Jump to content

TrueEyeHighBye458

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

34 profile views
  1. With chainlocks it becomes impossible to 51% attack Dash, thus effectively rendering POW ineffective in its defense against them. I.e. with chainlocks, you'll never get to even see a 51% attack, its no longer feasible. Which technically means that POW is obsolete in protecting against 51% attacks. Playing with words won't make you win. And who has done that here but you and Nano? Nano's solution is much more complex than BTC's and Dashs' with your validator nodes, feelessnes (which causes really hard to solve incentive problems) and other "complex solutions" as you put it. Throwing dynamite in a teflon house is also a losing game... Ok that's the third or fourth time this opinion have been voiced in this thread. We get it. You don't like the report. But you don't like the report because you're a Nano holder. Not because its a bad report. I'm decidedly neutral on Nano, and from my limited knowledge of it the report seemed fair and the issues it raised were indeed serious from a fundamental design POV. In software especially but design in general, you never want to make the kind of bolt on decisions that Nano was forced to make. Once you have to do that, its all downhill from there. Many project managers will tell you this is a pitfall for their teams. Yes but the article had more to say than that...
  2. Not necessarily the case. Nano may not be large or important enough to attack. For example, Monero's privacy has been traceable by something called the "knack attack" ever since it was released 5 years ago. Yet, to my knowledge, nobody has publicly exploited this attack yet. But that's not a good reason to believe its secure. Same with Nano. As the Weiss piece shows, Nano has made compromises that weaken its security model. My point isn't that Nano should be 0, its that it doesn't belong in the same conversation as coins like Dash and BTC. Nano is unproven, and it doesn't offer much new over the cryptos 1.0, in fact it is a crypto 1.0 because it doesn't offer any new features without massive trade offs that BTC is better without. I've seen videos Nano txs take almost 10 seconds before. But who said we're wasting energy? You're calling it that because you're biased towards your nano holdings, but the fact is providing a global, decentralized, permissionless banking network has a cost, its not free. Despite this, not only does cryptos source the vast majority of its energy from renewables, so very limited eco impact, but its also drastically more efficient than what we currently have. Here's how we can tell you're being disingenuous. The banking sector employs armored trucks, paper bills, heavy inks, toxic dyes and dies, fossil fuels and other things, not to mention the corruption, theft, graft and other negative outcomes. But you would ignore all that in order to fud the much better option and push your Nano holdings. That's not an honest way to argue. Permissionless or not, the fact that it had to tack on "validator" nodes removes the trustlessness of the network. Permissionless is one thing and good, but trustlessness is much better. I would take a permissioned trustless network over an permissionless trusted network any day! In the former, once you acquire permission, you need not trust, but in the latter, despite not needing permission you will always have to trust. Trustless and permissionless (like Dash) is the best of course. The masternodes aren't supposed to be for everyone. You seem to have mistaken the cause and the effect. The masternode system doesn't exist to make people rich. It exists because the network has need of high powered computers to propagate tranasctions and maintain state. This requires financial incentive to get people to volunatrily participate. You know, that thing that Nano got wrong? Nobody has any financial incentive to run a nano node, so they won't and the network will never be strong like BTC or even Dash. By all means, don't be shy, name them.
  3. That's not accurate. If the transaction is locked by the masternodes that means it is not possible to doublespend it. The masternode quorums are also selected using randomness generated from mining POW so there's that as well. Chainlocks still requires POW, POW is only obselete in protecting against 51% attacks, not in mining. Miners still need to propagate and mine blocks, solve POW. Chainlocks is just an addition on top of mining to prevent 51% attacks. It doesn't mean "POW is outdated" regardless of what you read or from whom. This is a fud way of spinning the situation so that people reading will be turned off from investigating Dash. But using it means you know that you have no valid argument and have to resort to such trickery.
  4. Perhaps you should respond to the arguments I made instead of handwaving them away... The weiss rating article brings up valid points. Just calling them bullshit without responding indicates that they were correct and you want to hide that.
  5. How so? The Masternodes "lock" the transaction until it gets included in the next block. Doublespends are prevented this way.
  6. That's not an issue, most crypto power comes from renewables. https://coinfomania.com/74-of-bitcoin-mining-is-done-with-renewable-energy/ Then While also lacking the guarantees that POW chains provide. The recent Weissman ratings article explains this a bit. https://weisscrypto.com/en/article/nano-a-tall-promise-of-radical-decentralization-and-scalability-betrayed You haven't listed any genuine issues that BTC suffers from that Nano alleviates. Dash is faster than Nano at the POS with 1.3 second txs. Nano boasts high speed, but transactions can take between 3-5 seconds still. Nano's lack of energy usage is a bug not a feature. The energy usage is what gives BTC and POW security. Nano relies on validators and trusted nodes. Its not the same thing and shouldn't be used in the same conversation as coins like Dash and other POW coins. You misunderstood. I didn't say solving problems in a different way was unproductive, I said solving the same problem in a different way without offering any benefit over the old solution was. Nano is just doing what BTC tries to do, different. Ok but we have BTC already for ten years now, Nano for like 1.5 or 2 years. You have to do it better, you can't just do the same thing differently. Dash does the same thing and then some. Dash has solved 51% attacks, decentralized coin join (this was a big feature request literally for years in the BTC community), instant transactions without sacrificing POW, instant respendability. No other coin has these features or will get them soon. Completely different.
  7. I just don't like the coin very much. It might've been all the shilling for it I've seen. But its mostly because it doesn't deserve to be placed in the same category as other, traditional POW cryptocurrencies. Its incentives are different, its structure and validation are different, its much younger and less tested. So why are Nanoboys acting like we should give it the same attention as BTC and similar coins? BTC was innovative for solving a problem nobody ever solved before. Nano is attempting to solve the same problem in a different way. That doesn't seem productive to me. You need to have a reason to use it other than that. For example, with Dash, Dash has instant txs, instant respendability (I don't know if Nano has this or not), optional privacy, governance, self funding, and much more. So Dash is BTC++. Nano is just BTC done differently. WIth less security, less history, less battletesting and less security. I don't think its fair that Nano is put on the same pedestal as other, more proven coins therefore.
  8. Ryan Taylor described it pretty well I think Its simple but powerful. Its so powerful that ZCoin is going to copy it. Dash is literally the only coin that is 51% proof. There are 5000 masternodes, so it can't be that hard. Yeah you can't get a new one, but that's life. Better to get in where you can. The point of masternodes isn't to pay investors, its to strengthen the network. They won't change the system unless this objective isn't being met. The current incentive system is meant to keep masternodes honest and performant, not randomly pay people just for holding Dash.
  9. https://www.coinfairvalue.com/ This is a site that prices cryptos using 4 data points that come directly from the blockchain. Daily txs Velocity avg tx size total discounted supply These are blockchain metrics so they're hard to game. This is different from the exchange pricing we're used to. That price is disconnected from the actual price of the coin because of various reasons. One of them being that exchange transactions are centralized in a database until you withdraw or deposit. So the actual price may not be reflective of what's going on, since its disconnected from the chain's activity and all a part of the exchanges centralized ledger. Fair value gets around all that and provides a price estimate that allows us to see how much our coins are worth without any of the speculation and manipulation that is so common in financial markets.
  10. Dash has chainlocks, which completely protect it from 51% attacks. Dash has instant txs. Dash has its own developer fund from the chain. Dash makes its decisions for the entire network together in a decentralized way. Dash has good privacy. Dash has a lot of stores that accept it. Dash works! Fast! Discuss.
×
×
  • Create New...