Y'all see Monero is like flying cars. They sound great! I mean you don't have to sit in traffic, you can go places faster and aren't limited by roads.

Problem is they can't work and Monero as a currency doesn't work. Right now I can sit my father down help him download the Dark\Dash wallet and have him up and running in a few minutes. Let me reiterate that, in a few minutes he understood it, but also he could go use it. There are plenty of real places that accept dark/dash even the darkmarkets. It works and that's why people are using it, hell that's why people use or adopt anything. That is why we all driving cars instead of flying contraptions.

So I don't give a flying mongoose about any whitepaper or promises until it's easy to use and widespread. Monero has had a year to do this and it not anywhere near either of these goals.

Lastly if the Dark/Dash tech doesn't work then there would be a ton of money made by anybody who could prove that to the cryptocurrency community, so the fact that after months no one has done so is strong proof that the technology is solid.

Are we talking about Monero, or in JustusRanvier's proposal?

Bloom filters are specifically designed not to sufficiently compromise privacy. They're used for SPV in Bitcoin, where you tell a full node a range of addresses you're "interested in", and it tells you about any transactions that come in to those. You're going to get a bunch of false positives, but not enough to care about. You can also still maintain a degree of consensus by connecting to multiple nodes and fetching block headers from them, verifying the PoW across the header, and then submitting the bloom filter to a set of seemingly honest nodes you find.


You can't Sybil attack JustusRanvier's model, because the micropayment happens per-action and between peers. Running a series of sock-puppet nodes doesn't help you, because your sock-puppets have to provide the same services as a full node to get paid. May as well just run a bunch of full nodes in VMs then (which would massively assist the network if every node was mixing and getting paid for it via micropayment channels).

If the spork key was programmed to last only x number of blocks after a hardfork, like a week or so, would that ease the concerns?

That is exactly my point a year later Monero only has a stop-gap solution... and promises.

I don't know what this JustusRanvier's model/proposal is. But if you can start as many full nodes as you please how does providing service with them prevent the nodes from spying?

If we’re going to have a free market for services between nodes on the Bitcoin P2P network, we need a mechanism via which the nodes can pay each other. This mechanism exists in Bitcoin now, and it’s called micropayment channels. Any two nodes can connect and they have this mechanism via which, if they can agree on who owes what to whom, they can construct a payment and they can adjust that payment as rapidly as they need to and settle it infrequently on the Bitcoin block chain. That’s the bare technical requirement to add price discovery because it provides a method for nodes to pay each other.

The next thing we need to do is to figure out the services that market participants will buy and sell and how they’ll decide what to pay or charge. To figure this out, let’s look at the three types of participants in the market, which are:

Relay Node Operators – Any entity who runs a fully-validating Bitcoin node in the relay network.
Miners – Solo miners or mining pool operators who create and broadcast blocks.
Users – People who hold and spend Bitcoin. For this discussion we’ll assume that most users are running light (SPV) clients.
By considering the needs of each participant, we can enumerate the types of services that each type of participant may want to buy or sell. For simplicity, we’ve assumed the direction of payment. However, we can’t actually predict whether the prices will be positive or negative. For example, we may assume that users will pay relay node operators to route their outgoing payments. In reality, the reverse could happen and relay node operators could end up paying users to get their outgoing payment information. In the latter case, the user would “pay” a negative rate, which means that they would earn compensation from a relay node operator. To understand the true directionality of payment, we need price discovery to begin among all market participants.

The following is a list of services that each type of participant could buy or sell in a free market payment system built into the Bitcoin P2P network.

Relay node operators would likely be buyers and sellers. They could:

• Buy and sell unmined transactions in a resale market with other relay node operators
• Sell unmined transactions to miners
• Sell the routing of outgoing blocks to miners
• Sell balance information to users
• Sell the routing of outgoing payments to users
• Sell the notification of incoming payments to users

Miners would likely be buyers and sellers. They could:

• Buy unmined transactions from relay node operators
• Buy the routing of their outgoing blocks from relay node operators
• Sell the inclusion of transactions in outgoing blocks to users

Users have no services to offer, so they would likely be buyers. They could:

• Buy balance information from relay node operators
• Buy the routing of their outgoing payments from relay node operators
• Buy the notification of incoming payments from relay node operators
• Buy the inclusion of their transactions in outgoing blocks from miners

For this marketplace of services between relay node operators, miners, and users to work, it would need to be deployed by the whole network. The users would need to use clients that know how to pay for the services they need access to. The miners would need their clients that interfaced with the network to be payment aware. The relay node operators would sell their services to customers willing to pay for it instead of being forced to donate their bandwidth and hardware to the network without compensation.

Once you have this kind of free market payment system, we could remove the block size limit and uncap the growth potential of Bitcoin. We’d also prevent an oligopoly of relay node operators from gaining controlling or censoring the Bitcoin relay network because the growth in the usage of the Bitcoin network would automatically bring with it the increased financial resources needed to pay for that growth.

I don't want to get caught up in a discussion of semantics, but in the first 32 hours a block was solved every 26.29 seconds instead of every 150 seconds, and the block reward was either 500 DRK or 277 DRK. It looks like the current block reward is under 5 DRK.

It was acknowledged immediately as accidental, so why not just relaunch with fixed code?

Our stop-gap solution is way better than your so called real solution, i can even send Monero with mixins on my mobile phone.

Sorry that we don't market our stuff as perfect in a misleading way like drk does it. bazinga.

please stop the own goals, its getting too easy.

Why should the view be balanced when the arguments are clearly so lopsided? Should Bitcoin vs litecoin or dogecoin be looked at as equal?

I am not a computer expert, far from it actually. I can't look at code myself to evaluate it in any meaningful way. I basically have to rely on reading other people's opinions and arguements and the overwhelming majority of comments from people whose opinions deserve any respect are very negative towards darkcoin and positive towards monero.

You can't just say "well nobody has broken it yet so it must work well". That doesn't cut it for me. I design medical devices for a living so I will put it into an analogy that makes sense to me. Is a medical device considered safe and effect until it kills somebody or is it safe and effect when it has been proven to be outside of a clinical situation?

Here: https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/2015/02/09/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Nobody reads this stuff (until some altcoin rips off the idea and pretends they invented it) so I'll just copy-paste the relevant bits:


You could easily add CoinJoin mixing to the list of services, and given that every full node would participate you'd have a massive global anonymity set. Nodes could spy as much as they want, but in order to gain any useful information they'd have to pay for the data via the micropayment payment channels, so monitoring the network would be VERY expensive, prohibitively so.

The biggest problem with Monero is that it's being lead by people with zero business sense. The team is infected with this misguided sense of "fairness" or similar garbage ideals. You can see the manifestation of this idiocy in Monero's emission. Among the worst I've ever seen. Instead of releasing quickly, and thus having low inflation, Monero releases over about 4 years, dramatically limiting returns.

The developers don't realize that very few people make investment decisions based on emission schedules. If you need evidence, look at how Darkcoin is rising as you guys spread the news of the instamine! Is there any more obvious way to beat it into your heads that people don't care?

This is representative of the kind of childish ranting we have come to expect from large portions of the XMR community....
even the "devs" are jumping up and down like spoiled children!