There is no 100% anon tech. At least not one that I am aware of. Zerocoin could do it but it is breakable by Quantum Computers + it has a trusted accumulator.

Back in March we had a discussion on the DRK thread to do some kind of "fund Snowden" campaign with DRK. This is what I said:


It's the necessary reality check.

If you don't have an NSA-proof coin => you are not 100% anonymous.

To raise the bar even further: If you don't have a coin that can resist NSA analysis that will come online in the next 5-20 years => you are not 100% anonymous. This, btw, would require hardening against future pattern-recognition software with suprahuman intelligence.


I rarely buy coins that the vast majority of people can't relate to - because, fundamentally, at this stage of adoption, cryptocurrencies are a pyramid scheme where you expect the next buyer to pump you. So if the majority of buyers don't even understand your features, the pump is doomed. It's a problem of mass-marketing to a "base" that can't evaluate the features and hence stay away from the coins.

I've explained this phenomenon here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637645.msg7114149#msg7114149
and here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=637645.msg7116563#msg7116563

The question is: Can you handle Honesty?

Honestly the solution of trusted parties to conduct transactions would not be considered as "superior tech" but rather as a joke by those who are "tech experts". It goes against what Satoshi did when he invented trustless transactions.

If Dan has found a solution to make it trustless, that's a win right there. Otherwise you'd better keep silent until this is fixed. Trust me when I say you don't want people ripping you apart in a convention for presenting problematic tech as superior.

From what I understand the coin started like a p&d or something and then the "star" dev came onboard to make the anon. So the fundamentals changed from "just another anon-promising scamcoin" to something that may actually deliver tech.

I think the key here is hold because the "main event" (aka the technology) hasn't yet happened. As tempting as it is to sell for an early buyer, delivery of the anon features is still in the future. A bit like XC prior to presenting its first mixer which then took it to the moon.


I had grabbed some BBR cheap, like a week ago, but forgotten some sell orders at 0.0009 - so when I checked @ polo it was 0.0018 (and my coins sold). I wanted to buy back by waiting to go lower but instead went up further to 0.0026... had to rebuy at 0.002. Damn. Still the price is too low compared to much-advertised monero, although inflation is high for both. It's nothing near DRK or PoW/PoS coins and that may present problems for price in "slow" weeks with not much trading volume.

Cryptonote have good anonymity but suck at everything else - so it's a balancing act. Yet from all cryptonote coins only BBR stands out in terms of dev.

Who doesn't like a good pump?

The tech is a mystery to me until more are revealed... I "buy the dev" and hope he'll deliver. Having a known dev who can code is a tremendous plus.

DRK = Evan
XC = Dan (he went the wrong way with the xnodes being trusted but maybe he'll make course-adjustments and turn it from a trusted solution to a trustless solution... from what he stated about multisigs maybe he realized the implementation mistake and he's gonna fix it)
CRY = Mindfox (although he's just started on it and thus he had much less time compared to Evan & Dan)

...It's not any coincidence that BBR (among cryptonote coins) also has a great dev. So, I try to see which coins can deliver based on the devs and the ideas presented. If the ideas are flawed I cut back my investment. CRY is a mystery in that department as the whitepaper doesn't really explain much. We'll see when the implementation is launched. Until then I'm buying the dev.

115k

This is a hard fork. The alternative with the pools voluntarily paying wouldn't work very well - miners do tend to get greedy. Heck, even Bitcoin was 51% despite this damaging the coin.


Thanks...

Anonymity via exchanges = joke.

DRK was being DDOSed at its pools for months prior to XMR's existence. The official pool in particular has been DDOSed more times than I can count.

I haven't participated in testnet hardening, so I'm only going by what I read... and I do see bug reports - so I do expect bugs and complaints like 'oh my node does this while it should do that'... Will these create a fork? Testnet showed that it won't. But testnet always factors a subset of possibilities that could surface on mainnet. Either way, much progress has occurred and that's the important thing. With payments working Evan can then focus on the important stuff, like

a) How to remove the 10drk denomination while also having similar inputs to prevent input analysis of coinjoin
b) How to make masternodes unaware of who is sending what
c) How to make change unlinkable during a future spend - which is what can "break" current DarkSend

Smaller bugs related to payments can be sorted out in the next fork.

Testnet results indicate we'll have more-or-less a few bugs in masternode activation / getting in and out of the list / random payments in inactive masternodes and stuff like that that will probably be patched in a future update. As long as it doesn't induce forking the rest are manageable.

Yes he could. That's why the dis-incentive to own a large number of masternodes for this purpose. That's also why anonymity upgrades are programmed for RC4.

As far as I remember from the technical discussions back in March, there is the possibility of doing "blind signatures" in which case the node doesn't know what is happening. However that model is problematic to implement due to DOS attacks and misbehavior that halts the transaction and everyone is left waiting forever. So non-blind signatures were implemented instead and, from what I understand, Evan has thought of a way to make non-blind signatures work in a more anonymous way (?). We'll have to wait out till RC4 to find out what's on the cards.


It doesn't go like this, as the masternode is chosen at random (or pseudo-randomly, I'm not sure). I think if the node was known in advance or selected, it would be problematic in other aspects. For example, if you selected node 240 for mixing and I selected node 321 for mixing, how would we mix our coins? So there has to be a way where everyone is using the same node for mixing in the same round.

An alternative to obfuscating the money flow to bypass the problem of the bad actor is to DarkSend the money multiple times. So if 10% of the network has bad actors, if you darksend money two times, it goes 10% x 10% = 1% chance... if you darksend them 3 times it goes 10x10x10 = 0.1% chance of the bad actor knowing the money flow from start to finish.

I believe some of the volume that found its way to MRO is related to the DRK's primary buyer, who then also bought XC and also bought a few MROs as well in the prior spike to 0.008, probably hedging his options. The current run is more of a mystery to me.

I was looking at bitcoinwisdom charts and my eye fell on LTC price: 0.0163... opened up the LTC chart and I see it was 0.0161 earlier... When the support walls crumbled it all came down.

I was trading in a narrow margin between 146 and 150 and when the dump happened I was like "damn, there goes the daily profit"... I positioned some buys at 120 and they were filled at the second wave of dumping, so it was good.

Liked the paranoia aspect... some times crypto-experts are portrayed as some kind of lunatics for being paranoid but they have all the reasons in the world to be that way. If you aren't paranoid enough, you probably aren't a very good cryptographer.

I daytrade a few coins... I happened to be trading XC at the time when the screen flashed red...

Actually they were dumped on... and a sell wall appeared of 25 BTC.

There's nothing mutually exclusive.

Say it hits 25$, you believe that it won't go to 100$ because "it doesn't happen to me", you sell at 25 and then it goes to 100 and you are like "aaaargh why did I sell? My damn luck..."

So DRK goes to 100 but you don't get the money for a house deposit and "this doesn't happen to me" criteria also stands.

For cpu coins (as DRK was at its launch)

-If a Windows QT is released immediately: Ohhhhh you are a botnet coin*, screw that
-If it's not released: Ohhhhh you want to exclude windows miners** and mine it by yourself


* Some cpu-coin pre-anns have strong comments from miners that ask for the non-release of a windows client to prevent botnets from mining at the launch. If it happens then the "botnet coin" accusation follows the coin for a long time.

** The vast majority of cpu mining farms / instances run on linux anyway, so windows mining doesn't even play any serious role. But at least these are legit miners, not botnets.

Conclusion: Haters will always find something to bitch about.

I quoted information that said DRK could lose coins just as XC (which is wrong for DRK, correct for XC).

If that information was in the wrong thread, that is your problem, not mine.

My intention is to GTFO but you quote me all the time.