fluffypony wrote:
Dash fails because, as djb describes in this excellent recent article, they have an "attacker economist" approach. In other words, instead of purposely designing their systems to be cryptographically sound so that the "attacker will definitely fail" or the "attacker will probably fail", they instead (unwittingly?) design it so that "the attacker's expected cost of carrying out an attack exceeds the attacker's expected benefit from doing so." The unfortunate knock-on effect is that such an approach only works like that for a limited time...as the value of the cryptocurrency grows, so does the level of sophistication of the attackers that find it an interesting target. Trying to solve the privacy problems in a way that relies on the honesty and opsec of a small group of individuals is simply privacy theatre, no different from those that claim that Bitcoin is private as long as there's no address reuse.
fluffypony's not building the money. He's only building the safe.
Don't judge us by his standards.
They compare the bloat-joke-monero to Dash because they wanted to pull themselves out from the sea of cryptonote clones.
There are many cryptonote coins and in order to be kind of visible, they had to do something about it.
Monero is a simple NSA-made-bloat-unusable-joke-clone.
Attacking another coin is not responsive to fluffypony's critique of Dash's "attacker economist" approach.
Do you have anything substantive to offer, or are you content to merely deflect from rather than actually defend Dash's "bad crypto?"
Fluffypony (sic) is clutching at straws. He can't develop anything worth a fuck in his own coin (apart from a tacky dice site to skim gullible investors), so launches these broadsides at DASH, a significantly better supported coin (see coinmarketcap.com) with REAL ongoing development and a roadmap that's likely to get delivered this century. Not just a silly roadmap that's full of shit with some pretty graphics and 'missives' attached.
His technical argument is a non-sequitur. As DASH grows, it's sophistication and resilience to attack will also grow. But he doesn't mention that.
Nor does he mention who the fuck will actually attack these coins anyway, or that if they want to, Guv will fuck his precious Failero the same as any other coin.
And why the fuck don't you come up with some of your own arguments Licey, instead of eating and regurgitating these guys shit all the time.
"Clutching at straws" is characterization of fluffpony's analysis, not refutation.
"Non-sequitur" is characterization of fluffpony's analysis, not refutation.
"Can't develop anything worth a fuck in his own coin" is ad hominem, not refutation.
Good luck with your bad crypto and privacy theatre.
Dash
