No, you don't know how bitcoin works at protocol level. It has nothing to do with privacy or quantum computing.
Bitcoin is like a banknote. You can only spend it as one piece. You can't cut it into 2 halves by yourself. If you want to spend part of its value, you need someone (e.g. a bank) to divide it into 2 banknotes for you. That's how "change" comes. (of course, we don't have a bank in bitcoin, but miners are doing such job)
Perhaps you are right. I am no expert on these matters - I try to understand them. On what you say: a) That's a very artificial limitation for an electronic payment system, wouldn't you agree? b) 1 Bitcoin consists of millions of satoshis anyway - so again the fictional bank to do the division is quite redundant... c) In terms of future-proofing, what's the chance that the coins remain undivided over the course of 10-20-30-40-50 years? They will be divided anyway, so? If the currency is successful it's almost a given that the vast majority of transactions will be conducted in fractional amounts. Why the need to divide them? d) What about halvings in block reward that produce fractional coins to begin with? |
|
|
|
Greekcoin? Να υποθεσω οτι δεν ειναι ελληνας αυτος που το φτιαξε... θελει και anonymity τρομαρα του - ολα τα scams μαζεμενα (country/anon-coin). Btw, πιο παλια ειχε βγει και spartancoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=491637.0...αλλα με μικροτερη εμφαση στο εθνικο κομματι. Του λεω του τυπου, αν θες η επιγραφη να ειναι σωστη -δλδ να εχει σωστο structure- να σου πω να τη φτιαξεις... στα @@ του. Google translate ftw για την επιγραφη και ας ειναι οτι-να-ναι...  |
|
|
|
It would be smart to pick up some Monero like I suggested yesterday and yes I own lots of DC too. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. You never know as we will continue to see with Monero, it is a solid coin and has to potential to compete with DC.
Maybe you should warn investors of a "possible" 2-3% daily inflation affecting their investment. I bought in without doing my homework and then saw my money go down the drain because price spikes cannot be preserved: They require too many BTCs per day. So, in a sense, MRO does not fulfill the criteria necessary for being adequate store of value. There'll come a day, after a few years, that this will be the case. But right now? No. It's good for trading though... gradual price degradation (botnets selling MROs) is followed by predictable big-money backing, so you pick up cheap MROs knowing that some of the big guys want to cost-average their buy position and then sell them back to them at slightly higher levels. DRK on the other hand has superior store-of-value characteristics and also allow one to get ROI of their coins, instead of debasing them like crazy. May be Evan should think about possibilities to make the asic-resistence even higer... or make pool mining impossible completely... i am no techy but now is the time to come up with ideas!... Thoughts?
The only reason why any GPU-mineable coin is ASIC-resistant, is because there is no ASIC created for it. When a GPU miner emerges for an algorithm, you can be 100% certain that it can be ASIC-ed at some future point, if an ASIC manufacturer wants to do so. However even if a coin is cpu-only, a botnet can easily do a 51% compared to legitimate users. Or if it's a GPU coin, a pool might become too large and control 51% anyway. |
|
|
|
|
We know that "change" in real life are useful because you give ten dollars and you get back change. However in Bitcoin you can send a precise amount of coins, so change is not really "necessary" - not even as an option. It's not needed and adds bloat out of nowhere.
Some say "change increase privacy so that's why it was placed in there". Surely, a protocol as transparent as bitcoin, wouldn't increase its privacy by any significant amount through change (not to mention that change can be linked during future spending). This is stuff that even a script can put together, deanonymizing transactions.
And why, if it is privacy-related, wouldn't one be able to control change spending so as to not be linked together?
So there has to be something else here that Satoshi saw.
I'm thinking it may be related to Quantum-Computing resistance. By moving the amount to the recipient + change to a new address (which hasn't yet published its public key), a good portion of the network's money will remain uncrackable by a quantum computer as the QC won't know the public key to extrapolate the private key.
If control of change is going to be implemented in future versions of Bitcoin, this quantum-resistance could be broken. Perhaps it should also be accompanied by a change in the private/public key algorithm to a quantum-resistant one.
Or, alternatively, introduce a button in the wallet that places one's funds into "quantum storage" - aggregating them automatically in a single address with no spends (that prevent QC cracking). One could even checkbox something like "automatic quantum storage" so that when one wants to spend money, one amount would go to the destination and the other would go to a new address with zero spends. Thus change control won't affect the principle of QC-resistance, if that's the rationale of Satoshi.
|
|
|
|
This increases the need for diversification away from BTC to alts. Pulling out of crypto, given its booming dynamic, seems counterproductive to one's own pocket in the long run - unless one expects a crash where he can rebuy far lower. DRK seems quite safer in regards to hashpower distribution: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.htmlAs for the masternode taking the vector, no it doesn't save DRK - same rules still apply. But it does allow a bigger decentralization of future rewards. Say, today, 100% of bitcoin production goes to ASIC miners. However in DRK this will never be the case even if X11 is totally ASIC'ed... only 80% of new coins will go to ASIC miners and 20% will go to masternode operators. So new coins will not be a 100% grab for ASICs. |
|
|
|
|
Chaeplin can you try something with XC since you have a wallet installed - and if it's not much trouble..
Script 100 transfers of something like 0.1 XC each to a specific address of yours, to see
1) how many of these transfers made it to the destination to find the reliability % (if 95 go to the destination, it's 95%)
2) check the size caused to the blockchain for these transactions for these blocks
3) report the tx fees paid for these 100 transfers
|
|
|
|
Global timing is also bullish. Americans will wake up to see us at 18 and not 16 as they were perhaps hoping. That can create a bit of panic - specially with it being Saturday and all. Not only that but new buy walls are going up - there's now 8500 DRK demand above 170, up from about 4-5 last night.
People panic because DRK is at 0.018 rather than 0.016?  Aaaaaaaaalll the waaayy to the daaaarkbaaaank |
|
|
|
In general, pretending competition doesn't exist results in one thing, and one thing only. Absolute failure.
Evan is aware of how the "game" is played. If you have a weakness, others will capitalize on it and say "ohh but Darkcoin is this or that but we are sooooo much better on that"... so you want to be able to maintain your lead. In terms of anonymity we'll need strong IP obfuscation + encrypted communication, enhancements that -if possible- disallow the node from knowing what's going on or from where the original requests came from, and superior management of change to prevent linking after a future spend. The denomination pools solve a problem on how inputs seem alike and thus are more resistant to analysis (as evidenced with the article analyzing coinjoins with different amounts of input) yet present an issue on requiring more money than one wants to send which could be an issue on larger amounts as was discussed a couple of months ago. May I suggest a further mode of mixing, "scheduled mixing" at something like "the Dark Moment" / "Dark Hour" etc... it'll be like you leave the wallet open and it will activate a time delayed transaction at the nearest "Dark Moment"... this could be two times per day or four times per day (03:00 / 09:00 / 15:00 / 21:00), in which a lot of accumulated transactions will take place simultaneously. This will allow for more mixing due to larger volume. This could also be programmed in a different scheduled way in which parties will mix only if there is interest from at least another 5-10-15 parties. So a queue is formed and when the seats are taken the mixing occurs. Concerning the FUD, I agree. However given the novelty of anonymous coins, having a constructive conversation of the tech behind competitors is critical to ensure the long term strength of darkcoin. Unfortunately that doesn't happen, because most of the conversation is worthless FUD, and is incredibly annoying. But what isn't FUD typically is shot down immediately by posts like this, which is incredibly unfortunate. If better technology is implemented by someone else, it shouldn't go overlooked because people weren't willing to discuss it.
The competition is pretty lame as it is, but DRK should not in any way "bank" on the failure of others. It must rely on doing its own thing and excelling on it. As for the scaling issues of CN coins, it's not FUD, it's reality. The scaling is not only in terms of blockchain size, but also of speed and ram use of the client. Some aspects are been worked but others seem to be DOA. Should that be something that DRK can "bank" on? No. The incompetence of others is not our business - it's the market's business to avoid them and choose DRK, while DRK works to provide the best anonymity possible. |
|
|
|
On the contrary. Its an auction, off the order books. No one will be dumping those. They'll buy cheaper, not much below market, as I'm sure there will be an "overdose" of biddings. Then, these poeple buying massive amount of BTC will what... dump them right after?
Anyway, it doesn't matter. With Bitcoin being the reserve currency, if it goes down they all go down against fiat. DRK and all other alts are just proxies for Bitcoin (since their value is expressed in BTC). Bitfinex does DRK/USD. Also another, I forget the name. ccex |
|
|
|
I feel the same way. Dark has yet to get its masternodes working, and if CRY's idea works then in a 1:1 contest, CRY wins hands down. Who wants to pay transaction fees to centralized nodes that may compromise anonymity compared to CRY's alternative? It will be interesting if CRY and DARK switch places then.
Fees secure the blockchain from malicious attacks. So you'd rather pay a fee rather than have a busted blockchain that got to 1 terabyte because some kid found it funny to run a script with 1000 bogus transactions per second. Remember that you pay for your hard disk space. 50$ / 1TB = 0.05$ per 1 GB of blockchain bloat. Multiply that with the number of users to find the collective cost of bloat. Standard blockchain fees will apply the additional premium 'anon fee' that XC and DRK charge will not be applicable to our anonymous function edit: Also if you read the OP, you will notice why we chose PoW/PoS hybrid and also included fee for standard tx, this is to ensure maximal blockchain integrity. We take security very seriously but you have our concept misunderstood.  It is my understanding that DRK uses 20% block reward (from new blocks generated) to pay mixing nodes while XC uses tx fees (as it can't generate coins with new blocks due to being PoS). DRK also uses collateral so that misbehaving or DOS attempts are penalized by losing money. If you allow me a small correction. PoS blocks *do* generate new coins (that's how the "interest" is getting paid). Now, regarding DRK behavior, although I haven't read the code so what I'm going to say is just the way I understand it, how can the system identify a misbehaving node? by the IP? because there is no other way (unless coded to give unique identity to each wallet - which in turn means that wallets are now having a full identity ) to identify a wallet, only the IP is logged (and scored accordingly). Maybe I will study more about that, once I'm done with the project I'm currently doing Again to the best of my understanding, there are two or three levels of misbehavior... the sender of the money who can lose collateral if he does something evil, the node which can lose collateral for not doing the transaction correctly, and the miner who may try to forge which masternode gets paid in which case his block is orphaned and he loses the entire block. |
|
|
|
I feel the same way. Dark has yet to get its masternodes working, and if CRY's idea works then in a 1:1 contest, CRY wins hands down. Who wants to pay transaction fees to centralized nodes that may compromise anonymity compared to CRY's alternative? It will be interesting if CRY and DARK switch places then.
Fees secure the blockchain from malicious attacks. So you'd rather pay a fee rather than have a busted blockchain that got to 1 terabyte because some kid found it funny to run a script with 1000 bogus transactions per second. Remember that you pay for your hard disk space. 50$ / 1TB = 0.05$ per 1 GB of blockchain bloat. Multiply that with the number of users to find the collective cost of bloat. Standard blockchain fees will apply the additional premium 'anon fee' that XC and DRK charge will not be applicable to our anonymous function edit: Also if you read the OP, you will notice why we chose PoW/PoS hybrid and also included fee for standard tx, this is to ensure maximal blockchain integrity. We take security very seriously but you have our concept misunderstood. It is my understanding that DRK uses 20% block reward (from new blocks generated) to pay mixing nodes while XC uses tx fees (as it can't generate coins with new blocks due to being PoS). DRK also uses collateral so that misbehaving or DOS attempts are penalized by losing money. |
|
|
|
I feel the same way. Dark has yet to get its masternodes working, and if CRY's idea works then in a 1:1 contest, CRY wins hands down. Who wants to pay transaction fees to centralized nodes that may compromise anonymity compared to CRY's alternative? It will be interesting if CRY and DARK switch places then.
Fees secure the blockchain from malicious attacks. So you'd rather pay a fee rather than have a busted blockchain that got to 1 terabyte because some kid found it funny to run a script with 1000 bogus transactions per second. Remember that you pay for your hard disk space. 50$ / 1TB = 0.05$ per 1 GB of blockchain bloat. Multiply that with the number of users to find the collective cost of bloat. |
|
|
|
I'm glad to see the price go down before the auction. It only takes $$$ out of the hands of the feds and makes the buy price more attractive for large buyers who are also future hodlers.
This is a classic game of the crashing game where the Elite, through the government agencies and media, actually make the news (and hence the price). They can short bitcoin for the last weeks and then, at the precise moment that they desire, BANG: " We are dumping BTCs"... price tumbles, they buy back at a lower level through the sheer volume of the sheepish panic sellers = epic win. Anyone who thinks this kind of move is randomly chosen, is... well... naive - to put it mildly. There are two extremely valued abilities in finance. The second most valued is knowing the future, because you can then play the market with confidence. The first most valued ability is actually controlling the future. The Elite control the future. They create scenarios and "news" that capitalize on the "news-addiction" of traders that move like a herd, influencing the price towards the desired way. That's in most markets btw, it isn't something new. It's just now been played out with BTC as well. Again, this is a classic case of controlling the future through the fbi "event" and the associated "news". The pattern is repeatable. One must sell a few BTCs after new peaks and have cash standing by to buy the dips, relieving weak-handed traders who panic sell. In this way one can increase their BTC holdings while also acting as a stabilization force for the price of BTC. |
|
|
|
How much DRK to run a masternode? 1000?
yes, 20% of block Do I need 1k by a certain date? Has evan ever stated if the 1000drk req to run a node will stay the same? I mean, if the price skyrockets, then the amount of nodes will rise reaaaally slow witch is good ofcourse for the early adaptors, bad for future investors. Yes it'll be the same. |
|
|
|
A monetary system that can't be trusted for its primary function (movement of money) is inherently problematic.
The anonymity part for DRK and the trust issue is more like percentages. If you DarkSend the money 5 times, and a bad actor controls like 30% of the network, it's like 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.25% => 99.75% that he'll miss the money flow. You play with probabilities. As you do when you use an IP obfuscation network that might reveal you anyway, whether you use DRK, or MRO.
DRK still doesn't handle change correctly though, which makes it super flawed at the moment (unless I missed the implementation of change denomination pools). RC4+ IIRC. |
|
|
|
Trust and trustless here, as I meant it, is in the context of transactions, not anonymity.
Trustless transactions = Satoshi's model.
Trusted transactions = the normal mode of 3rd party that is trusted to not tamper the transaction / run away with the money etc.
Anonymity is another issue altogether. XC is fundamentally flawed at the transaction level. The fact that its anonymity is broken is secondary.
Yeah but there is so much more to 'trust' then just the transactions when it comes to anonymity so I segued into that. Phos isn't wrong, and neither are you. A monetary system that can't be trusted for its primary function (movement of money) is inherently problematic. The anonymity part for DRK and the trust issue is more like percentages. If you DarkSend the money 5 times, and a bad actor controls like 30% of the network, it's like 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.3 = 0.25% => 99.75% that he'll miss the money flow. You play with probabilities. As you do when you use an IP obfuscation network that might reveal you anyway, whether you use DRK, or MRO. |
|
|
|
In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC
Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal. That's not what BTC core dev seems to think of DRK  More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed— you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess— it's impossible to review due to it being closed— though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.
True. When DRK open sources then you'll only have to trust the current master node isn't logging the data. Evan is promising an improved anonymity after he fixes master nodes, although this is just a promise and is entirely vaporware at the moment. He hasn't indicated what the method would be. He was promising ring signatures before that, which would have annihilated master node spying, however it would have also annihilated the point of master nodes. Time will tell. With XC you have to trust the mixer isn't logging the data and that the mixer won't steal your coins. Giving control of your coins to another entity is just asking for trouble. Trust and trustless here, as I meant it, is in the context of transactions, not anonymity. Trustless transactions = Satoshi's model. Trusted transactions = the normal mode of 3rd party that is trusted to not tamper the transaction / run away with the money etc. Anonymity is another issue altogether. XC is fundamentally flawed at the transaction level. The fact that its anonymity is broken is secondary. |
|
|
|
In that regards, DRK seems to have the same problems as XC
Wake up. DRK is trustless. It does not forward coins. It simply asks parties to sign transactions. A transaction is either signed or it is not. If it is, the coins change ownership. The node can't steal. |
|
|
|
Are we? It is the DRK fan boys that keep coming to XC threads and spread FUD not the other way around (Official DRK twitter even spread FUD about XC, does that tell you something?). I want DRK to succeed, I just think that XC has much more potential and delivered more in weeks than DRK in months. One can deliver you a ton of rotten meat or a kilogram of fresh meat. What would you rather eat? Coin forwarding = broken technique because it is based on trust to the node to not steal the coins. Satoshi invented trustless transactions and now we are regressing back to trusted transactions. You can argue this is "progress" or "innovation", but in reality it is not. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
