People not swallowing your FUD & BS?
Extra large text! LOL... |
|
|
|
What does this mean for alt-coins?
According to the Pantera Capital website, the firm also has their eyes on other digital currencies outside of Bitcoin [4]. While this isn’t the first case of venture capital funds taking notice of alt-coins, it certainly is an interesting distinction to note because alt-coins have largely been neglected by traditional investors (and often companies already in the Bitcoin space). With the spectacular rise of coins like Darkcoin, perhaps the alt-coin economy has caught the attention of large Bitcoin speculators....all the way to the Darkbank  I wonder if Evan will let us know when (or if) hedge funds meet with him to perform their fiduciary due diligence. No hedge fund manager would take on a sizable position made up of other people's money without first vetting the developer. Also, I'm suspecting hedge fund attention will possibly perk up following successful and secure MN launch however the move to open source will likely garner the largest attention. Hmm... and if they had to invest in Bitcoins, how would they meet Satoshi?  |
|
|
|
Can someone explain to a non-technical guy what the BCN devs are doing? What does that mean, moving it out of RAM? Can other cryptonote coins copy this?
Copy as a function, yes - but they'll have to code it on their own. Copy as code, no. As to the technical, the wallet required too much RAM and now this is fixed. |
|
|
|
BNP Paribas wants to buy Bitcoins? That's UBER lol. |
|
|
|
What does this mean for alt-coins?
According to the Pantera Capital website, the firm also has their eyes on other digital currencies outside of Bitcoin [4]. While this isn’t the first case of venture capital funds taking notice of alt-coins, it certainly is an interesting distinction to note because alt-coins have largely been neglected by traditional investors (and often companies already in the Bitcoin space). With the spectacular rise of coins like Darkcoin, perhaps the alt-coin economy has caught the attention of large Bitcoin speculators....all the way to the Darkbank
|
|
|
|
http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/FAQ#What.27s_the_difference_between_versions_0.9_and_0.10_.22RC.22_.3FWhat's the difference between versions 0.9 and 0.10 "RC" ?
Versions numbered 0.9 are built on the opensource code that does not contain the DarkSend functionality. RC versions which are numbered 0.10 are based on the same code plus the closed source addition of DarkSend - so there are only executables for 0.10 (source code not available). The two versions will converge in a few weeks when DarkSend is finalized and opensourced.
Bottom line: If you want to use DarkSend download 0.10 RC. Otherwise you are OK with 0.9.
|
|
|
|
|
It's going back up ahahahaah... epic pumps and dumps... this is the stuff of legends.
|
|
|
|
Price sliding, guess people don't have as much faith as last hard fork.
I think people are just enjoying the various pumps all around and will come back when situation is stable. LTC is sliding twice as fast btw and it has no hard fork ahead: From 0.0173 to 0.0156. |
|
|
|
I am hoping Evan will announce details of further features to achieve further anonimity for RC4 after Friday's hardfork.
But they are announced. We know what to expect in RC4 (anon upgrade), even if we don't know the specifics. Some specifics would be nice, although he probably has his reasons not to share. He probably doesn't want *NAMEOFSCAM* to steal even more features from us. I'm just worried of the small possibility that he might not know how to achieve further anonimity yet and therefore can't share any details. This is why specifics would be nice to rule out this possibility. Let's just say I invested big in February and am in it with >90% of net worth so I have a lot on the line  Actually he has already given it out, but you have to assemble it from the past posts: I have 2 possible solutions to evaluate for V2 of darksend (ring signatures and encrypted system where the users themselves do the joining relayed through the masternodes.) . Both of these make the masternodes unaware of who is sending money to whom, so centralization isn't an issue at that point.
I've had some substantial progress on DarkSend and have figured out how to make our existing system as secure as ring signatures. Vastly improved security, no bloat (from the ring signatures) and without actually having to trust new cryptography (it hasn't been extensively tested like what DarkSend uses) . So I think it'll give us a HUGE advantage in the coming months. More to come soon, I'm going to start implementing this tomorrow. I think it was mentioned, in the discussion between evan/anonymint that by darksending it multiple times through a number of nodes it reduces the bad-actor probabilities to a statistically safe degree to solve the issue that the darksend node knows who sends what.
I think I have a better solution than that, I want to turn the masternodes into I2P relays for darkcoin. So your client will pick one when you start, then relay any messages through that one. It encrypts all of the traffic, removes the connection between IP and address and it the blockchain is still a complete fog. Plus it'll be a private I2P, so it'll be super fast. Masternodes are going to be awesome ...and yes, some of these ideas are being pursued right now by other coins. |
|
|
|
I am hoping Evan will announce details of further features to achieve further anonimity for RC4 after Friday's hardfork.
But they are announced. We know what to expect in RC4 (anon upgrade), even if we don't know the specifics. |
|
|
|
|
Coinmarketcap.com by trading volume
1 Bitcoin $ 7,877,457,241 $ 610.11 12,911,625 BTC $ 22,184,141 +2.17 %
2 CryptCoin $ 3,487,720 $ 1.56 2,238,802 CRYPT $ 3,640,845 +211.45 %
3 Litecoin $ 284,319,153 $ 9.67 29,392,204 LTC $ 2,729,036 +0.24 %
4 VeriCoin $ 2,209,603 $ 0.082542 26,769,588 VRC $ 694,232 +14.78 %
5 Darkcoin $ 44,933,681 $ 10.23 4,393,785 DRK $ 569,430 +0.86 %
6 Dogecoin $ 29,931,853 $ 0.000360 83,073,581,277 DOGE $ 343,418 -0.00 %
7 BlackCoin $ 8,459,454 $ 0.113482 74,544,674 BC* $ 295,037 -3.51 %
I think this is the same buyer that bought loads of DRK and XC.
|
|
|
|
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/DarkcoinWhitepaper.pdfA scheme using blind signatures is implemented to prove the provided outputs belong to one of the participants of the pool. Using this strategy neither the master nor other nodes know which outputs belong to which inputs. I think right now it's not performed with blind signatures. |
|
|
|
Kristov Atlas: "... the anonymity provided by darkcoin right now is fairly limited" He's little bit sceptical about darkcoin lately, but he says it's all about what future developments darkcoin will have. So he hasn't yet made up his mind, he's just a little sceptical. That's ok, we should always be. Listen to what he has to say in todays podcast: Jump to 29:18 http://youtu.be/XVNzvuybscw?t=29m18s I think he is very well informed + spot on regarding the current state of affairs. Let's see what Evan comes up with to elevate the quality of anonymity in next RCs. |
|
|
|
Just wondering, what's stopping the government from acquiring one or many masternodes and therefore being able to keep a record of all transactions that run through those nodes?
Suppose the government controls 60% of the nodes because they bought them. If one DarkSends the money through ten nodes, one has 60% chance of hitting a government node each time a DarkSend is performed So... First DarkSend has 60% possibility of being mapped. Second ... has 60% x 60% = 36% Tenth ...has 0.604% So if you DarkSend them once you get 60%, when you DarkSend them ten you get 0.604% - supposing a bad actor ratio of 60% (which would require millions of USD). In any case DarkSend is not complete. We'll see how it goes when it is because the specification is evolving. |
|
|
|
What's more ridiculous are the people that think darkcoin is somehow so special it deserves to be on top. Darksend is great and you're right its filling a role. But there are a number of other coins that have anonymous transactions in testing or in the works. What will make or break darkcoin is the people using it, just like the users who made litecoin.
I believe whole heartedly in darkcoin, but its naive to think it should be number 2 simply because it exists.
EDIT: Full disclosure I own a good amount of DRK and LTC.
Darkcoin is aiming for the private/anonymous market segment which is a new market segment. If 10% of the transparent market opts for private/anonymous transactions, that's a 850mn market cap right there. Even if DRK has only 40% of the private/anonymous market marketshare, instead of 80-90% today, it will still exceed Litecoins marketcap. This is not something that will happen overnight of course. It requires actual adoption. And, the way things are going in terms of crypto and taxes and the government mapping all bitcoins to their owners, this adoption could be q4 2014 / 2015 instead of late 2015+. |
|
|
|
Isn't dark wallet centralized? If so, this means we shouldn't be worried of them, right? Or will they become decentralized?
The problem of dark wallet is that they need to have a matchmaking node for users to mix their coins and right now this is more centralized than not. Last time I heard, they are moving to a p2p way of doing this, which is the right way to go. Darkwallet is never going to be a substitute for a truly dark network for 1 huge - elephant in the room - reason: it's optional.
You might see "hacked" bitcoin clients that integrate it. Like we have 2 wallets (1 x open source wallet without DarkSend and 1 x closed source with DarkSend). It would be a big mistake to underestimate Taaki based on the fact that the client is still Alpha. It will come out of Alpha at some point. That's why DRK must be able to do things in a superior way + exploit the areas that it can evolve based on a hard fork (where Bitcoin can't advance) + integrate strong IP obfuscation. 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 |
|
|
|
What is staggering is that in 1 month XC dev has done what took the DRK dev 4 months.
I've seen this claim since the first centralized mixer came out and the "we are ahead of DRK" claims etc etc. I mean ok, it's good pump material to proclaim superiority but the cold reality of the matter is that DRK wasn't building a central mixer for 4 months. Same applies right now. DRK dev wasn't working on trusted transactions either. Trusted transaction = going backwards and undoing Satoshi's work = a joke solution as far as cryptocurrency experts are concerned. Remember to respect the criticism because it is the criticism that will end up giving you the best bang for your buck, if it's used as the fuel to do things correctly in the future. If a dev hears his solution sucks what do you think will do? Apparently he will try to review the code and see how he can make it better. Praises of awesomeness won't get you far in this business. DRKs evolution has passed multiple stages of criticism, "this is flawed" etc etc. These stuff are to be embraced because they ultimately make you better. Thank you Alex en Random, for this civilized discussion. Nice read!
|
|
|
|
|
Criticism on technical grounds is good. It promotes better solutions.
|
|
|
|
How is crypt worth more than XC? They have double the total supply and ONLY a white paper... Lol?
Mindfox as dev. Circulating supply is far lower btw - only 2mn coins. |
|
|
|
Every anon currency has holes at the moment.
True. DRK is currently vulnerable to the pattern matching that Chaeplin used on earlier versions of XC. XC has upgraded to multipath technology in version 1.5 and has now resisted cracking attempts.
As far as I am aware, Chaeplin didn't even try to crack it due to what he perceived as a non-acknowledgement of the hard link that he provided when the common wallet spent the dust, betraying its identity. Anyway it's not an issue I want to go into. DRK challenge is to improve / fix a) nodes knowing what they are transacting b) change addresses linking ownership c) removal of 10 DRK limit but preserving identical inputs in some form as to prevent coinjoin analysis through different types of inputs. MRO suffers from blockchain bloating.
Worse yet, if the blockchain is too big it can't even be loaded into the client. A few BTCs worth of tx fees just to spam the blockchain, can render it unusable for many users. The current version of XC is not 100% trustless yet but that is coming in version 2.0. If that also incorporates the trust learning algorithm that was previously mentioned that would make XC > than DRK in another aspect. To remind you, DRK transactions though "trustless" due to multisig are still vulnerable to bad nodes which will block the transaction. XC's trust learning algorithm will learn the bad nodes and lead to a stronger, more efficient network.
If a trust algorithm is in place = it's still a trusted transaction. Coin forwarding = trust. Signatures = trustless. The bad node in DRK can monitor the transaction but it cannot really block it. At most it can delay it (at a cost, as the node would lose collateral) since the implementation is fault-tolerant. Don't forget as well that XC nodes can be run in ANY wallet. You don't need to setup a server to run an XC node like you do with DRK. Just open your wallet and away you go.
It doesn't really make a difference to me. I can run a node from my PC as well. Instead of opening the wallet I can run the node, whether in my PC or laptop - even my tablet. It's just better to have a nice internet connection and DDOS protection. With encrypted messages on the way and other "blockchain 2.0" coming, XC stands to be the ultimate Privacy Platform and I know a lot of people will welcome the opportunity to "get in early" before more people learn about it.  Some of that stuff with blockchain 2.0 sounds like snake oil, so for the time being let's stick to making the anonymity work.... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
