you can always have multiple 'accounts' I guess, so I really don't get your point.
Then I suggest you take out a Cryptonote hedge (or even go all in
). You can always invest in both. That will save you the headache.
I still think that dash could be it, seems to have a big community and a lot of software (smartphone wallet, GUI, ...)
Also, a bigger market cap. So it has a better chance than cryptonote.
But I need to investigate it a bit more. I'm now syncing my DASH client to test it out. I'll try to do some darksend and instantX tomorrow
I also got some answers on the questions I asked in the monero topic, will also try to test that out in one of the next days, so I can compare.
I still don't really understand how monero works. Thanks to the explanation by Evan, I think most of my concerns are gone, although I need to look at it a bit more:
1) How are the masternode locks enforced in the network? How do you force miners to not mine a double spent transaction?
2) Is it possible that there is a competing locked transaction? If that transaction has a higher fee (double spend attempt), I guess the miners rather confirm the transaction with the higher fee...
3) Masternodes don't get fees to lock transactions? What is the incentive to do the work? How are the masternode rewards distributed? How can the network "know" that masternodes are online and doing the work in stead of just being idle to have a lower bandwidth usage?
4) I wonder how you can have so much transactions per second? (the slide shows 500-1500) I read that bitcoin is limited to 7 transactions per second. I showed that it seems impossible to lock 350 transactions simultaneously with 3500 masternodes, unless you allow overlap. But that should be avoided, because it can happen that a masternode has the power to decide which of the 2 transactions he confirms during a double spend attack.
1.) There is code that scans all incoming blocks for transaction locks when accepting transactions and blocks. This means that a block that contains a conflicting transaction will be automatically rejected.
2.) The answer to this one is 3 fold.
a. Currently if there are conflicting locks on the network, they will actually cancel each other. 2 conflicting locks doesn't really give miners a choice, it just removes instantX and goes back to proof of work.
b. The quorums are selected by inputs though, so you'll get the same quorum for the same transaction even with a different fee. This means, they would have already decided and no conflicting lock would be issued.
c. The new improved way is to use the quorum timestamp, then take the earliest one always.
3.) Masternodes are paid from the blockchain reward, which will be worth more as the services are utilized more. My position is that monetary services of the network should be provided at no or low cost, then we can add on other services over the coming years by financing them from the budget. The masternode network will own Virtual Corporations that are working to expand the reach of Dash. Then they will be paid from the dividends from those companies (a few years off).
4.) DAPI was just one of many components -- it isn't what allows for such scalability
1) so the transaction locks are part of the consensus rules? That indeed makes sense. Still strange to wrap my head around it, because in bitcoin miners "lock" transactions in blocks
2) a - doesn't really seems safe to accept InstantX transactions
b - so what happens in case there are 3 different inputs? Transaction 1 has input A and B, transaction 2 has input A and C. A is being double spend. are the oracles for the first transaction different from the second one, or is there an overlap?
c - timestamps aren't 100% right all the time and can be manipulated.
3) you didn't answer the question on how the network knows that a masternode isn't idling and doing his job. This seems pretty important!
4) so we need to wait... I hope we know more when the amsterdam vid is online
edit: this is the main reason I still believe that the DASH network effect is just bigger and dash probably has more chances to succeed:
It seems like this cryptonote thing and dash have a different approach to privacy. need to research more now...
Yes, Cryptonote has so called on-chain anonymity, and DASH has so called off-chain anonymity. They are different approaches aiming to achieve the same thing. The difference is, that the mixing of inputs and outputs (where the money is coming and where it's going) is retained in the blockchain and protected by math in on-chain anonymity, whereas in DASH's off-chain anonymity the mixing is done outside the blockchain by the masternode network and the link between inputs and outputs is not recorded into the blockchain.
I'm not sure if the coming Evolution version will change that though? Evan has hinted that all transactions will be private by default which would imply that there will be some changes to how the anonymity is achieved.
In the end we're all going after the same thing, a replacement for fiat, that can't corrupted or controlled by any single entity.
Requirements:
- Fungibility - All units of the current must be interchangeable (after sending coins they shouldn't have history attached)
- Speed - The currency must be able to compete with credit cards (1-5 second double-spend proof confirmations)
- Governance - The currency must be governed in a decentralized and decisive way
- Funding - The currency must have a permanent decentralized funding source for development, marketing, legal, etc
- Scalability - The currency must be able to scale to billions of transactions per day with 100% decentralization
- Ease Of Use - The currency must be usable by normal every day people
DASH attempts to fulfill all those requirements above and is actively working towards them, and features currently 4 (and a half as it has a basic GUI wallet I suppose) of them. Cryptonote coins seem to aim only at 1/6th of those requirements of digital cash.
