Dash Vs Monero… is Dash flawed?

In this video I'll be discussing the "war"
situation between Dash and Monero. If you don't know what I'm talking about,
you can try to search anything related to the features of Dash, especially anonimity
and decentralization, and watch people from Monero and Dash fighting over it. The purpose of this video is not to pass judgments
on Dash or Monero, but to display how these coins solved different issues that are in
Bitcoin, and how some solutions led to conflicts with the principles that made cryptocurrency
attractive in the first place, like decentralization, for example. This video will also explain to you why anonimity
or privacy is not a joke and is very necessary when talking about money, even if you're one
of those who say "I have nothing to hide", thinking that this will never affect you. OK, Let's begin: I'll discuss the two main
issues these coins tried to improve over Bitcoin: 1. Privacy
2. Speed of transactions and scalability 1. Privacy
2. Speed of transactions and scalability 1. Privacy
2. Speed of transactions and scalability Let's start with privacy, and let's start
with simple examples related to Bitcoin.

First, I'll shock you with some piece of information
that you may not be familiar with. Say that you have a single Bitcoin, and I
have one too. Question: Does your Bitcoin have the same
value of mine? You may say "Suuuure", they're both Bitcoin,
what's the difference? It's one Bitcoin here and there. Actually the answer is: "Not necessarily".

Yes, you heard that right, our Bitcoins don't
necessarily have the same value. The reason is: Blacklisting. To explain how this happens, let's recall
that a few years ago there was a blackmarket called "Silk Road". It sold many illegal items including drugs. This marketplace used Bitcoin for a while. Now since all Bitcoin transactions are publicly
available on a public ledger, which is called "Blockchain", blacklisting can happen when
your Bitcoin has some dark history related to it, some illegal activity, like trading
on Silk Road, buying weed, or even donating to some organization that someone doesn't
like.

Even if it happened a 100 transactions ago. The problem here is that in a successful peer-to-peer
payment system, this shouldn't be the case. When you pay with cash, no one tracks the
serial numbers of the cash you use before accepting it, because it's tedious. Funny enough, there is a study that showed
that 90% of the american dollars have traces of drugs on them, and yet no one tracks cash
by serial number. Ironic isn't it? But then why does this happen with digital
money? The answer: it's because it's very easy to
do it.

The fact that it's very easy and programmable
to track money on the Blockchain is a big problem for end users. Let's go back to the story. So now what happens with your blacklisted
Bitcoin? since your Bitcoin is blacklisted, normal exchanges will not accept it, and you
can't use it in regular market, which means you're gonna have to sell it with a big discount
probably in the blackmarket to get some of its value back. This effectively means that your blacklisted
Bitcoin doesn't have the same value as mine, even if you weren't the guy who did the crime
and have absolutely nothing to do with it. Do you see now why not all Bitcoins share
the same value? The property that is used technically to describe
this feature of assets is called "Fungibility". An asset is called fungible if all its units
have the same value. As we explained, for a coin to be fingible,
for a digital coin to be fungibile, it's necessary for it to be private and transactions should
not be traceable.

I hope this explains why privacy is a very
serious concern when dealing with digital money. I hope this explains why privacy is a very
serious concern when dealing with digital money. So the question now is, what did people do
to solve this problem with Bitcoin? It's a real problem that was there. In an attempt to make Bitcoin anonymous, something
called the "Bitcoin mixer" was invented. A mixer basically takes Bitcoins from many
sources, puts them all in one big pile, and redistributes them. This ruins traceability, but I don't see how
it fixes the blacklisting issue, and I don't think it does. The reason why this doesn't solve fix the
blacklisting problem, is that it's easy to mark all coins coming from a mixer as blacklisted. Done, it's over. There's nothing to fix anymore, once they're
marked blacklisted. On the contrary, you took one coin that's
blacklisted and you ruined all the other coins by making them blacklisted, because you put
them in one pile. This doesn't solve the problem. However, the Bitcoin mixer is useful for inducing
anonimity.

There's no way to know where this money came
from, unless you gain access to the mixer system and see what's happened in there and
who sent what. One issue with such a mixer is that we're
assuming here that the mixer is trustable. This is why it's said that anonimity in a
mixer "requires trust".

If the mixer is compromised or gave you up
for some reason, the identities related to the transactions may be compromised. This even goes beyond trust. A few months ago we learned from Wikileaks
that the CIA has whole divisions that finds vulnerabilities in software to use them against
their targets, instead of reporting them to be fixed. And btw, we're not asserting here that the
CIA as an organization has bad intentions, because this point may be controversional. You can simply imagine that a single corrupt
individual that works in the CIA could ruin your life, because he has the power. An example of a similar situation is Edward
Snowden, who ignored his company's policy and decided to do something different, albeit
publicly and for different reasons. This basically undermines the privacy of such
mixers. Even worse, what if the CIA itself or some
hostile organization buys into such mixers secretly, it would be a mess. After we've learned about mixers and their
potential issues, let's start talking about Dash a little and discuss what Dash offers
there.

You can look at the groups that run the Dash
network as three groups: 1. The typical miners that maintain and run the
blockchain, which is the ledger of all the transactions that happen on the network 1. The typical miners that maintain and run the
blockchain, which is the ledger of all the transactions that happen on the network 2. The master nodes, which is an authority and
every m asternode has voting rights 3. The company administration, which runs the
software development of Dash and the marketing campaigns The company administration, which runs the
software development of Dash and the marketing campaigns In Bitcoin and Monero, the miners take 100%
of the mining reward, which means that a miner who successfully collects submitted transactions
and creates a block to be part of the blockchain receives a reward that he doesn't have to
share with anyone. On the other hand, in Dash, the mining reward
is distributed as 45% for the miner, and a 45% for the master nodes, and finally a 10%
for the company's administration.

If you're wondering why the master nodes are
paid, they are paid for 3 services they proivide: 1. They keep a copy of the blockchain; 2. they support Instant Send; 3. they support Private Send. Private send is basically the crux of privacy
in Dash. So how does Dash introduce privacy? Dash basically took the Bitcoin Mixer idea,
and bundled it in the Dash system. That's it. So it's a Dash mixer that is executed by the
masternodes. People who are against this say that this
is a system that requires trust, because we don't have to trust master nodes in general. Or at best, even if we trust master nodes,
how can we be sure that master nodes have sufficient security to protect information? Can we really be sure? Remember the CIA examples I made before? Imagine now that any organization can buy
Dash masternodes, which costs 1000 dash, btw, and gain power in the network.

Can it be any worse? I don't think so. Not only that transactions are compromised,
but we also have the illusion that they're private. One more issue with Dash's privacy is that
it's optional, which is viewed as ridiculous by many people. The reason viewing it this way is very simple:
If privacy is optional, then it's easy to forbid it by rejecting all Dash coins that
have Private Send history, and hence destroying fungibility, which was the main reason why
we did all this; why we started all this privacy thing. Once this is established, then Dash's privacy
is useless, because no one can use it, and then it's easy to ban certain activities,
such as donations to institutions that don't follow some unpreferred agenda, and here we
are at the problem of what's criminal and what's not a criminal, and organizations start
taking sides, and fungibility is lost, and instead of dealing with money as money, we
start testing whether money is blacklisted every time we have to use it.

This is basically the contention of the people
who criticize Dash's privacy. In other simpler words, Dash potentially has
all the privacy problems that Bitcoin has due to the fact that it uses a mixer that
requires trust and that's optional. Now Monero on the other hand, has trustless
privacy. Meaning: Privacy that is embedded in the system
and doesn't require trusting any third parties. Privacy in Monero is done through cryptography,
using Ring Signatures. With Monero, it's not possible to track the
sender or receiver of a transaction, period. There's no exceptions; there's nothing special;
there's no trust. That's why Monero coins are fungible. Now obviously Monero wins the fungibility
contest. Now I personally think that one of the reasons
why people keep arguing about Monero vs Dash is that Dash tried to introduce privacy, but
did it really bad.

From my perspective, I don't see Dash as a
private coin in anyway, but I see that it has other features, like the possibility of
doing very fast transactions, which is the next topic. At this point, I'd like to make the distinction
between scalability and the speed of transactions. From a technical point of view, I see that
scalability means that the network should retain the same transaction processing rate
when the number of transactions submitted increases. In other words: The speed of processing a
transaction and confirming it should be roughly independent of the number of transactions
submitted to the network. Meaning, for example, if we submit 1000 transactions/sec
or 1 million transactions/sec, the speed of processing transactions should not change,
regardless of whether it's 1 hour or 1 day. That's what I call scalability. On the other hand, transaction speed or confirmation
speed is the property that requires setting a deadline for calling a service successful. For example, when I need to make a transaction
to buy a cup of coffee, it should not take more than 10 seconds.

Taking more than 10 seconds is a failure in
the system. Regardless of the state of the network; regardless
whether 1000 transactions are submitted or 1 million or one. This property I would call transaction speed
or confirmation speed. This is often confused with scalability. I'm making this distinction because Dash and
Monero have different characteristics in each of these features. So, how do Dash and Monero compare there? I'll give you the summary: Dash doesn't have
a dynamic scalability solution, while Monero does. I'll give you the summary: Dash doesn't have
a dynamic scalability solution, while Monero does. On the other hand, Monero doesn't have a fast
transaction solution, while Dash does. Let's start with scalability, which is directly
proportional to the block size.

If you're wondering a block is, it's basically
the smallest unit of the blockchain, and it's the smallest unit that can be added to a blockchain
at a time by a miner. When a miner successfully creates a new block,
it means that new transactions have been written to the ledger. It matters because every new block is considered
a confirmation for all the transactions that happened before.

You probably have heard of the Bitcoin Segwit2x
debate. This whole argument was about changing the
block size from 1 MB to 2 MB, in the interest of improving scalability. The size of a block in the Dash system has
a fixed value, just like Bitcoin, but can be changed with human intervention. This is the same Bitcoin Segwit2x problem
that we saw before, except that Dash has a voting system to decide when to do it, which
is a good thing, I'd say much better than the ridiculous Segwit2x parody we saw with
Bitcoin. At least this contributes to keeping the market
stable in Dash. On the other hand, Monero has a dynamic block
size that changes whenever the number of transactions increases within the last 100 blocks. So again, Monero wins in scalability. Now let's talk about speed of transactions
or confirmation speed. I have to be clear and say that this is a
problem with all distributed system, so all non-centralized cryptocurrencies have this
problem. So far, from a technical point of view, there's
no way to make fast transactions without centralization; this is because distributed systems use the
Gossip protocol to deliver messages to everyone in the network, which takes a long time.

If you're not familiar with the gossip protocol,
the Gossip protocol simply means that every node tells the nodes connected to it. So unless the system is centralized, there's
no way to fix this based on current technology. This is actually how Bitcoin is planning to
solve the problem by introducting the lightning network. The lightning network is a place where you
deposit some of your coins, and then that network will act as a centralized entity to
process your transactions, without having to pass every little thing you do to the blockchain.

Ripple, which is another cryptocurrency that's
made specially for banking, solved this problem because it's centralized and its transactions
are fast now with a rate of about 3.6 seconds. Now talking about Monero, Monero doesn't have
any fast transaction solution. There are plans to create something equivalent
to the lightning network for it. That's all to say about it. There's nothing else. On the other hand, Dash does have fast transactions
solution, which is called "Instant Send". The centralized entity there is the master
nodes, and transactions there take a few seconds when using Instant Send. So in fast transactions, Dash wins over Monero. While Dash solved the problem of fast transactions
with master nodes, many are not happy with the idea of master nodes. I've found many contentions on the idea including
the following: 1. Not everyone can be a master node, because
you need at least 1000 Dash in your posession to be a master node.

If a single dash costs 500 Euros, then one
needs half a million Euros to become a master node. It's considered unfair because some people
were just lucky and mined when the system started when dash was very cheap. The question comes as: Why should those people
have authority in the system and reap the fruits of the miners? 2. While cryptocurrency can be seen as a transfer
of wealth from central banks to a new kind of people, the system of master nodes that
only requires the posession of a certain amount of Dash makes it easy for the system to be
owned by a new monarchy that acts just like central banks, which basically defeats the
purpose of cryptocurrency, which is having decentralized money that's not controlled
by any authorities.

In other words: The Dash network is available
for sale. If you pay a few billions, it's all yours
and every miner will be paying you for the rest of their lives! Yes, I know. You think that's crazy. But while we talk about cryptocurrency as
a replacement of money, think of what would happen if some authority was able to buy the
dollar currency, with all its authority and value, and just for a few billion dollars. And I'd like to emphasize that what I'm saying
here is not my personal opinion. This is what I gathered in my journey when
learning about the war between Dash and Monero. To come to the conclusion of this video: 1. The primary contention of people on Dash is
that it solves the problems that are caused by decentralization by creating new centralized
entities that have unjustified perks, where a new monarchy can easily be created by whoever
pays. 2. Monero doesn't have a fast transaction solution,
but it solved every other problem Dash claimed to have solved with no loopholes.

The only problem I see with Monero is that
it's difficult to use, because it primarily uses command line tools. This is no problem for me personally, because
I'm a software dev, but I saw people often complain about this and this might be a problem
against mainstream adoption. On the bright side though, the Monero team
keeps developing GUI (Graphical User Interface) tools over time to make it easier. On the bright side though, the Monero team
keeps developing GUI (Graphical User Interface) tools over time to make it easier. I hope you enjoyed this video, please like
and subscribe, and click on that bell to receive notifications on everything new from my channel. What's your opinion on this war? Do you think Dash is flawed? Let me know in the comments and tell me what
you think.

You May Also Like