|
I think it is feasible that a huge pool could mask itself as a p2pool or use its hashrate for a modified p2pool and then get paid for it with increased reward. The network protocol would not be able to tell.
|
|
|
|
Let them talk. When someone downloads these clients to use them they'll have the shock of their life. |
|
|
|
Gold is inflationary. Technology will always find new ways to extract more and more gold from the earth. Eventually they will figure out how to mass produce it through industrial processes. In the short term it can be a hedge of sorts but eventually the price will keep falling.
The price is also related to quantity of fiat. Quantity of fiat vs quantity of gold. Given that the global debt situation requires a lot of new fiat to be issued to cover old debts => it's unlikely gold production will hit the percentage increases of new fiat production. |
|
|
|
I was updating the list of anonymous (promised to be) coins and was skimming through posts in the dreamcoin thread... at some point I read this by the dreamcoin dev: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599854.msg6840209#msg6840209I really think a lot of you people need to bring it down a notch, aimless threats are not going to help...
I said I would leave if I keep getting threats, the threats better stop. #1 I created Dreamcoin, it is still a solid all around good PoS coin (Better than Blackcoin). #2 - Zerocoin integration is huge, yes everyone wants it, yes everyone wants it now, but same with the iPhone 6 and Darkcoin's DarkSend source, etc. Sometimes things take time, give it time guys, with actual community support, that would be ideal, not trolling me and my personal life and then freaking out if I don't post back within 24 hours....
Needless to say, I lol'ed  Solid PoS.... Petrified poop? How can Proof of Stake ever result in "a solid coin?" Isn't there enough stupid in here already? Not everyone knows about the "nothing at stake" attack. If anyone wants to read about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=615843.msg6751334#msg6751334--> This is a problem at any stake. Random coalitions to alter the past can be formed at no cost to those colluding.
Checkpointing is not an alternative to decentralized consensus but central override of it.
The same works for Bitcoin, too. You misunderstand. The risk isn't that someone could attack the network, it is that they could attack the network with no cost. Imagine bitcoin worked using a PoS. An early adopter had acquired 1M BTC at one time in the past but over time he lost/sold/spent/transferred them. Today he has no bitcoins but the blockchain contains a history of a time when he did have 1M BTC. If the amount of the stake being used is <1M BTC he could rewrite history not by using coins he has today (a real cost), not by buying millions of mining rigs (a real cost) but by using the history of the coins he once had (no cost). He has absolutely nothing at risk and nothing to lose. If he and potentially others decided to attack the network they would rewrite the blockchain starting from when they had a larger stake, creating a parallel history where they didn't lose/sell/spend/transfer the coins. They can attack the network based on what they had (but no longer do) in the past. There is nothing at risk and no cost to the attack. THAT is the PoS problem. If bitcoin miners collude, they could alter the past.
Sure they can, however there is a cost to that attack and there is something at risk which they lose if they fail. With PoS you can attack the network for "free" using something you had but no longer do. It is very hard to secure against an attack where the attacker can do so at any time without any cost and without any risk. |
|
|
|
I was updating the list of anonymous (promised to be) coins and was skimming through posts in the dreamcoin thread... at some point I read this by the dreamcoin dev: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599854.msg6840209#msg6840209I really think a lot of you people need to bring it down a notch, aimless threats are not going to help...
I said I would leave if I keep getting threats, the threats better stop. #1 I created Dreamcoin, it is still a solid all around good PoS coin (Better than Blackcoin). #2 - Zerocoin integration is huge, yes everyone wants it, yes everyone wants it now, but same with the iPhone 6 and Darkcoin's DarkSend source, etc. Sometimes things take time, give it time guys, with actual community support, that would be ideal, not trolling me and my personal life and then freaking out if I don't post back within 24 hours....
Needless to say, I lol'ed |
|
|
|
Would someone kindly tell me which website this chart is available from? Wouldn't mind checking it out.
cheers
Seems like poloniex |
|
|
|
1. XC (X11 / PoW/PoS): It's going at it the wrong way (trusted nodes + coin forwarding from wallet to wallet - leading to lost coins / potential for stealing). They will have to change strategy. 2. Cloak (X13 / PoW/PoS): Laundering through exchanges, LOL 3. Mastiffcoin (X11 / PoW/PoS): Laundering through exchanges, LOL 4. Vericoin (Scrypt / PoW/PoS): Nothing to show for except promises 5. Pinkcoin (X11 / PoW/PoS): Centralized mixer 6. Cryptcoin (X11 / PoW/PoS): Nothing to show for except promises 7. Libertycoin (X11 / PoW/PoS): Nothing to show for except promises 8. Honorcoin (X11 / PoW/PoS): Nothing to show for except promises ( scam alert, people are panicking) 9. Dreamcoin (X11 / PoW/PoS): Nothing to show for except promises 10. Cinni: (Scrypt / PoW/PoS): Nothing to show for except promises 11. Boost: (X13 / PoW/PoS): Nothing to show for except promises 12. Anoncoin (PoW Scrypt): IP obfuscation 13. TIPS (PoW Scrypt): Centralized mixer 14. Bytecoin-BCN (PoW): 99% premine of circulating coins + problematic codebase coupled with good anonymity (+2 years in development and still in infancy regarding basic stuff like GUI) 15. Bytecoin clones (PoW): Increasing in numbers every day diluting that field. MRO gets a special mention due to being the first clone. BBR gets another special mention for having a good dev. Still they experience significant problems due to the new codebase. 16. Zerocoin: DOA (?) / delayed for months 17. NXT (PoS): In discussions relative to anonymous implementation vs Darkcoin: DarkSend works right now (trustless/decentralized mixing). There are a few bugs to be sorted out in masternode payments. ...disaster  |
|
|
|
I've been watching Cryptsy and Mintpal very closely this last couple of weeks and I've noticed that the price drops seem to be orchestrated by huge sell orders (several or tens of BTC worth of DRK) which have no prospect of being filled. In fact the volume of sales is pretty modest in comparison with the size of the orders... which don't seem to reduce at all.
So who's in control of all this Darkcoin? And why do they feel that it's in their interests to devalue their own investments?
Could they be looking for more cheap coin to fund Masternodes?
The problem comes when they undermine confidence so much that nobody else wants to invest. It may eventually offer a valuable service, but that service is by no means unique; and if the big players are continually manipulating the market for their own gain, then the casual user will be looking elsewhere.
If you follow other cryptocurrencies, you will see that this happens to all of them. The crypto world is rife with price manipulation. + price volatility is higher in small marketcap coins. |
|
|
|
Haven't really been active in this thread lately, anyone can update me on what's going on with the coin? Why the sudden price drop?
Masternode payments fork is pushed back to late june. edit: fixed |
|
|
|
hahaha i love this community.
strong coin you guys have here, looks like the price cant go as low as i thought it would...too much buy support jumps out of the wood works. it's funny,
if you look at the depth charts, the buy support isnt readily apparent...yet as soon as the price dips a little bit low I see HUGE buys come out of nowhere...I think I know what you guys are up to. Make it look like there is no buy support, people sell low, all of a sudden, BAM they just got their coins scooped up from them haha
also, if I remember correctly, isn't this like the third time bad news has caused a price dip, and it always rebounds? Am I mistaken?
The primary buying power has always been off the books with DRK - except some 1500 BTC flashes of buying orders... you can see dumping down to 0.01 and then the buyer will take it back to 0.02 - 0.025 for the lulz. I think the primary buyer has seen the power that it has when the coin rises in coinmarketcap and likes it to stay up there... The drops actually occur when he is observing the price, rather then actively correcting it. So he waits for the drop to settle and when it's all over he sweeps the coins. I don't know who he is, but he's bought a shitload of DRKs. The falls actually allow him to cost-average the buys >0.02. Sure a lot of us also buy DRKs when it's unacceptably low, but we don't have the multi-million power that the whale has. |
|
|
|
It cant end just like this, there should be an aftermath.
Yeah there is... the airdrop date. It's when the massive dump will come from the sky. L O L... such honor, very airdrop, many anonymous, wow |
|
|
|
I like how people ask where is the dev, like there is some kind of incompatibility in being a scammer and still posting on a forum... So, suppose the dev is a scammer and he sees that we are asking for his presence... he buys the cheap coins (prior to posting) and then he posts on the forum. As "faith is restored" we then panic-buy the order book and then he dumps on us to make more profit. And then he goes out for good with double profit |
|
|
|
Is that true
anybody knows about this ??
I've seen the same in multiple altcoin threads. |
|
|
|
And these are the two greatest threats to a Bitcoin-style monetary system.
Personally I'm more worried of things like inability to scale, government 51% kill switch through massive NSA-owned ASIC farms and quantum computers. A kill switch would never be used. Centralization will not be used as a kill switch, but rather to force the network to an evolved protocol which serves the interest of the central entity. There is essentially no probability that the interests of the centralizer would be optimized by killing a dominant coin. I'm referring to the govt actually killing a coin (even Bitcoin), if it deems it's a threat to the USD. The USD is what makes thing happen on the planet. Almost all global debt (from country to country and the IMF), is USD-denominated. This is the mechanism for enforcing global slavery. If something were to rival or threaten the USD, measures would be taken to control that threat. Precious metals are manipulated to that end and they have marketcaps 1000x of BTC. If I were the US government, I'd want a Bitcoin killswitch. If it'd cost me 100mn USD to buy ASIC farms capable of 51%, that'd be a very small price to pay to continue my multi-trillion-USD dominance. Of course pulling the switch would also show desparation and people would then move to real money (PMs) - in which case the spike could be uncontrollable even with market manipulation. So instead of that, they use the FUD mechanism against bitcoin through the news, making people fearful or uncertain about it. Then the end result is still the same. It is the same if you have a deflationary currency as if you have a inflationary currency.
If you have large stakeholders with lots of wealth to protect then just like in the real world, people have to pay a "vault fee" to keep their gold secure. Say this is 1% per year to keep it in some vault. So large stakeholders either become miners and paying an amount of electricity equal to the vault fee or pay someone else to secure the network for them, which again would be equal to the vault fee.
It's not the same because tx fees give something back. So yes, they are paying for electricity but they also get paid the tx fees as a reward. Even if its slightly or moderately negative, it won't be a large cost because the mining equilibrium will have pushed out the normal miners (=they don't mine at a loss, so...) making mining tx fees more viable for someone harvesting them + securing the network for their own safety (dual benefit). |
|
|
|
Please feel free to attack Monero if you are so confident in your assertion.
I have better things to spend my BTCs at than ruining blockchains. Remember the game theory assumptions that comprise Bitcoin's modus operandi do not really apply for altcoins. The game theory behind Bitcoin says that one will not try to destroy the network because he himself will lose out while trying to do that. When it goes in altcoin battles or fiat (=government) vs whatever-coin, this is a different issue altogether. You are absolutted right, thats why large players like rpietila has chosen Monero:
Yes, well, the market cap of each coin speaks for itself really as to what big money do on aggregate. MRO is playing at 1.5-4M and DRK is like 35-60M. It's like comparing the small league to the big league. And don't forget that some of the money on MRO (including my own) are on MRO as a hedge. |
|
|
|
Alex: Really all these CN children's disease will be patched and fixed soon. The coin is as you know new to public.
Evan is also patching/developing to get Dark finished/fixing small bugs because of youg coin age.
CryptoNote-based coins have fundamental issues, like scaling / bloating, usability, compatibility etc etc. As I showed you there are also attack vectors that can render such coins DOA with a few BTCs. This is not funny. Imagine you are an investor, having bought 1000 BTCs worth of MROs and a guy comes in and makes the blockchain unusable for pennies. And you can't prune these transactions because they are intermeshed. And if you make sizable transactions (sizable not in terms of coins, but in terms of KBytes) expensive, then one has to -either vastly reduce the number of mixing parameters just to keep bloat low -or pay a very hefty fee for each transaction, that would make the coin unusable or far more expensive than its competitors Darkcoin doesn't go out to reinvent what Satoshi did. It builds and extends on it, with ways that some agree and others disagree - but the issue here is that it builds upon a proven technology. IMHO DarkCoin and CN plattform are so different from code base, dev approach, goals & community.
There should be no tension/competition or bashing between these two coins, because there is no reason for this.
They are not interferring each other.
Indeed they aren't. Neither are PoS coins which are inherently broken due to the "nothing at stake" attack. All people working any kind of coin privacy project should coperate with devs/communitys from other projects.
We all want the same and can learn from each other.
We all want the same but a lot of people do not understand this will be a 1bn USD market in the future... They thus use fud and shitting-on-other-coins techniques to promote themselves, like the market is just for one player where anything else can't fit. It's essential for people's freedoms to have multiple projects that pursue privacy/anonymity so that through competition the projects improve themselves (and also for redundancy reasons if some projects fail). Sure, some will lead the market and some will trail it, but here we have different phenomena in which people suddenly "discovered" anonymity just because they saw DRK rising and are trying to cash in on that. Most of the running projects right now are either scams or pumps & dumps in the trail of DRK. Some simply issue a whitepaper and their price skyrockets with nothing to show for, and then they crap on DRK for actually having a working anonymous solution for months, distorting the masternode payment issues to fit their cause. And when the code for masternodes is complete, remember that they will rip it and apply it to themselves. Anyway, the large market players can see right through these stuff, so it's not so relevant in the end of the day... |
|
|
|
Alex:
- You are to aggressive and absolute. This aggressive discussion style sucks and drives intelligent people away, leaving you with the rest.
There is no aggression. I did not bold that part to "shout" at you, just to highlight what you missed. - I never heard about this attack, you now mentioned before. I dont know if it exists or not. Even if it does, it will be patched like all blockchain bloat problems in other coins before (e.g. BitCoin, DOGE, Name, ...)
=> Question 1: Can it be set with something like a slide-bar, on demand, per transaction? Like I want to launder it 5 times or 2 times.
Question 2: Can an evil entity attack the blockchain by artificially bloating it with tons of bogus transactions? What would be the estimated cost of the attacker in order to make the blockchain unusable?
1: it already is, you set the mixin count per-transaction. There is no default in the CLI wallet, you are forced to set it when sending. I normally use 0 because I don't a craving for anonymity in moving coins to people or to an exchange, but I have had no problem moving largish amounts with mixins of 10. 2: exactly the same as a dust attack on the Bitcoin blockchain. Do we not remember the 1Enjoy 1Sochi dust attack? Attackers attempting this quickly run out of funds, which is kinda the point of transaction fees:) + 2: exactly the same as a dust attack on the Bitcoin blockchain. Do we not remember the 1Enjoy 1Sochi dust attack? Attackers attempting this quickly run out of funds, which is kinda the point of transaction fees:)
The tx fees with Monero are extremely low compared to Bitcoin, especially considering the price difference. I could send 1 million transactions for 2 USD right now. + New Windows binaries are available that are compatible with the fee update and tx size restrictions.
This should solve the cheap-attack-to-fill-the-blockchain-with-crap vector? For the most part, but there are other DoS vectors that still need to be addressed that I won't go into detail about. |
|
|
|
Here is your report sir:
$ cd .quazarcoin/
x @ c4 in ~/.quazarcoin
$ dsize
308M .
x @ c4 in ~/.quazarcoin
$ cd ..
x @ c4 in ~
$ cd .bitmonero/
x @ c4 in ~/.bitmonero
$ dsize
614M .
x @ c4 in ~/.bitmonero
$ cd ..
x @ c4 in ~
$ cd .mountcoin/
x @ c4 in ~/.mountcoin
$ dsize
238M .
x @ c4 in ~/.mountcoin
$
=> No FUD here: Do a research on the BTC cost to add 100 GB bloat in CN blockchains and report back to this thread about how costly would it be to render their blockchains DOA if, say, a malicious attacker was so inclined to do so. Also describe us the consequences in terms of loading wallets after that attack happens. |
|
|
|
- CryptoNote development started 2 years ago.
- How can CN code be behind Bitcoins? Bitcoins source was always open source. CNs source and development was kept private. CN got ring signatures working, a technology that many experts doubted could ever be brought into a coin, because it was to complex to implement. (Dark has no multi-sig-support, ...)
What do you mean how it can be behind Bitcoin? It can because it was developed later and is far more immature. - CN project was especially started to improve on the mistakes made during development of Bitcoin.
(Centralized Development, no privacy, ...)
The "centralized development" part is not true if you fork Bitcoin and make an altcoin - as there are hundreds of them. If you want to make a new coin, the centralized development part of another coin is not an issue for your coin anyway. Privacy is another thing, but Bitcoin is modular and can be extended to do things. - CN plattform has 4 active coins with devs and growing blockchains and one extern research and expert team for guidance.
How can CN be behind Dark?? Make no sense.
Have you ever used CN coins? Do you want me to find quotes of people fuming about how regressive the CN stuff is for everyday use? - I really wish the best to Dark and Evan. But you 10000% DarkCoin fanboys, spreading wrong infos (some spread FUD) really gave DRK a bad images in the last days.
No FUD here: Do a research on the BTC cost to add 100 GB bloat in CN blockchains and report back to this thread about how costly would it be to render their blockchains DOA if, say, a malicious attacker was so inclined to do so. Also describe us the consequences in terms of loading wallets after that attack happens. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
