Antonopoulos at the University of Nicosia MOOC 3 (session 6) about Anonymous Cryptocurrencies

[raganius]

@3m35s: The subject of privacy and anonymity was brought up during this lecture. DASH (he names it as Darkcoin, though) is mentioned, but he insists in suggesting Dark Wallet.... :what:

@10m57s: He is questioned, and has to go back to the subject of Darkwallet.

@17m20s, he is questioned again about the safety of using this Google Chrome plugin, DarkWallet...

And, finally, @28m40s, he mentions again Darkcoin:wink:

I am sure DASH will also be mentioned a lot next lecture, as it will be specific on the Altcoins subject.

 

[raganius]

Follow-up - Last week's video

 

[splawik21]

Follow-up - Last week's video

raganius is that you who asked the question @ 11m30s? :wink:

 

[raganius]

Yes, it was one of my questions (the other DASH related question was not even mentioned).

Even though the lecturer doesn't seem to be "very comfortable" talking about DASH (but, at the same time, have no problems talking a lot about other currencies, like Ripple or Namecoin), overall the attendees show a great deal of interest about DASH, and I am definitelly not the only one to always bring DASH to the discussions.

My questions that session were:

(answered)

Fungibility is a necessary quality for any currency.

Bitcoins are not fungible, because it is possible to track and taint any unity of BTC:

Recently, it has become fashionable in some bitcoin circles to suggest that blacklisting, or the more palatable term of redlisting, can be implemented to discourage the large-scale stealing of bitcoin wallets (www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-fungibility-essential)

With its privacy-centric solutions, DASH assures the fungibility of its currency. WithDarksend, no taint is successful upon any unit of DASH. This means more reliability for the user knows that there is no unity of DASH with more or less value than any other unit of DASH.


Is it possible that Bitcoin adopts a solution similar to what we have in the DASH network, in order to bring more assurance for the users that there are no risks of tainted coins with less or no value in his wallet (a fungible money)?

(not answered)

DASH, a cryptocurrency with around 15 million USD Market Capitalisation, has got more than2,600 full nodes (known as Masternodes).

Bitcoin, with its more than 3 billion USD Market Capitalisation, has got only around5,800 running nodes. Proportionally, is not as successful, and as a consequence, less reliable:

"The problem is, the number of nodes on the network is dropping, and core developers believe it may continue to do so."
(...)
"To function to its full potential, the bitcoin network must not only provide an avenue for transactions, but also remain secure."
(...)
"However, bitcoin doesn't just need nodes, it requires lots of fully functioning nodes – nodes that have the bitcoin core client on a machine instance with the complete block chain. The more nodes there are, the more secure the network is."
(www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-nodes-need)


Is it possible that Bitcoin adopts a solution similar to what we have in the DASH network, in order to bring more incentive for the regular user to run full nodes, and with that to make the BTC network stronger, and more reliable, by reversing this trend of full nodes count dropping?