We've already covered that, my entire point can be summed up as "bugs is a weak argument, here's a better one". Not sure what there is to argue with.

Like it or not, it's part of the anon-crypto market, automatically making it a competitor to all the other anon-cryptos. If you think the word "competitor" gives DeepOnion too much credit, well that's just tough.

It is the same thing. I'm not comparing the entities, I'm comparing the way they speak. Pretend I didn't say "quantum dot", it was just an example of bullshit marketing speak.

I took your point to be that Tor isn't secure because it has had bugs exploited in the past. Unless you plan on not using software, the threat of bugs being exploited is ubiquitous. The imprecise wording of "100%" I dealt with elsewhere.

I haven't argued for or against DeepOnion as yet (I've just been answering select points I disagreed with, like you mentioning bugs in OpenSSL or the shills using similarly flawed logic). I don't give a toss about the politics beyond grabbing some popcorn and letting it play out, so disregarding that I'll just say this:

I see nothing wrong with competition in the "anon-crypto" market, which already has a lot of competition. I doubt DeepOnion can make a big impact to that market, but far be it from me to stop them from trying. For the market in general, Monero is top dog and I don't see that changing (unless some major design flaws in Monero exhibit themselves, unlikely), but that is just my opinion.

Marketing is marketing, it is all language that does not usually treat clarity, reality or consumers with the utmost respect. If you'd prefer, I could say something like "everyone exaggerates on their CV". I don't agree with it.

If I can use an obvious statement against your point, what does it say about your point?

There definitely is. Monero anonymises transactions on the blockchain, but it doesn't hide the fact that your ip is interacting with it. There is the option of using Monero over Tor, which I'd recommend if you're that into using Monero for privacy (https://github.com/monero-project/monero#using-tor ).

Take my opinion with a pinch of salt as I've only been around for a few months.

If it's like last time, alts in general will drop by a greater degree than BTC, LTC will be stable and may rise if people jump on it to avoid the dip (LTC rose last time BTC fell, and didn't rise when BTC rose, it stayed roughly in line with fiat, seems to be more disconnected to BTC than most). A few alts will buck the trend and go up or remain steady, and may gain steam if people think they can use it to avoid the dip.

Technically yes. I am a pedant when it comes to how I speak, partly because I've been around long enough to know that no matter how you say something, someone will misinterpret you, so being clear is important. Not everyone agrees, especially on the internet. I'm willing to ignore a certain amount of imprecise wording from people online, you can't correct everyone and they seldom thank you for it. It could also be argued that "100% anonymous" is an example of marketing speak, another way to say unclear jibberish (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_jargon ). When was the last time your eyes didn't glaze over when a product description says something like "quantum dot technology" or "4x performance". It doesn't make it right, it's just the norm of advertising, so unless it's rife or particularly egregious, it's probably not worth fixating on.

Yes, but every piece of software has bugs, using that as an argument is not very strong unless the bugs are found but never patched. If the software is open source, and the community is active enough that there is a reasonable expectation that due diligence has been performed, that's the best we can hope for (that heartbleed bug though ).

Yes, I was giving a more compelling argument than "bugs in software". A lot of the traffic analysis that can be done comes from controlling exit nodes, which is why I went on to outline the best way I think a crypto could try to use Tor for maximal anonymity. Yes there have been (probably still are) traffic analysis attacks on hidden services, but it's still the most secure way to use Tor in all likelihood. I think for most people, a properly implemented Tor crypto is enough to consider yourself more secure than someone can be bothered with, but if you're a real multi-million dollar drug money launderer, probably taking some extra precautions would be wise

Pedantically speaking, no communication can be made 100% anonymous, but Tor (when used correctly) can greatly increase your anonymity. The OpenSSL bugs you mentioned are irrelevant in my opinion, when bugs are found they are hopefully patched out asap. The attack vectors to worry about typically involve traffic analysis to de-anonymise.

In theory, the best way to use Tor for an anon-touting crypto is entirely within Tor as a hidden service. The main problem that I can see, is that the blockchain is a matter of public record, and any transaction is roughly timestamped by it. An entity that wants to de-anonymise transactions presumably has a list of ips using Tor at any given time, and can compare that to the blockchain. At the very least the ips of some of those using the crypto could be narrowed down (if not outright determined, possibly even matched to specific transactions), given enough time.

The best way I can see to deal with this? Become a middle relay yourself, such that you are always on the Tor network, sending and receiving other peoples data, thereby cloaking your activity. There is potential to obfuscate when you do a transaction via time-delayed transactions (the point being that your ip is not on the network when the transaction goes through), but I can't see how to do that without the blockchain knowing of the delay (making the delay pointless for obfuscation purposes), without trusting a third party to relay a signed message at some future time (which is obviously not a solution).

As to how DeepOnion uses Tor, I don't know. Almost certainly it doesn't make wallets act as middle relays (so if you plan to use DeepOnion anonymously, I recommend you take the initiative and become a middle relay yourself), hopefully it does work 100% within tor (with things like dedicated onion servers for initial and fallback peer discovery, as I say I don't know).

Your point I assume is that he chides someone for investing in what he thinks is trash, and promotes a coin that you think is trash? One mans trash is another mans treasure, I don't think that point stands. Or were you pointing out that he called someone an idiot for investing in something he doesn't like, and that that somehow means he was working against their well-being? I think the opposite is true, if the opinion is genuine then I think it's fine to point out that he thinks it's a bad decision, and certainly is in their well-being. Arguably he could have put it "nicer", but it gets the point across well, and I got a laugh at the way the opinion was delivered. It doesn't seem to be a personal attack.

I can't believe I've spent so much time reading all of this thread and replying, but it's fun to delve into forum nonsense once in a while. My opinion that no one asked for is *drumroll* ... Lauda did a minor thing that they had every right to do, and shills responded in force. I've been following DeepOnion for a few days, even going so far as to create an account on their forum, asked some questions, I have a DeepOnion wallet. I think it's an interesting coin, but I also disagree (yet find amusing) how some have been incensed, and organised themselves into action over this. It's a disgusting side of internet culture (culture in general really), but fascinating. I just had to watch

Nothing is 100%. 2FA doesn't prevent a phisher logging on with your credentials, he just has to present you with a fake site, and pass along whatever details you give them in realtime. With Bittrex this is somewhat countered by having to be logged in for 2 minutes before withdrawing (so you have to put in a different 2FA code to what you logged in with, meaning that they cannot initiate a withdrawal), but it doesn't stop a smart phisher from playing the long game, hoping you don't realise you're being phished, and redirecting the funds the next time you're prompted to use 2FA (probably the next time you initiate a deposit or withdrawal yourself, or more riskily they pretend you were logged out and prompt you to login again).

The more widely used an algorithm is, the more secure in the knowledge we can be that it is secure. When something is adopted as widely as SHA256 is, people constantly test it for weaknesses. It's likely in the future that an attack will reduce the complexity of creating a collision, but if an attack gets anywhere close to viable, people will just change the algorithm they use.

I'd still edit your original post to remove the references to your private key, but you do you

Cashing out is about as easy as cashing in, with similar rip-off fees. You can do SEPA both ways (talking from experience with Coinbase and Kraken). Not that you're asking, but I'd recommend Kraken over Coinbase (from the minimal small transactions I've done with both, YMMV). Just remember there are a lot of steps to go from fiat to bitcoin (especially GBP, an additional GBP->EUR, I don't think there's an exchange that accepts GBP), with a percentage fee or flat fee every step of the way (using market prices typically not in your favour). It's unfortunate but that's the way it is.

Whatever exchange you pick, you'll need to give them some personal details, and if it's more than a few thousand, probably scans of your passport. I wouldn't be deterred by that, it's the ones that don't require that for large transfers I'd be wary of.

It's unlikely that brexit will mean the UK will stop using SEPA, there are many countries not part of the EU that are part of SEPA now. Either way, that decision is years off.

I've made a suggestion thread on their forum (https://deeponion.org/community/threads/incentivising-middle-relay-participation.260/ ). I'm not expecting full integration of the idea to be possible, but even partial integration would be good.

I wasn't clear in the post you quoted. Yes you're rewarded for keeping the wallet active, but your wallet doesn't act as a middle relay (receive tor traffic and pass it on to another relay), which is what I meant by being an active node on the tor network.

Close but no cigar. I'm interested in DeepOnion because it focuses on anonymously transferring currency, using a proven system, and imo there is demand for something like that, but unless wallets are middle relays it doesn't fulfill what I asked for. It may seem subtle but it's a big difference. If instead of the usual PoW mining DeepOnion has, they had a PoW system of incentivising being a middle relay, then it would be what I described.

I did a bit of research, and there was a coin from 2014 that tried to do something similar (VPNCoin, VASH), but it looks like the development is pretty much dead.

As for running an exit node, I'd assume (layman speculation) that they would have to make sure that an exit node cannot see what they are letting out of the network. So, probably encryption always, and possibly the network generates fake requests so an exit node has plausible deniability about who it is communicating with, if that is even relevant.

Damn the change to the withdrawal limit is a pain. I'm only unverified because their stupid verification system fails to send me a text, which was fine when the limit was 1 BTC. It would have been nice if they let me know by email, instead of letting a withdrawal bounce.

It looks interesting, but I don't think owning deeponion tokens incentivises being an active node on the tor network. I think when they claim it helps the network, it does so by the wallets adding to the pool of ips using tor. BTW that is some steep requirement for being in the airdrop, not that I can participate even if I did post a lot (my account is too new by a few days).

That is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for, thanks. Is this the only one, or do they have competition? Looks like they are early in the development process, but it's one to watch.

Thanks for the replies, but anonymously transferring crypto is not what I mean. I mean actually creating a tor-like network, where the point is to anonymise traffic (you use it like you use tor). People spend tokens on the network to have their traffic routed through it, and those tokens are distributed to the nodes on the network that helped anonymise the traffic.

"C lacking a garbage collector" is not the same thing as "having to understand how a computer works to code in C", lack of GC is a minor point when we're talking about a beginner learning programming fundamentals. They're not jumping into maintaining a mega project that can crumble under a stiff breeze (or if you forget a free() call ), they're learning basics.

My point is that as a language, C is actually pretty simple. Pleasingly so  

I wouldn't say so, C isn't complicated as a language. Sure you can do low level things with it, like inline asm, directly interfacing with hardware, coding for specific instruction sets like AVX etc, but that's not what a new user is going to go into. At worst the only extra things (relative to js) that a new programmer has to learn is memory management, pointers and compiling, which I would class as fundamental and put on a learners TODO list anyway.

Has something like tor, but using a blockchain to maintain the network, been attempted? The gist being that you spend tokens to route traffic through the network, and you can acquire tokens through being a node on the network, or from an exchange. It seems an obvious potential application but my google-fu is failing me.