but it's getting hard if I see only lies posted. I actually hold both XMR and DASH now at this point ,so I should normally not care since I am well hedged.

But identifying problems is the first step on fixing them. DASH can be fixed but the community has to admit it first that it has some tiny flaws first.