What I can't understand is what took days and days for a 1 page whitepaper  |
|
|
|
It says "pending".
I had that happen to me last fork. And it was DURING the fork. So I almost crapped myself out. 1 tx took over 1:30mins to hit the blockchain from my wallet to Mintpal! I had to re-broadcast the tx. It sucks, but there is a usual bottleneck effect when there is a huge surge of tx going on. Be patient. If Crapsty confirmed, it will eventually show up. You can't really lose coins in a fork so there is no need to panic. It will either be on your side, or their side. The most damage that can happen is that ...you can double the coins so that it's both in the exchange AND your wallet. But that's highly unlikely to happen. It can bring up some inconveniences though if an exchange sees it has sent the money and it hasn't actually done so, so they'll have to do it manually or something when everyone is back on the right fork. |
|
|
|
This is the problem with BBR.. 85K coins! At anytime you can be dumped on!  It's not there anymore though. And you think this is not true with XMR or BTC? I think you know the answer. I should have explained my message better. BBR has a GPU mining problem as its GPU isnt open source. The one using is has a way better advantage against the CPU miner since its using a different algorythm that crytonight (wild kekak i think). Why don't they just issue a bounty to have a GPU *public* miner done for them? DRK did that before even private GPU miners came to X11 (a cpu whale scared everyone into thinking a GPU miner was on the loose - but as it proved later on, GPU miners weren't that fast with X11) so as to avoid the selfish GPU miner scenario. I think it was ~3500 DRK as a bounty back in mid Feb... |
|
|
|
Guys this coin has so much potential. we really need a GUI wallet, this is a huge priority right now. the average person needs to be able to save there coins on there own computer. leaving them on exchanges is risky. and i dont think million dollar investors want to bring out ms dos command lines, it just makes this feel really unprofessional. Im willing to fund it, im sure many more are also, we need to crowd fund someone to smash out a GUI wallet.
You guys are forgetting what monero is, its a coin, a currency, which needs to be easily used. how many people would use debit cards if you had to do a double backflip and solve a rubix cube in 10 seconds before you use it. none. we need ease of use. if the coins not usable then its nothing, just a chunk of irrelevant data in a blockchain.
If we have a 5million dollar market cap on a coin which is basically unusable to the average user, imagine what we could have with a professional approach to it? 100million? easy.
Currently Monero uses ~1.6gb - 2.2gb of RAM. Everyone has to run a full node, and if you have incoming ports (manually or via UPNP) Monero can easily max out a 20mbps line. Is that the experience we want to deliver to end users? The bandwidth issue should be easily solved with some kind of bandwidth-limiting feature like an option -bwuplimit 500 (kbps) -bwdownlimit 2000... The ram issue, ok. But keep in mind that in the future Monero can be FUD'ed by quoting posts that show GUI wasn't been implemented on purpose while other CN-coins had GUI. This would "imply" an artificial barrier of entry for "noobs" so that a select clique can profit from their tech-geekiness etc. So get a working GUI ready and just throw a window warning that this is beta software or something and problems are to be expected. Regarding implementation problems, try to fix those which would make Mintpal list and then de-list the coin due to re-occuring issues (crashing its price with panicked investors who can't even draw the money back to their wallets). These issues should be known by now through the Poloniex experience. |
|
|
|
When you are going to see "Dark"coin on a merchant, you can be sure that something illegal is behind and with the false centralized anon tech behind , its going to be a treasure for anti criminal organisation.
English lessons are in order: Thesaurus Legend
Adj. 1. centralized - drawn toward a center or brought under the control of a central authority; "centralized control of emergency relief efforts"; "centralized government"
centralised
decentralised, decentralized - withdrawn from a center or place of concentration; especially having power or function dispersed from a central to local authorities; "a decentralized school administration"
Coins with a central mixer = centralized. Example Fedoracoin, XC in its first implementation, coins using an exchange for laundering etc. All of these examples use a centralized mixer or laundering service. Coins where there can be a thousand nodes, setup by the very users of the network (all over the world) to process transactions are not "center". The function is distributed / dispersed and is hence DEcentralized. Centralized = the authorities can go to one place and shut the one and only central mixer down. Decentralized = the authorities need to take down hundreds / thousands of nodes all over the globe. |
|
|
|
Anyone knows what Evan has been up to lately? If not, my guess is that he is preparing a sick announcement for RC4 tomorrow after hard fork.
Given the path that we followed from alpha-beta etc, usually stuff related to DarkSend were first tested on testnet to check them out for problems... I doubt RC4 will go online straight away as without testing it might break existing functionality. It's a 50mn coin right now, you can't just put large updates without test. But even when it was 1-2mn coin, we still went the testnet route first. So probably we'll first see a call for testing RC4 features, when some of these are ready, and then => RC4 announcement. As for price, I recommend keeping some cash in reserve to chew panic sellers if something goes wrong. No matter how well tested it is, masternode payments are a big hack to the protocol and they may still present problems. This is not FUD, it's just the way it is regarding such fundamental changes. Let's say the right attitude this time round is "cautiously optimistic". |
|
|
|
This isn't one bit anonymous. Once a spend sources coins from multiple addresses, they're permanently linked on the public ledger.
Since verifying signatures always implicates the public key holding the funds, a non-mixed transaction has zero privacy. That's the case here - no improvement at all over Bitcoin.
Nice to already jump to conclusions but shouldn;t we wait until dev announces and explains how he made it work? Dev has a good reputation so I would not say he can't deliver just like that. I so hate all these Fudsters, it's the same thing with every coin that has potential, competitors trying to destroy the current runner up instead of making their own coin better. THIS is why we cannot have nice things... those clever assholes who think they are so great that they should share their mindfarts with the world have destroyed so many good possibilities last couple of months, I truly hope investers and miners start to see the light and just ignore all FUD. If you don't sell low the price will not crash, it's fucking easy like that, now HOLD! Not everything is FUD and Eizh is not fudding. Look, I have cryptcoins too but the reality is that the end-product must be significantly different than the whitepaper in order to be anonymous. Mindfox could pull it off or he couldn't - and maybe he can work on it a few more weeks until he gets it right or even change his strategy, or he may even have some solution that we have no idea of. We'll see how it goes. Technical criticism is *good* otherwise you end up with vapor. |
|
|
|
Shit thrown @ Evan: He's out of his depth and scared. And of course he should be scared of clones, other teams would do a better job at creating a clone than he will creating the original. XC already has its clones and they are miles behind. It's the advantage of having a qualified Dev, it doesn't matter who else has your code aslong as your a better coder. With Evan there are a hundred better coders in the altcoin space. With dan I'm struggling to think of even one
Once the media gets out those market caps will converge and closed source DRK with its incapable Dev will begin to fall as the media turns towards their competitors.
So... if Evan is so "incapable", and if there are "hundreds of better coders" in altcoins, I ask you this: 1. What have these coders coded in terms of anonymity? Oh yes, nothing. 2. Why is everybody waiting for Evan to opensource? Oh yes, because they can't code shit. 3. What did those hundreds of better coders do when their coins were affected by KGW-time warp? Oh yes, they did nothing except wait for someone else to find a solution. Someone like Evan. 4. What is the typical target market of ...loljosh? 5. Why is XC copying the model of nodes and services from DRK? 6. Why wasn't XC's competent dev aware of the fundamental flaw of his design that took away the trust-less element of the Bitcoin protocol, turning Satoshi's innovation and turning it back into trusted transactions - despite being repeatedly told about this? Btw, you have borderline hate issues with Evan and this is NOT healthy. I mean ok, we are waving our dicks in terms of who's got the better coin, but what are you writing is really problematic. Evan is trying to make something and he may fail 100 times until he gets it right. Like Edisson who discovered 1000 ways of how not to make a light bulb, until he made it. Who cares? The fudders? "Ohhh he forked the coin because the payments failed"... yeah well Bitcoin core devs forked Bitcoin without even introducing something as radical as a change to the protocol itself, like masternode payments. So by the same definition perhaps they are even more incompetent than Evan and, by extension, even more incompetent than all those hundreds of "better coders" that exist in altcoins. In conclusion I'll say this: The primary DRK buyer (the one who has a very large stake at DRK) is also the primary XC buyer who diversified into XC. Given that the future of small investors in DRK and XC is intertwined with the trust of the primary buyer to both these coins, it should be best for us (both) if we stopped hurting the primary buyer, and by extension our own investments. Neither solution is perfect, both will have a long way to go until they solve their problems, so let's wait and see what they do tech-wise in say 2-3 months. |
|
|
|
ZeroCash could still go big (current project problems could be solved)
Implementation problems could be solved but trust issue remains: Who would trust for their anonymity a gov-funded coin with maths that nobody knows if they hold up or not and zero proofs that may one day be breakable by quantum computers? It will attract FUD that makes shitcoin warz look like kindergarten play. |
|
|
|
Any guesses as to what the exact time the fork will be ?
16:00 GMT #define START_MASTERNODE_PAYMENTS 1403280000 //Fri, 20 Jun 2014 16:00:00 GMT |
|
|
|
Lol.. What no name security group Seems like it.. Found this on the DRK thread earlier. Cool huh ? I'm quoting a reply from the DRK thread: => I wonder where a group of seasoned software engineers, mathematicians and cryptographers would know the nicknames of big fulltime crypto pumpers know from.
It's not like these nicknames are general knowledge.
LOOOL
|
|
|
|
no money in this coin
Volume 24hr 1 Bitcoin $ 7,851,204,766 $ 607.96 12,914,050 BTC $ 17,862,038 -0.48 % 24 CryptCoin $ 2,308,602 $ 1.03 2,238,802 CRYPT $ 4,186,974 +27.92 % 2 Litecoin $ 284,759,311 $ 9.68 29,411,454 LTC $ 1,703,895 +0.23 % 2x its marketcap has been done in volume, lol. |
|
|
|
Now that I'm reading this again: We are group of seasoned software engineers, mathematicians and cryptographers. We take security, privacy and anonymity very seriously.
...my question is: What has this group done for privacy and anonymity in terms of cryptocurrencies? Bitcoin is running for 5 years and until DRK placed anonymity on the spotlight, nobody really cared, or they were passively waiting for Zerocoin that may, or may never come in a usable form. The only exception is the CryptoNote group (not the coins using CN). Probably they've done nothing yet. Bitcoin community hasn't really built anything (except maybe SharedCoin, but this project is related to blockchain.info). So if they claim to take privacy, security and anonymity seriously, why haven't they done something? "It's useless to blame the darkness.... light a candle instead". Same goes for operation "chasing scamcoins". |
|
|
|
When will this code audit take place? End of july?
I think it'll heavily depend upon the way the masternode payment system holds up and the extent it consumes programming resources from the anonymity-hardening work. August seems a safer date. Maybe that group will want to help out Evan in making a better product. That will be more productive than chasing scamcoins. Regarding the scamcoin part: People just want to make money... they see DRK at 50mn marketcap and think, ok, this is not gonna go 500mn-5bn anytime soon, but I need to make 10-100x in gains and it's more likely this will be done in an up-and-coming coin rather than a big one... it's like the lottery. So they are throwing money around hoping to see big gains and returns. There's nothing wrong with that of course, and most people DO know that the anonymity (like in the case of Cryptcoin, where you write on that thread) isn't working but they hope it will (or hope to make money anyway even if it doesn't). |
|
|
|
Now that I'm reading this again: We are group of seasoned software engineers, mathematicians and cryptographers. We take security, privacy and anonymity very seriously.
...my question is: What has this group done for privacy and anonymity in terms of cryptocurrencies? Bitcoin is running for 5 years and until DRK placed anonymity on the spotlight, nobody really cared, or they were passively waiting for Zerocoin that may, or may never come in a usable form. The only exception is the CryptoNote group (not the coins using CN). |
|
|
|
What do you DRK guys think about this "warning"? Do you expect "security analysis" of DarkCoin? I think we know the areas that must be worked upon: Right now we need to
a) Find a way to remove 10 DRK limit but keep a homogeneity in inputs to resist analysis
b) Launder change money because they are linkable and betray the sender during future spends
c) Make the node unaware of what it is transacting
d) Merge strong IP obfuscation / traffic encryption etc
http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/28hqu3/warning_to_all_anonymous_coins_promoters_and/We are group of seasoned software engineers, mathematicians and cryptographers. We take security, privacy and anonymity very seriously. We are warning all promoters and pumpers (including, but not limited to: koolio, fontas, moosanyc, prometheus etc.) of altcoins that claim to have some sort of anonymity, privacy etc. features that we will analyze these features and publish results if these altcoins are heavily promoted and/or pumped. In case of CryptCoin you could already see disastrous effects of such analysis on the coin price. The analysis was published on CryptCoin subreddit but was later removed by moderators. Similar poor ideas and bad implementations have already been identified in number of other altcoins, including some that were recently heavily pumped. So please don't promote and pump any altcoin with special security, privacy or anonymity features unless you are convinced that these features can pass serious analysis. Altcoin users: please take security, anonymity and privacy very seriously and don't trust any anonymity etc. feature unless it has been reviewed by experts. Sadly, we don't know any altcoin feature that has received such review. Development plan: -RC3 (June 20th): Fully implemented Masternode payments (20% of each block), fixes for network forking issues, multiple tickets per masternode -RC4 (Mid July): Improved anonymity and removal of 10 DRK Darksend limitation -Code Audit (if the seasoned cryptographers / programmers want to help, that is the stage where they'll have to contact Evan)-RC5: Address any security issues or major bugs discovered in the audit -Opensourcing of DarkSend |
|
|
|
Why is there any need for a whitepaper? It's coinjoin. We know what coinjoin is. Focus your energy on making it work instead of writing papers.
Agreed. But some people, especially investors here like to see whitepapers as proof of progress being made by the devs. Personally I trust mscollec in developing this coin as mscollec did well with Sync too. I have no worries, it's only a matter of time until voot = moon Bought a few a while ago. At least we know that coinjoin based anonymity does work - even with some limitations, compared to some other "weird" concepts floating around. Btw, regarding the first page: The 100% anonymity, you can throw that off. Aint gonna happen so you don't want to appear like a scam. Not even gmaxwell would claim 100% anonymity for coinjoin. First decentralized anon, that also can go out of the window. DRK and to a bigger degree BCN/BCN clones were there first. Centralized anon = when you have a central mixer service like Fedoracoin. DRK doesn't have a central mixer. Each user with 1000 DRKs does the mixing by setting a node and there could be like 1000-2000 such users/nodes. By no way is that a "center". Center / central, is a very specific concept. And don't forget BCN & clones do the mixing in the blockchain... so... |
|
|
|
|
Why is there any need for a whitepaper? It's coinjoin. We know what coinjoin is. Focus your energy on making it work instead of writing papers.
|
|
|
|
They just schedule an appointment @ 39°6′32″N 76°46′17″W  Google is good these days... googling the coordinates works like a charm. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
