See how the thread starts. First thing it mentions is how BBR was pumped and how other coins will be pumped if they are in the Supercoin network, all the while establishing "pumping" credentials for the OP who supposedly has the magic wand of coin valuations. Doesn't sound right at all.

The order that humans create success is something like this:

Vision => creation / doing what you do best => success

If you start with pumping motives, it's a broken formula resembling a pyramid.

My .02 DRKs.

Question: Has anyone ever anonymized a single coin with "teleport"?

Question 2: Why would BBR need "teleport" as it has a CN backend?

Question 3: Why would any coin need to be a part of a "supernetwork"? Why such emphasis on price pumping and coin valuation instead of what it would actually do as a service?

=>

From the link above:


So... the entire instamine of DRK was ~40-50 BTC in worth and these guys were mining hundreds of BTCs for Monero with 100x miners due to deliberately crippled / deliberately inefficient algorithm for public XMR miners... and DRK is the scam. Lol.

As for the gui, it's not the gui their problem. They'll rip it off from some other CN coin or something, or outsource it. It's the bloat and transaction difficulty that makes it highly problematic. I saw the other day BBR was spiking in Bittrex and people couldn't even move money from Poloniex to Bittrex directly to profit from 2x arbitrage - they had to go through their wallets, and people were afraid of losing coins by moving them off the exchange. The use of CN coins is extremely speculative due to the usability limitations and a different protocol than BTC, which requires a lot of work to make it work for payments etc - even for exchanges.

DRK is saying "bring on wide adoption", CN coins can't say that because they aren't usable or scalable. However DRK needs a good "rival" to stay honest in terms of preserving its competitive advantage so it's in DRK's best interest to assume CN coins have solvable problems and they'll be at 100% sometime soon (even if that's unlikely to happen due to design limitations of ring sigs and consequent unscalable bloat).

The lower the price, the better the gain prospect. That's how it goes. When the price was high, haters were bitching on how it is so overpriced and pumped and that's why they wouldn't buy. When the price is low "it doesn't have a future"... When the price was ultra-low (0.001x), people were criticizing "price stability" and claiming it was a reason to dump, lol.

So whether you are going up, down or sideways there's always someone to say something.

As for the price of Monero vs DRK, from the perspective of DRK, it is in DRK's best interest for Monero's price to be as high as possible so that Monero investors are sucked dry of their BTCs / USDs and when they are dried up they'll have nothing more to throw at it and it'll all crumble due to inflation.

Monero is a highly inflationary coin so high unit price + high inflation = epic BTC drain just to sustain price. This is also the reason of why there is small potential of explosive growth (as this would require tremendous funds to be kept at a sustainable level every day). Some Monero investors understand it and want to avoid a higher price. Some don't. It's as simple as that.

There's an old meme which goes by "The Internet is serious business"... to paraphrase: "Internet privacy is serious business"

To put things into perspective:

There is the temp solution (or solutions) and the perm solution.

Perm solution = the protocol makes sure everyone pays

Temp solution = semi-voluntary payments, like it's been for the last 2 months or so. It's a "workaround" used so that nodes could get paid until the perm solution is established.

Problems with temp solution = who cares, it's temp anyway

Worry-worthy issue is not having a perm solution in place over time.

Enforcement, in itself, is just a workaround to ensure compliance. In other words, enforcement is not a good solution. What is needed is a protocol-based solution that works without forking and is non-voluntary.

Well, I don't have any evidence on who's doing the selling, only my skills of observation. I believe normal people are not the issue... it's the whale who took DRK from 0.001 to 0.025. He was selling prior to RC4 too btw, in frequent red spikes (mintpal) of 1000-1500 DRK. So I believe it's not RC4 related or price disappointment related. It's just the whale exiting. When the buy orders get thicker, he dumps and sweeps the book. Or that's my take anyway.

It'll take precisely as much time as it is required for the dumper to finish. If I'm reading the situation correctly, he probably has tens of thousands left.

Nothing really. Few big dumps with thin order book took the price down.

Exactly. Even the complexity of Bitcoin is what prevents it from having wider adoption. People ask "what is Bitcoin?" and you can't really explain it properly without a mini-briefing of sorts.

Bitcoin needs to launch a campaign in which it can adequately compress its principles and functionality in a few short sentences that can be easily grasped by average Joe. Something that everyone can use in order to explain it to others.

2.0 coins are all over the place.

At this point of time Bitshares seems to have been pumped regardless, but I haven't seen any of the "small" players buying into it... they are all wondering "what does this do and why should I buy?" Large pumpers play this game and they'll wait and wait for the small money to arrive and it will never happen.

No, that's a clear disadvantage. But the target is to be seamless, like you download the client, it does all the denominations automatically and then you are ready to go. It'll take much less than downloading / syncing the XMR blockchain, I assure you. So time is not an issue.

My take is that development on core features (anonymity) is far more important than enforcing the last 5-10% of MN payments. MN payment issues have halted development on anonymity for 2 months and we kind-of paid the price for it.

Any voluntary or semi-voluntary scheme of payments is crap anyway (trusted system), so it doesn't matter if it is 85-90-95 or 99%. It needs to be 100% / trustless / non-voluntary. That's as far as the long-run is concerned. For the short-term, relieving investor pressure from people acquiring MNs and expecting to generate income, it was the right choice.

A few big dumps with thin book. Probably the pumping whale exiting which still has quite a few DRK.

Remember DRK was at 0.001x from Feb to mid-April. So a range of 0.0045-0.006 is still 4-5x which massively outperforms most major altcoins in the last 4 months, despite being down from its ATH.

As I see it, the problem with the DRK pumping is that it came in a period where DRK wasn't ready for prime time. It was back in RC1/RC2 and with the various hiccups in masternode payments it was treated like a final product. Too much pressure on development etc.

Development has actually gone far better now that the price is lower and the spotlight / huge pressure is off.


If you can't trace who sends to who, except if you are the NSA who can crack IP obfuscation technologies, then I'd say for all practical intents and purposes DRK and Cryptonote coins are the same in terms of practical anonymity. Nobody can (practically) crack them in high mixing settings. DarkSend+ (as of RC4) is not DarkSend (RC3 and prior) anymore.

If you have an NSA-proof coin you are in a different game altogether. Otherwise, if nobody except the NSA can crack it, then in terms of commercial applications DRK has the edge due to being BTC-compatible + scalable / prunable.

Heck, if the IP obfuscation protocol of DRK succeeds where TOR or I2P fails, it might even become the first coin that offers some meaningful NSA-resistance.

If you are planning to inform people to use DRK for "shady" stuff that might flag them in some territories as "illegal" (like gambling which is perfectly legal in one country and illegal in another), you can also advise them to use IP obfuscation, like TOR - until DRK has it's own obfuscation network. It's not only the blockchain that can give one away. It's also the IP.

For NSA, the IP from TOR should be crackable, but for companies like coinbase it shouldn't. A company that needs to be compliant with the law can perform a blockchain analysis (coinjoined coins = problem) or an ip analysis (tor=problem for them) and it'll come empty in both ways so they'll have to accept the coins.

If a user is paranoid, he can mix his coins another 8 times (or another 8 + 8 ) making the odds astronomical.

From a game theory perspective, the game can be played in a number of unorthodox ways. Even 0.1 XMR is nothing for a determined attacker. For if he shows that he doesn't care about the fee as he has "tons of monero to spend", then he gets to achieve his aim by acting corrosively to confidence. Investors must be able to see that the devs are on top of the situation and if countermeasures don't work it's like "oh oh, these attackers will actually destroy monero"... so you can have an attacker, whether with the intent to destroy monero or to benefit financially, where he might sell before the attack, start the attack, wait for the price to lower due to lost confidence and then buy back. He can either win financially, win in terms of eroding trust (if he is from a competing coin), or win in terms of making Monero more centralized than it needs to be. If the currency itself is vulnerable to such attacks, then it creates a problem of centralization-response where, for example, fees must be changed every now and then to deal with an attack. This creates the perception that the currency needs babysitting to operate. And high fees also defeat the purpose of the currency itself, as it becomes unusable with too high fees.

Something that happened to XMR (low cost spam attack with high mixing setting) and is also of interest to us regarding the size of tx fees which some complained about... I wrote that tx fees must be high to prevent spam attacks:

From the monero thread;


+


+


...from what I'm reading they had to issue a patch to increase tx fees to 0.1 XMR per tx or something like that, to stop the attack, lest their blockchain and coin would be rendered completely DOA.

Cheap tx fee = easily attacked blockchain. So fees must be balanced in a way where this becomes problematic for a would-be attacker.

Can we have some data on the aftermath of the attack? I'm primarily interested in

- number of transactions done in a given timeframe,
- megabytes added as bloat,
- effect in transaction speed
- total cost for the attacker

If there is anything else you find important, please share.

A cryptocurrency that has been all over the world news and press (wired, cnn, reuters, RT, bbc etc):

Wankcoin [ ]
Darkcoin [X]