I just copied them from the domain manager. Will remove the caps. Thanks for the tip

Who said anything about mixing? Argument was that a government could take down the nodes of a coin or hold people running one liable for breaking whatever law.



Exactly, masternodes and regular wallets form a decentralized network.



Source will be opened, in not so far future. And, when running a masternode, you can keep your 1000 coins in a local cold wallet, and the masternode's wallet doesn't even have to be encrypted! It doesn't hold any coins!

The reason that Amazon has so many masternodes, is because the first step-by-step guide to run one used Amazon as an example. This will change in time I'm sure. Here is the current node distribution by operator: http://drk.poolhash.org/darksend.html

If you're referring to payment id's, you do know that that's a massive security risk right? Try reading your own damn thread! This is ridiculous.

I've listed the Flaws of Darkcoin and Monero.

Darkcoin's Flaws:

1) Darkcoin has a 50% instamine by it's own developers during launch, as the block reward was set to 500, and there was no windows wallets/miners. Evan, the developer, and Internetape, the other developer, instamined over 1million Darkcoin's within 24 hours.

2) Darkcoin's name itself, Darkcoin, will always be affiliated with illegal activity like the Darkweb, Drugs, etc, and the name itself ensures that Darkcoin will never reach anything close to mainstream acceptance.

3) Darkcoin's "anonymity" is based on coinjoin, it simply mixes users coins around, making it harder to track it. However, if even the slightest taint if found when mixing the coins, an investigator will be able to deduce who sent what and who received what. The maker of coinjoin, Gmaxwell, deeply criticized Darkcoin since it's coinjoin based "anonymity" is basically a joke.

4) Darkcoin's mixing system/coinjoin relies on something called Masternodes, Masternodes are nodes that are set up by people, anyone can set one up, and Masternodes are the things that mix the coin around. Masternodes also present many risks besides giving trivial "anonymity", if all masternodes are owned by one individual, he will be able to "de-anonymize" Darkcoin and see all transactions clearly.

5) Darkcoin's Masternode Payment system has forked the network many times, and has failed Twice in the effort to pay the owners of Masternodes.

6) Darkcoin's Masternode/Darksend system is closed source, so that means the developers could be stealing coins, or doing any other malicious things, and it will remain unnoticed

7) The Masternodes can always be DDOSed, effectively shutting them down, if the majority of Masternodes were taken offline(they are mostly hosted on Amazon servers), then Darkcoin's trivial anonymity will completely shut off

There are many many other flaws, it will take up too much space to list, so I've listed the main ones.

Monero's Flaws:

1) Monero's bloating/scaling is an issue, where the blockchain itself takes up a lot of space on someone's computer, however, there have solutions to this, as shown by Crypto_Zoidberg, after he fixed this issue with his own coin. The issue has pretty much been fixed anyway, since bloating was caused by dust payments from pools, and with a recent update, those dust payments have been taken off. But because I think it will look to unfair compared to Darkcoin's 101 flaws, I had to list a "flaw" for Monero

2) That's it.

CryptoNote doesn't hide the amount and the payer is mixed with a limited number of numerous other potential payers, so the IP correlation can be used to narrow the possibilities statistically and home in on identity, by observing patterns across all users. Thus the lack of IP address obfuscation in CryptoNote (assuming Tor is really a honey pots, and or most users fail to employ Tor) reduces the anonymity. -gmaxwell


While it may not be able to scale at Bitcoin levels, Monero's chain atm is twice Bitcoins, which is very reasonable considering it gives the highest level of anonymity there is for cryptocoins right now. He also doesn't say Anything about it being impossible to reduce, why you may ask? Because Crypto_Zoidber already reduced it for his own coin and reduced bloat by 50%-70%, and Monero also reduced the majority of the bloat, which was caused by dust transactions. Again, BrilliantRocket, it's either you greatly misinterpret information given to you, or you lie and try to manipulate others with selective wording

_______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

CoinJoin’s algorithm suffers from not being atomic and thus it can be repeatedly jammed by an adversary, i.e. denial-of-service. This is because first the inputs have to be collected, then the outputs have to blind signed with a group signature, and then finally all inputs have to signed. If any one of the participant senders fails to complete all the steps, the transaction is jammed and the process must start again. All proposals for throttling or blacklisting adversaries was argued to be ineffective and intractable. Darkcoin innovated CoinJoin by adding a collateral payment which is forfeited by participants who fail to complete all steps. This requires a random master node to break the unlinkability as it knows the matching output of each input. It is assumed that not all master nodes will be adversaries and thus sending multiple times through different master nodes will provide a probablistic level of unlinkability. The master nodes are purchased and it isn’t clear that a sufficiently powerful adversary couldn't sufficiently Sybil attack by acquiring a larger percentage of the master nodes. There is also concern this might also enable the adversary to steal collateral payments. Also the master nodes aren’t untraceable and thus could perhaps be held liable by governments for breaking AML and KYC laws. CoinJoin and Darkcoin suffer from the simultaneity timing problem that other spenders need to send spends of the same amount simultaneously. -gmaxwell

Gmaxwell also shows that while Darkcoin have "advanced" coinjoin, it still suffers from the same issues, not to mention the Masternode centralization problem.

Darkcoin's anonymity is simply put, Trivial and Inferior to Cryptonote anonymity.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. At no point are the masternodes given your private keys. It is impossible for them to steal coins. That's XC you're thinking of.

I've listed the Flaws of Darkcoin and Monero.

Darkcoin's Flaws:

1) Darkcoin has a 50% instamine by it's own developers during launch, as the block reward was set to 500, and there was no windows wallets/miners. Evan, the developer, and Internetape, the other developer, instamined over 1million Darkcoin's within 24 hours.

2) Darkcoin's name itself, Darkcoin, will always be affiliated with illegal activity like the Darkweb, Drugs, etc, and the name itself ensures that Darkcoin will never reach anything close to mainstream acceptance.

3) Darkcoin's "anonymity" is based on coinjoin, it simply mixes users coins around, making it harder to track it. However, if even the slightest taint if found when mixing the coins, an investigator will be able to deduce who sent what and who received what. The maker of coinjoin, Gmaxwell, deeply criticized Darkcoin since it's coinjoin based "anonymity" is basically a joke.

4) Darkcoin's mixing system/coinjoin relies on something called Masternodes, Masternodes are nodes that are set up by people, anyone can set one up, and Masternodes are the things that mix the coin around. Masternodes also present many risks besides giving trivial "anonymity", if all masternodes are owned by one individual, he will be able to "de-anonymize" Darkcoin and see all transactions clearly.

5) Darkcoin's Masternode Payment system has forked the network many times, and has failed Twice in the effort to pay the owners of Masternodes.

6) Darkcoin's Masternode/Darksend system is closed source, so that means the developers could be stealing coins, or doing any other malicious things, and it will remain unnoticed

7) The Masternodes can always be DDOSed, effectively shutting them down, if the majority of Masternodes were taken offline(they are mostly hosted on Amazon servers), then Darkcoin's trivial anonymity will completely shut off

There are many many other flaws, it will take up too much space to list, so I've listed the main ones.

Monero's Flaws:

1) Monero's bloating/scaling is an issue, where the blockchain itself takes up a lot of space on someone's computer, however, there have solutions to this, as shown by Crypto_Zoidberg, after he fixed this issue with his own coin. The issue has pretty much been fixed anyway, since bloating was caused by dust payments from pools, and with a recent update, those dust payments have been taken off. But because I think it will look to unfair compared to Darkcoin's 101 flaws, I had to list a "flaw" for Monero

2) That's it.

CryptoNote doesn't hide the amount and the payer is mixed with a limited number of numerous other potential payers, so the IP correlation can be used to narrow the possibilities statistically and home in on identity, by observing patterns across all users. Thus the lack of IP address obfuscation in CryptoNote (assuming Tor is really a honey pots, and or most users fail to employ Tor) reduces the anonymity. -gmaxwell


While it may not be able to scale at Bitcoin levels, Monero's chain atm is twice Bitcoins, which is very reasonable considering it gives the highest level of anonymity there is for cryptocoins right now. He also doesn't say Anything about it being impossible to reduce, why you may ask? Because Crypto_Zoidber already reduced it for his own coin and reduced bloat by 50%-70%, and Monero also reduced the majority of the bloat, which was caused by dust transactions. Again, BrilliantRocket, it's either you greatly misinterpret information given to you, or you lie and try to manipulate others with selective wording

_______________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

CoinJoin’s algorithm suffers from not being atomic and thus it can be repeatedly jammed by an adversary, i.e. denial-of-service. This is because first the inputs have to be collected, then the outputs have to blind signed with a group signature, and then finally all inputs have to signed. If any one of the participant senders fails to complete all the steps, the transaction is jammed and the process must start again. All proposals for throttling or blacklisting adversaries was argued to be ineffective and intractable. Darkcoin innovated CoinJoin by adding a collateral payment which is forfeited by participants who fail to complete all steps. This requires a random master node to break the unlinkability as it knows the matching output of each input. It is assumed that not all master nodes will be adversaries and thus sending multiple times through different master nodes will provide a probablistic level of unlinkability. The master nodes are purchased and it isn’t clear that a sufficiently powerful adversary couldn't sufficiently Sybil attack by acquiring a larger percentage of the master nodes. There is also concern this might also enable the adversary to steal collateral payments. Also the master nodes aren’t untraceable and thus could perhaps be held liable by governments for breaking AML and KYC laws. CoinJoin and Darkcoin suffer from the simultaneity timing problem that other spenders need to send spends of the same amount simultaneously. -gmaxwell

Gmaxwell also shows that while Darkcoin have "advanced" coinjoin, it still suffers from the same issues, not to mention the Masternode centralization problem.

Darkcoin's anonymity is simply put, Trivial and Inferior to Cryptonote anonymity.

Are you being disingenuous or do you just suck at math? If you have twice the blockchain growth with just a tiny fraction of the transactions, what do you think will happen if you were at real volumes?

My hypothesis on the decline of darkcoin is the following.  (Not that I care much, but I'll watch it attentively for the fun).

The hype is already partly over, and will keep declining, this is inherent to the life cycle of "hype" alts. Add to this the better cryptonote technology, recently instantiated in a fair-launch coin with monero, whose high-quality community keeps growing and will quickly attract part of the darkcoin one.
So the decline seems unavoidable, but noting unusual at this stage.

But, unlike other alts, darkcoin is relying on master nodes that require at least 1000 coins. Running a masternode earns the owner some interest. What I think will happen is that once the first masternode owners realize they will make better profit by selling their +1000 coins now rather than earning interest on a coin which is loosing value, well they will sell! This will be a catalyst to lowering even more the price, making more masternode owners realize that they'd better do the same as soon as possible, etc.
So the decline might be faster than "usual", due to this domino effect, waiting to trigger.

Banned for being GAY

Here is the post I referrenced earlier. It's quite a long post, but the part concerning CN is near the middle. And please don't bring up where he says Darkcoin is simple coinjoin (older post) , he acknowledges that it isn't further down.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=557732.msg7513123#msg7513123

What a fork of the promising now is not listed on any exchange?
Could you please give a couple of links?

According to the internet archive that domain was just a parked page until Feb of *THIS* year.

It's looked like this prior to then:

Yet what you say is untrue and predicated on your nauseating need to try and get attention.

Banned for thinking a knife could solve this crisis.

Why do you think so? Open your mind,please!

 If people support the idea which you don't like, it doesn't mean that it is a "conspiracy"

What did they do that was scandalous?