You have to keep in mind that this reversed hard fork was the only way to rescue VRC at all.
If the hard fork wouln't have done 1 person would have had over 30% of all coins existing and the coin would be dead because there the hole trust would have gone. VRC is pos.
if you think that way, they reconstruted trust in the coin itself.
Either way. It's unbelivable that something like that is even possible on a modern exchange.
MP fucked up hard.
Those theoretical flaws with POS coins are not so theoretical anymore, eh? Thing is, these flaws that are now coming up where not even analyzed so much on the theoretical level. Of all the attack vectors that have been analyzed for PoS coins, there are two in particular which have been demonstrated in real life in a way that not many discussed beforehand... 1) Mining domination during the PoW distribution phase - where an exceedingly large amount of rented (or otherwise) hashpower acquires most of the coins of a new PoW/PoS coin and renders it DoA due to future 51% staking or future nothing-at-stake vector (after selling the coins). 2) Hacking a large exchange and rendering a PoS coin dead due to possible staking attack. The first can be considered "ok" if the mining phase is completed without abnormalities... but the second is an uncertainty which will always loom. You can't tie a coin's future (not in terms of price, but in terms of utility) to whether an exchange will get hacked. This is a real possibility. And I don't know whether the attack is reversible with a rollback even if the hacked transaction is reversed, as now the hacker has a copy of the chain where he has the coins and can launch a nothing-at-stake attack in the future. |
|
|
|
PoS coins "multipools" that force you to mine other coins to buy from bagholders = "feature"  and teases exchange to stake in hot wallet  Makes one appreciate masternodes more as they are keeping thousands of DRKs out of exchanges, used in service for the coin. If people have incentive to keep them out of exchanges, they will. But even if DRK or BTCs are stolen from exchanges the only effect would be in price due to possible dumping. For PoS coins, 30% of coins in circulation being stolen (if what is mentioned is right) = coin is dead from future staking attacks, whether the hacker keeps the coins or sells them (if he sells, he can then try the nothing-at-stake vector with the coins he held in the past, to attack the coin @ no cost). So from that perspective, they had no other choice but to revert. |
|
|
|
By the way what is the deal with miners feeling cheated with masternodes getting 20% cut?
More like trolls. There are hundreds of coins, why not go mine something more profitable then?
How could they troll if they did that? No fun in that. And what about PoS coins that they cannot mine? They are all scams and unfair?
PoS coins "multipools" that force you to mine other coins to buy from bagholders = "feature" |
|
|
|
|
The problem with a) promotion and b) pooping on other coins is this:
a) Promotion/marketing etc has a reverse-psychology effect to the prospective buyer (when altcoins are concerned). It's like, yeah you want me to buy your coin so that you can inflate your value and then dump on me. It also has the implied rationale that the prospective buyer is probably stupid for not recognizing the inherent value of said coin and that is why he needs to be "preached" upon and converted.
b) Pooping on other coins is like "I don't want to look at my own problems, so I have to discredit others". It implies lower self-value. If you have a vision to do something, you just do it. You don't even need to bother with others. If you are successful that's when others will bother with you.
DRK is this, BCN is that, XMR is this, BBR is that etc etc - all carry implications when said.
|
|
|
|
Well then, someone really didn't want those 8787 DRK anymore...
Same thing happened at the same time yesterday. Real conserted effort going on here. One or two people panicking I get, but when these red candles show up periodically for weeks -- standing out as outliers given the market volume, even after RC4 improvements have been made clear... Yeah, something's up. Partly, its scrypt miners. I've been back on my old LTC account at litecointalk. ASICs are forcing miners to switch off. Some have turned to x11, x13 and x15 (if that exists yet). If they mine shitcoins, they lose money. DRK is one of the few that they make money on. So there are x11 multipools that pay in DRK, we've seen those. Now we have GPU miners that can't mine scrypt, don't want to sell their GPUs because the market is saturated, and so they mine DRK. Mining supply of DRK is too small to affect daily price. If you have 2880 new coins per day, of which something like 2400-2500 go to the miners, and supposing multipools have, say, 50% of DRK hashrate, it's just 1200-1300 coins per day max for dumping - and that would have to be split in an uncoordinated manner because not all multipools would dump at the same time. |
|
|
|
If we create a forum of just good info for investors and holders, you will see Dark's value go through the roof!!
darkcointalk.org Where you been, bro? The quality of conversation here has been suffering without your input. I'm around, just posting less... Summer is not the ideal time to "melt" in front of the screen where I live... It needs moderation. |
|
|
|
Look at LTC. The #1 reason it is failing or on a road to failure is its acceptance and adoption of mining centralization. Everything else is just a by-product of this phenomena, even the use-case debate is an offshoot of this.
LTC / DOGE / PPC all lost big marketcaps in the last two-three months as DRK rose to top-3 / top-5 altcoin status and suddenly all of these started looking less "shiny". Coinmarketcap order tumbling shakes investor confidence (and vice versa => boosts investor confidence if a coin goes up in the ladder). Quoting from an older post of mine, as I was observing the downtrend of top altcoins in realtime as DRK was overtaking them: 1 Bitcoin $ 7,947,027,453 $ 619.09
2 Litecoin $ 318,843,456 $ 11.05
3 Darkcoin $ 52,733,769 $ 12.14
4 Nxt $ 46,808,290 $ 0.046808
5 Peercoin $ 45,744,698 $ 2.13
Dark is acting corrosively to the top altcoins.
Once DRK overtook DOGE, doge crashed from 100 satoshis to 50.
Ripple owner chose to sell.
PPC lost it's "next-to-LTC" position.
LTC prices are going down and down (0.021 -> 0.020 -> 0.019 -> 0.018 etc - as I had predicted it would happen). Instead of being BTC-on-steroids, it's losing money for BTC holders who bought it.
It's fair to say DRK is a catalyst. It's Platinum to Bitcoin's gold - but it doesn't need to be marketed as such. The "Dark" element can stand on its own pretty well combined with a good anonymity system.
BTC: The "gold"... The benchmark. The one constant that everyone goes to or uses as a measure. The property of gold is to be inert and resistant to corrosion for ages - as is Bitcoin. Altcoins come and go, altcoins evolve, Bitcoin stays the same and rules the market no matter what. Rich people hoard it, just like gold bars.
LTC: The "silver"... Silver is reflective and conductive (fast transfers). However it tarnishes over time and loses its "bling". It is also more abundant than gold (29m LTC vs 13m BTC). Silver coins are "brilliant" when exiting the mint but now we are in the tarnishing phase.
DRK: The "platinum"... Platinum is a catalyst and is used in specific applications for its catalytic properties. Doesn't corrode no matter what. It's also mined at much lesser quantities than gold (scarcer) at a ratio of 150 tons (platinum) to 2500 tons (gold) to 25000 tons (silver). Mining production and scarcity of DRK adequately positions it as the platinum. (4.4mn coins vs 13mn BTCs)
(warning: the above do not represent predictions for prices, just analogies of nature and cryptocurrencies)
|
|
|
|
If we create a forum of just good info for investors and holders, you will see Dark's value go through the roof!!
darkcointalk.org |
|
|
|
If DRK is widely accepted and used as a payment option what happens if I buy something using DRK and the merchant says they never received the payment? What recourse do I have to prove I actually sent it to them since the transaction is anonymous and can not be tracked in the blockchain?
Anyone? 1. Merchant generates an address for each client / order 2. You send the money to that address which was generated for you / for your order 3. The money do reach that address and they are visible in the blockchain. The only thing that is obfuscated is the money flow from you to the merchant. Otherwise, the money are in the destination address and the balance is there as it should be, so that both you and the merchant can check it. |
|
|
|
shojayxt, the transparent market is at 99%+. There are hundreds of transparent coins or means of payment that you can use right now. There is no case to be made in their favor as they DOMINATE the market. Most of us in the DRK thread believe in the explosive growth potential of something new, something like e-cash in the form of anonymous crypto. If you don't believe in it, why are you sitting all day here arguing against it, instead of simply buying transparent coins? Why did you even "buy" in the first place - if you ever? So that you can then tell us that you dumped your DRKs - if you don't even believe in anonymity and that it is a stupid idea etc etc? And that suddenly occured to you after ...masternode payments?  All the things that you are saying have been said a couple of thousands of pages ago... darkcoin? yeah good luck with that... anonymous transfers? the government will ban you... etc etc... all these and more, like "I'm ok with my BTCs", "the exchanges will not trade DRK" have already been said. A few months later DRK has made its marketcap like 20x. And it's not even close to wide adoption phase due to development. |
|
|
|
I do not want to join bagholders war but you guys are aware that enough anonymity is quite a funny idea - something is anonymous or it is not. the rest is easily achievable with bitcoin.
So is Monero NSA-proof / absolutely and fully 100% anonymous? The cryptography is recognized as unbreakable (nowadays and for some time) by academic scholars. The cryptography is one thing. Using it in a coin, over a network environment where network broadcasts can be "heard", and where there is no reliable way of 100% IP obfuscation, is another thing. |
|
|
|
I do not want to join bagholders war but you guys are aware that enough anonymity is quite a funny idea - something is anonymous or it is not. the rest is easily achievable with bitcoin.
So is Monero NSA-proof / absolutely and fully 100% anonymous? |
|
|
|
The fees stuff was all obviously "thinking aloud" as eltito stated. "What if people could bloat the blockchain with by using this option.... Then we should ....". Nothing to be concerned about.
These are things that have to be built in as design parameters. You can't expect the attack to happen and then patch. Bloat = cost. No cost = tremendous bloat for the lulz. |
|
|
|
I have DRK fat stacks and I'm fine with the idea. But there is the point that it is meant to be integral. Why should I get better anon just because I can afford it? Well, duh. That answers itself. BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT. Same reason I'm buying a Tesla Model S and you're not. Fairness has not a damn thing to do with it.
But your point is still valid. I guess it really depends on how this fattens the blockchain. Those adding fat should pay a little more. And they should pay it to the people who have to host it and mix it, the MNs. But, the bottom line question is really not there... We know there is a disparity, but is it enough to care?
Is it enough fat to warrant charging more?
In my view, fat should always need a proportional price to pay to prevent bloat attacks. If someone wants to bloat the blockchain with zero cost or low cost, that's a problem. You need to penalize attackers who can add gigabytes of bloat for peanuts (in terms of cost). |
|
|
|
AlexGR, what are you talking about? Monero is currently 2:1 size wise, growing less than twice the rate of Bitcoin.
You're trying too hard here, your bias is obvious.
Don't you understand that growing 2:1 with virtually no tx's compared to BTC (100-1000tx per block) is a problem? |
|
|
|
I tried sending some Darkcoin but I keep getting this message: 'to use denominate you must have at least 11DRK with 1 confirmation'  Why? Do you have at least 11 DRK in your wallet? |
|
|
|
DRK design is insecure at any use base: small or big
CryptoNote-based coins like XMR or BBR has scaling issues as side effects for proper anonymity when they have massive user base
In my assessment of the market segments, the claim of superior anonymity does not translate to real-world adoption due to the list of [no] and [yes] I mentioned earlier. Unless a coin can actually provide NSA-proof anonymity for the more paranoid / anti-government type people, the real-world advantage of CN coins is non-existant. If one is private for all intents and purposes except for an adversary like NSA (whether using DRK or CN-tech) then the choice will depend on other factors like usability, compatibility, etc. That's my conclusion anyway. CN must push to NSA-proof levels of anonymity to take the edge. But to do that, they'll also have to implement an NSA-proof IP obfuscation tool, which is easier said than done. Basically, DRK technology is obsolete because of CryptoNote protocol
If the CN protocol can't scale, it's technological superiority is DoA. We need a scaling assessment with an excel sheet that portrays network behavior of various CN-based coins under 10-100-1000 transactions per specified time segment, instead of speculation. We also need to measure the impact in terms of GBs bloat and extrapolate future scaling issues with various adoption % scenarios. However, in short term, DRK's buy support is much better than XMR. It is a huge advantage for day traders. I believe that DRK traders will jump out in time
Traders are always in and out all the time anyway. That's of no concern. Holders are the main concern... Why would holders "jump" when they get very high ROI for their coins through masternodes? |
|
|
|
I Loled. Brilliantrocket doesn't realize Darkcoin's marketcap is based solely on hype, they promise anonymity, while Cryptonote coins already deliver anonymity.
1. There was no hype with DRK. The promotional plan was to deliver and the market will discover it. The market discovered it in an earlier phase (late beta / RCs) than what was desired, putting unnecessary pressure in development. 2. No coin currently delivers anonymity, in the sense of NSA-proof anonymity. Privacy / moderate anonymity, yes. 3. The scaling issue of CNs is a valid concern, so instead of deflecting this to DRK, maybe you should ask CN-coin devs to do something about it. It will not hurt your investment to do so. I've personally asked for a scaling test with hundreds/thousands of transactions to assess what the various CN coins do when stressed / loaded. My request has gone to deaf ears, leaving wide open the future FUD vector of someone doing it independently and declaring them as DoA coins for mass use / proof of concept only. 1)No hype? Are you kidding? Darkcoin's proposed "anonymity" feature was released in articles on several websites That's after the market discovered Dark. Growing marketcap => media attention. The sequence of your argument is wrong. It didn't go "let's hype DRK" as some kind of marketing strategy => sites/media attention. It went "whale buyers" => growing marketcap => market attention => media attention. By the time the media had taken notice, the action had already taken place. The premise that DRK was based on hype is false. The other premise that DRK was pumped by its community is false. There are even accusations that DRK was pumped (in terms of market) by the DRK community with ...fake buys and sells. Anything imaginable has been said about DRK by the wannabe-DRKs. 2) Why do you refer to plain out Lying? I don't get why you try and lie to present your views. There's no such thing as "moderate anonymity", it's either anonymity or not. Cryptonote coins so far, are the only coins in the crypto world to have anonymous sending.."NSA-proof" anonymity huh, if you want to go that road, the NSA could easily buy up all the darkcoin nodes, and undo Darkcoins coinjoin mixing "anonymity".
Lying? Lol. The argument here is simple. If the "privacy" is good for all cases except an adversary like the NSA, and this applies for both DRK and BCN-clones, then what difference does it make to the average joe who wants to conceal his transactions? The NSA can still find him but all the rest can't. So the "superior anonymity" is of little tangible benefit if it can't take it up past the final barrier. Imagine the following scenario where a table is presented with something like the following: DRK vs BCN: Are transactions transparent to ordinary people? [no] / [no] Are transactions transparent to advanced analysis by knowledgeable people? [no] / [no] Are transactions transparent to pattern recognition? [no] / [no] Are transactions transparent to 99% of the governments out there? [no] / [no] Are transactions transparent to the NSA? [yes] / [yes] So the "superior anonymity" issue goes out the window in this case. The game changing aspect is if you lock NSA out of the game, changing the last answer to [yes] for DRK and [no] for the other coin. And it'll be even better if one manages to make the transactions NSA-proof for the equipment that NSA will have in the next 10-20-30 years - instead of the current one. Kind of like Will the current transactions be transparent to the NSA in a few decades? [no] As for the "easily buy all nodes" part, there's a tremendous price increase as liquidity dries up in the market. It's not that easy as you make it sound. There's a different price per node for 100 masternodes, 1000 masternodes and 4400 masternodes (4.4mn DRKs in circulation). The acquisition of an increasing percentage will make the marketcap skyrocket to billions pretty fast. From a game theory perspective that won't work for the NSA as it would also have to do it for all coins which then adopt and implement DarkSend / nodes. This means they can't afford billions per coin to buy nodes. They need a different game plan. 3) The scaling issue has been largely addressed with the pool software being updated to stop dust transactions.
The scaling issue is inherent in the design. |
|
|
|
This makes no sense. We know that socialist programs are an unsustainable burden. How does it transform in to the opposite, a strength, when used for an unintended end?
Unintended end? Like gambling with a cryptocurrency? Riiiiight... That'll teach them!!!When you dump fiat for gold/silver/cryptos, you are actually harming their fiat scam money and their capacity to go on with it indefinitely. You're right about all of this, but it still misses the point.
No I agree with the point, I'm just saying the act of taking the welfare must be done in a double-conscious level in which one doesn't register subconscious suggestions of self-limitation which usually follow the action when one is unaware of it. I'm perfectly capable of attaining a thing by my own means. But does that mean I won't pick up a $100 if I see it lying on the sidewalk? Duh!
Pavement = no subconscious catch. Government = subconscious catch. Needs extra awareness before proceeding. |
|
|
|
I think you're missing the point on the "welfare to drk" argument...
I have no desire to get free stuff from a government that I'd prefer did not exist.
But, since it's there... And it's giving away money... That I can use to buy DRK... And that money was stolen from me with threat of force and murder anyway... It's kinda stupid to NOT take advantage of it... Especially since socialism dies from internal burden... So... Uh... Why not increase the burden while making your wallet.dat fatter? It's already there... It's the best way to collapse socialism... And you get more drk... Where's the problem?
The problem is mostly one of subconscious manipulation. If one is aware of the implications he can work around it by rationalizing it (taking back my own money). Government "aid" is intended to create useless people. Our thought stream is dual, not singular and as such all our thoughts and actions produce an implied thought / self-suggestion. If I steal (conscious act) = I'm useless to attain something with my own means / intelligence (subconscious and limiting self-admission generated as a byproduct of my act) If I take government "aid" (conscious act) = I'm useless to make money with my own means / intelligence (subconscious and limiting self admission as a byproduct of my act when I took the money). Most government "aid" programs are utilized to reduce the population from do-ers to parasites, through implied subconscious suggestions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
