Won't be in a bull market until we are firmly closed and above the downward trendline from the all-time highs drawn through respective swing highs, which right now looks like around $415-425. Personally, I would still want to see a close above the pivot high of $454 set on stamp. Well to get to those numbers you just laid out the market has to turn somewhere... and all that article is saying is that the turning point is now. We'll see. I agree that it might be too early to use the term "bull market", but as with most terms not all people use them in the same way.  |
|
|
|
It looks like everyone wants their 15min of fame.  Yeah. This really starting to get silly. |
|
|
|
hi.please help meeeeeeeeeeeeeee.my dark coin to wallet http://darkcoin-e.com/ and all my dark coin not send to any address dark coin.whyyy?  ? after 1 months is Processing and not complete yet. and i send email too cantact support and not Response .please help me.i lost all my dark coin what was your darkcoin wallet address there? Wasn't that website outed as a scam? I remember seeing something from tunfa... |
|
|
|
Amazing...this is definitely a post instantX feature. Just out of curiosity - what happened to masternode IP obfuscation using the IP unwrapping/layering tech?? Same question here.  Actually, I would love to see a list of upcoming features with the order they will be worked on. In my head that is: 1. Darksend Rewrite/Improvements/Hardening 2. InstantX 3. IP Obfuscation 4. 2 Factor Authorization Evan (other Dev team members), is this correct? Also, more importantly, can a list like this be officially maintained? Dates are not needed, but as a community member just knowing the development plan a few months in the future would be nice. |
|
|
|
|
Guys, you need to be patient with the mixing. Depending on network conditions it may take several days even for a small amount of DRK. It is just a simple issue of adoption.
If you legitimately think you have found a bug or if the mixing has made 0 progress after a long time send your debug file to Evan and I am sure he will take a look.
|
|
|
|
What is the lowest amount drk you can succesfully use darksend atm? Is there a limit?
The lowest denomination in this version is 0.1 DRK so should be able to Darksend that with no problem. Exactly, technically you could send 0.001DRK anonymously, but you would still spend the whole 0.1 input. The excess goes to the miner/MNs as a transaction fee. Is that correct? |
|
|
|
Have updated to .10.16.15. Am I correct in understanding that I can start darksend mixing without incurring costs? At this point I have relatively few coins and don't want to loose any to fees, but I would very much like to see how it works. That big button is sooo tempting...
Correct, mix away it's free. Well it is not exactly free...  You will be charged once every ~20 rounds of Darksend. So it is free if you are only planning on a few rounds and are not really unlucky. |
|
|
|
Hmm I wonder if there is a way to use transaction locking to help with randomizing the fees. Have the number of blocks that the fees are frozen for be a randomized number between 3 and 8. The fee is not spendable anymore and will be deducted, but the transaction is off chain until the randomized amount of time? My brain hurts.
Very interesting idea... |
|
|
|
add the fees to InstantX - Give people the option to pay for first class mail, vs. second class mail.
That's it! So we would have a few different fee-permutations. How much would each cost? 1) user makes transaction without darksend and without Instant TX 2) user makes transaction with darksend and without Instant TX 3) user makes transaction without darksend and with Instant TX 4) user makes transaction with darksend and with Instant TX But Darksend and instantx are separate. Evan already said that instantx will not speed up Darksend. Does somebody have the quote? It was from a few days ago. |
|
|
|
I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?
Posted this over at DCT as well, but... Three thoughts/questions: 1. How exactly would this new fee --say, to the masternodes -- be enforced? 2. I thought the DS transaction fee was there not just to prevent Sybil attacks but also to ensure DS blocks get processed immediately by miners. I remember the days of 0.001 fees when RC4 was released and DS rounds >1 not working because of this issue. 3. This seems like a lot more work compared to adding a fees mixing phase. Is there some technical reason why the fee mixing phase can't be done or is a bad idea? 1. I'm thinking the user will pay for Darksend access for a period of time. For example, you do one transaction for 0.1 to the Darksend access address, this is the very first thing you do when Darksend starts. Then you send that transaction ID, and a signature proving you own the input. That gives you access to darksend for 1 day or something. 2. You're correct. That's what the hard fork is for. 3. I think there's a problem with the fee mixing phase. That would be much easier, but every round of a darksend would still go back to 1 Darksend fee mixing transaction. So you could follow a transaction from round 8,7...1. If you control the last masternode, you could tell who owns the final Darkcoin. no brainer. lose the fees. add the fees to InstantX - Give people the option to pay for first class mail, vs. second class mail. With no fees people would spam attack the network with Sybil identities and bloat up the blockchain via Darksend. @eduffield As for the duration fee, thinking about it more I now think it may not work well as spammers can still spam during that window. Maybe the 0.05 fee is enough to keep them away, dunno... |
|
|
|
I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?
Posted this over at DCT as well, but... Three thoughts/questions: 1. How exactly would this new fee --say, to the masternodes -- be enforced? 2. I thought the DS transaction fee was there not just to prevent Sybil attacks but also to ensure DS blocks get processed immediately by miners. I remember the days of 0.001 fees when RC4 was released and DS rounds >1 not working because of this issue. 3. This seems like a lot more work compared to adding a fees mixing phase. Is there some technical reason why the fee mixing phase can't be done or is a bad idea? 1. I'm thinking the user will pay for Darksend access for a period of time. For example, you do one transaction for 0.1 to the Darksend access address, this is the very first thing you do when Darksend starts. Then you send that transaction ID, and a signature proving you own the input. That gives you access to darksend for 1 day or something. 2. You're correct. That's what the hard fork is for. 3. I think there's a problem with the fee mixing phase. That would be much easier, but every round of a darksend would still go back to 1 Darksend fee mixing transaction. So you could follow a transaction from round 8,7...1. If you control the last masternode, you could tell who owns the final Darkcoin. Thank you. After hearing your response I now support this plan. |
|
|
|
I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?
Posted this over at DCT as well, but... Three thoughts/questions: 1. How exactly would this new fee --say, to the masternodes -- be enforced? 2. I thought the DS transaction fee was there not just to prevent Sybil attacks but also to ensure DS blocks get processed immediately by miners. I remember the days of 0.001 fees when RC4 was released and DS rounds >1 not working because of this issue. 3. This seems like a lot more work compared to adding a fees mixing phase. Is there some technical reason why the fee mixing phase can't be done or is a bad idea? |
|
|
|
On one hand the return of the obvious trolls is annoying, but on the other hand they remind me of the May run up to 0.025.  |
|
|
|
If you believe that, then you don't understand how it works. The whole process is off-blockchain, so there is no information left to source. Not to mention that the person who came up with coinjoin sudoku and questioned its anonymity is the SAME person(K. Altas) that vouches for DRK improved implementation of coinjoin. Talk about a poor trolling attempt, LOL. |
|
|
|
any good news for DRK?
joining in a big exchange?
Been lots of great news lately. Check it out: To sum up recent events of DRK:1) Leak of possible merge between DRK & SDC, discussed by the community, Evan pulled the plugs. ( cancelled) 2) Rumor of OKCoin.com adding DRK on their (FIAT) exchange. 3) DRK featured on FOX 26 news (6-nov-2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YQnYpc52ks4) DRK discussed on Bloomberg TV (6-nov-2014): http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-11-06/can-bitcoin-stocks-hold-up-against-the-feds5) Evan testing first InstantX (INSTANT) transaction successfully in ~2 SECONDS: I just got multiple masternodes to form consensus, lock inputs, literally took 2 seconds to lock the transaction in place... then I tried to spend the same inputs for a higher fee. Works!
2014-11-07 01:13:18 ERROR: CTxMemPool::acceptableInputs()::InstantX : invalid transaction, conflicts with existing transaction lock CTxIn(COutPoint(365de7e2831dc8b85c2c94fef5f2b98e86a95e301879c5b3460db69df757deb9, 0), scriptSig=3046022100e2ca0a35ab1373)
6) Enforcement enabled, 100% compliant: Enforcement is a success! We officially have 100% payment compliance and no forks on the network anywhere.
7) Darkcoin v0.10.15.21, bloom filters ( -90% outbound traffic), load reduction of ~70%: Darkcoin - v0.10.15.21If you are running a masternode on a VPS, I highly suggest you update to 15.21. This update reduces outbound traffic by 90%+ (which is what amazon charges for) by implementing bloom filters. Also load has been drastically reduced by about 70%. https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v10-15-onyx-release.2683/PS. Enforcement is on, everything looks good  8 ) Confirmed: Evan will be speaking at the Virtual Crypto Convention. 9) First InstantX Demonstration Ever: Quote and add up in case I missed something, please bump! |
|
|
|
For those wondering about why DRK price has rose so fast in the last 72 hours here is the news summary: *this is collated from the posts of others with a few edits* 1. Rumor of OKCoin.com adding DRK on their (FIAT) exchange. 2. DRK featured on FOX 26 news (6-nov-2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YQnYpc52ks3. DRK discussed on Bloomberg TV (6-nov-2014): http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-11-06/can-bitcoin-stocks-hold-up-against-the-feds4. Evan testing first InstantX (INSTANT) transaction successfully in ~2 SECONDS (likely to be closer to 20 seconds when network latency is taken into account): I just got multiple masternodes to form consensus, lock inputs, literally took 2 seconds to lock the transaction in place... then I tried to spend the same inputs for a higher fee. Works!
2014-11-07 01:13:18 ERROR: CTxMemPool::acceptableInputs()::InstantX : invalid transaction, conflicts with existing transaction lock CTxIn(COutPoint(365de7e2831dc8b85c2c94fef5f2b98e86a95e301879c5b3460db69df757deb9, 0), scriptSig=3046022100e2ca0a35ab1373)
5. Enforcement enabled, 100% compliant: Enforcement is a success! We officially have 100% payment compliance and no forks on the network anywhere.
6. Newest Darkcoin Wallet v0.10.15.21, bloom filters ( -90% outbound traffic), load reduction of ~70%: Darkcoin - v0.10.15.21If you are running a masternode on a VPS, I highly suggest you update to 15.21. This update reduces outbound traffic by 90%+ (which is what amazon charges for) by implementing bloom filters. Also load has been drastically reduced by about 70%. https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v10-15-onyx-release.2683/ 7. Confirmed than Evan will be speaking at the virtual crypto convention. 8. Video demonstration of InstantX |
|
|
|
Thanks for the video. Very very impressive! I am looking forward to public testing on testnet. |
|
|
|
Ok, so as i'm trying my first actual attempt at mixing... 30 minutes in, I would say either there's a problem or the interface leaves a LOT to be desired for...
0% done.. the message just keeps switching between Submitted to masternode, waiting in queue to Darksend is idle... I have no idea (i haven't really been paying attention the last couple months) if this is normal or not or if this isn't working... from a novice standpoint, it feels like it's not working?
I had a similar experience as well. I set the mixing at 20 DRK/8 rounds and let it roll all night. The next day I had 1 self-payment and ten 0.00125 fees. The status bar was at 100% but my anonymous funds still read 0. My total balance was greater than 20 DRK so shouldn't the mixing have stopped after reaching 20 DRK. And I was under the impression that the 0.00125 DRK fee was per round of mixing. If so, why did I have 10 such fees? I guess my understanding of how it is suppose to work, or how it's suppose to look like when it's working, is lacking a bit. Anyone care to enlighten a fellow long time supporter? its 0.0125 fees per mixing round.. so its not unusual to get charged 8x 0.0125 fees or more for 8 mixing rounds. The reason that its still trying to mix is because it hasnt reach the 8 rounds yet for all yr inputs (if you hover yr mouse over yr completion bar it will show the average of the set rounds) you can also put coin control on in the wallet (setting - options - display - display coin control features) and check in the send - inputs - list mode the darksend rounds that have been reached per amount so far. Setting the rounds in your options back to the minimal reached rounds will get those inputs into yr Darksend Balance. Thanks qwizzie. So here's another noob question; since I stopped the mixing before completion, will it pick up where it left off if I start it again or did I loose those fees for nothing? It will pick up where it left off. The current number of mixing rounds each of your coins (separated into "inputs") has gone through is bookkept in coin control. When each input reaches 8 (the number you set) then the mixing is finished regardless of if it was stopped and restarted or mixed all at once. |
|
|
|
Enforcement is a success! We officially have 100% payment compliance and no forks on the network anywhere.
A BIG milestone was just toppled! Thank you for the many months of work you and the rest of the team put in to get this right. At this moment, I am a very satisfied investor. Next Up: InstantX  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
