Big dump happening right now. Like anonymous1503xxx said, most of people in crypto have the attention ability of a 5 years old kid and that's why they need constantly new shiny things to look at and forget about what important.
The same happened with DRK before so I won't surprise anymore. Instead, I'm glad to have cheap DRK again.
The market has overvalued the coin. Coin-numbers adjusted (same number of DRKs / LTCs = 4.3mn) litecoin stands at 74.28$. Are you sure? |
|
|
|
Besides, since the implementation in Darkcoin is based on both DarkSend+economy+game theory, it's not easily duplicated by other coins. Given that in the current design the nodes know who is transacting with the other, a way had to be devised to solve the bad actor problem. The 12.000 USD per node is the dis-incentive to buy a lot of nodes. When an altcoin is launched a month from now, implementing the opensourced DarkSend, it does not have the same dis-incentives for the bad actor as he can buy the entire monetary base (and the nodes) for peanuts. Thus, from game theory perspective, the implementation won't really work as effectively as with a coin with good distribution + established value. For example DOGEcoin or Litecoin could implement it better than a new coin with zero price.
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate your taking time to not just scream but explain things in a logical manner. You also seem in the know about DRK, so I have one more question about these nodes. I get it that if you are sending money through darksend that I can't see it the same way I can track you on the bitcoin blockchain. So it keeps me from looking at you, but I am not really worried about person to person tracking. And 12,000 USD keeps most people out of the node game for sure. 12,000 USD for the NSA, it isn't even dust. If the NSA was watching DRK and bought a dozen nodes, wouldn't they be able to see where the money in those nodes is coming and going from? I mean, they might have to do some extra computer leg work, and cracking, but wouldn't they be able to monitor just where the money coming into their node is coming from and where it is going? It is their node after all and they are privy to the data coming in and out. Thing is, the price isn't static. The more you buy, the more the price rises. So it would be impossible to control, say, half of the darkcoins in circulation or 3/4ths, without the marketcap exploding to something like a billion usd. They'd still have the money for that though, no question. Regarding traceability... assuming the NSA controls something like 60% of the nodes (that's a lot), if you darksend the money multiple times, and assuming a random selection of node for each round of laundering, the possibility of getting tracked is: One Darksend: 60% Two Darksends: 60% x 60% = 36% Three... = 21.6% Four = 12.96% Five = 7.77% Six = 4.66% Seven = 2.79% Eight = 1.67% Nine = 1% Ten = 0.6% Eleven = 0.36% Twelve = 0.21% Thirteen = 0.13% But the NSA in particular has extra ways to discover what you do (controls networks, devices, ip obfuscation nodes, has advanced AI pattern recognition software etc), so that's not even a really accurate reflection. And I think there's also a problem with linking change addresses during DarkSends that might be recombined in some joint future spending. This would probably require something like a scheduled laundering service, like the "windows defrag" for the disk, but that would perform something similar for change addresses. I'm not sure of what the next version of DarkSend will do regarding change denominations. To make the long story short: NSA-proofing is not easy. When Evan started working on it he wasn't really trying to create an NSA-proof system, just a system that would provide good privacy through obfuscation and encryption that could only be cracked by a very serious adversary like the NSA (not even most governments). It was after Anonymint's constructive criticism back in March and the Bytecoin & clones appearance when the pressure was built up to deliver something even better and that's where we are today, trying to make a transparent blockchain to provide an almost perfect degree of anonymity - which is of course a problem because you are going against the fundamental design of the system. So we'll see what we end up with after RC4 (anonymity enhancements)... |
|
|
|
What I can't forgive though is the Dark cartel charging 80 cents to a dollar for the coin for months when it had no anon function. Unless you were lucky to have a mining rig to get all those coins in its first 24-48 hours, Dark has always had a high barrier to entry for most people to accumulate a serious amount of coins. Not sure who to blame, if anyone for any of this, but that is really my main issue, it seems greed has dominated the coin since day 1 by the whales.
Are you sure we are talking about Darkcoin? For half a month the price was like 0.2 / 0.25 BTC for 10.000 DRKs. It hit the exchanges for 0.1 BTC / 10.000 DRKs (0.00001)... it was a month after launch, when the first pre-alpha of Darksend was trialed at testnet that price rose to 0.002.  Check here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=471321.0And here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=468804.0 (this is full of epic quotes... nah, 0.35$... too expensive, I'm not buying... it's at the top... etc etc). It seems like more and more of the top 10 coins are not releasing their code to protect their investment. I get it. Money is important. At that point though, the concept of crypto has far strayed from Satoshi's bitcoin of radical financial revolution and instead turned into a money making venture.
Not really. DarkSend will be open when it's finalized in a few weeks. This has been decided months ago by the community & dev as closed source is DOA for someone who wants to be anonymous. There were many in the community that believe that scamcoins shouldn't be allowed to clone it, but the advantages of opensourcing it were weighted in its favor. Closed source=unacceptable. The paranoia is a significant factor and you don't wan't people looking over their shoulders if the software they're using is somehow rooted. It's also an exploitable FUD-vector that can be easily avoided. It's just that price caught up with the development plan (=not yet final) and is now acting as the spotlight. Besides, since the implementation in Darkcoin is based on both DarkSend+economy+game theory, it's not easily duplicated by other coins. Given that in the current design the nodes know who is transacting with the other, a way had to be devised to solve the bad actor problem. The 12.000 USD per node is the dis-incentive to buy a lot of nodes. When an altcoin is launched a month from now, implementing the opensourced DarkSend, it does not have the same dis-incentives for the bad actor as he can buy the entire monetary base (and the nodes) for peanuts. Thus, from game theory perspective, the implementation won't really work as effectively as with a coin with good distribution + established value. For example DOGEcoin or Litecoin could implement it better than a new coin with zero price. As for the vision of Satoshi, things are complicated because even going against the transparent public ledger is a deviation on our part... His vision, in my perspective, is less of a vision and more of ...time traveling. Although it doesn't really involve physically going back and forth in the timeline. Under certain circumstances some people are able to "tune" their consciousness in the future modus operandi of humanity and open a portal between the future and the present. I believe Bitcoin is precisely that - a portal to the future, anchored in the now. And some things that don't make sense (ie why would he empower the people with a decentralized financial system but not give them protection from government oppression) actually do make sense from his future-aligned-consciousness perspective. I think the reason why bitcoin is so transparent is elusive to pretty much everyone in the bitcoin world but I'll give it a go - with a warning attached that what you will read may be near impossible to believe.
Just like the ape evolved to the human by integrating a higher intellect, human will evolve into a new and better species (we are not the end of evolution - we are still evolving). Some say humans will evolve to a techno-organic hybrid (Kurzweil) like Borg but the reality is that humans will integrate their "soul" to become god-humans, making cyborg humans obsolete.
This is "destined" to happen near the end of this century. I say destined because the future is like a gravity center that "pulls" the past to itself (rather than the past building upon itself step-by-step to reach the future - which is how we view it in linear time). At the end (timeline-wise) of that gravity center is the "soul Internet". It is when humans will discover that they are all connected on a soul level where every human soul is a node and that their souls make up an internet, which is what we'd call God.
In order for humans to scientifically discover that internet, there must be some things, like concepts, that they can build upon. The order is something like that: Telegraph => Telephone => Modems => Technological Internet (what we have now) => Mental Internet (where we discover that our minds are interconnected) => Soul Internet (where we discover that our souls are interconnected).
For example, you have the telegraph and you say I discovered the phone, which is like the telegraph, but instead of signals it transmits voice. Then you have the modem which is like the phone but instead of voice, transmits data - and you've reached the internet. And then you'll say "humans are connected in their minds, just like the internet nodes". And when this is "known science" it will be easy to make the next step in understanding that humans are connected at a deeper level - comprising the ultimate network (which is the All-that-is-One). But it always requires prior concepts to build upon.
Every direction of society is building new concepts, in incremental steps, that are going towards this final realization. This includes entertainment, technology, economy, sciences, etc. In our case (Bitcoin) the decentralized/P2P model is the precise model for making people understand how the mental and soul network operate with everyone being a node. Decentralization and networks built through an equality of nodes that make up the "larger entity" is a key element. On the other hand, hierarchy/authority is against the protocol of equality which is necessary for people to understand what's coming next.
Transparency is another key element because there are no "secrets" in the "higher" networks that exist beyond the technological internet. So Bitcoin has been created as a conceptual platform / a reference for discovering things that operate based on the same "protocols" (p2p - power to the people / transparency).
Going against these protocols (in our case transparency) that build up our higher realizations as a species will be tricky. It's like trying to sail against the wind - and that ensures a hell of a bumpy raid for anyone who'll try to give it a shot in anonymity given that it is a fundamental rule of this reality that there is nothing hidden under the sun.
To add a few further info to the above, this reality is actually a constructed reality / a virtual reality. Scientists are beginning to realize this as they analyze its "fabric". The most complete theoretical models / unification theories for the universe, are based on the virtual reality hologram - yet they are still on the "fringes" of acceptability despite being superior in the way they predict and explain phenomena. Consistent with a programmed reality, the things of value that the "players" of this reality are programmed to really value are gold and silver - in specific ratios. These are hardcoded consts in the reality hologram. Select humans/agents are now repeating the pattern of their creator-gods by programming this reality with a new type of money - essentially causing a systemic "rebellion" with far reaching ripples. Fiat money was not so much a rebellion as a way for the elite to hoard precious metals while giving people "paper money" to toy around with. You can't have precious metal hoarding if people are transacting with it daily. So you make all the fiat money (scam money) that you want, and you then use it to take real money (=hardcoded money, like gold) out of circulation and hoard it. Now we have the "rebellion" where both gold + fiat are in doubt versus Satoshi's construct. The forces that are behind Satoshi on one hand and the Elite on the other hand are ancient / primordial. Each one tries to leverage the reality hologram towards specific directions although the Elite's side (which are also aligned with the creator-gods of this reality) have stronger physical leverage. Satoshi's side is more in line with a consciousness-revolution where this reality construct is seen for what it is and everything that is limiting to the "players" is teared down. Transparency is a key element of his "strategy". Layers of deception and obfuscation is the strategy of the "opponents"/Elite. They are masters in this game and that's why our own efforts to create, say, NSA-proof solutions will be "quite difficult". |
|
|
|
|
The king in ozziecoin's analogy is gmaxwell.
|
|
|
|
You seem to FUD every coin that might threaten DRK.
Care to point out the FUD? Oh yes, there is none. . Unless you show me where is the FUD I'm supposedly spreading, someone else is full of BS - I'm afraid... As to why I'm posting: Let's say I'm simply examining the angle of each player in the anonymous market. If one knows that the Darkcoin community & dev has decided long ago to opensource it and still maintains it goes against the principles of Satoshi - OK... then they are acting maliciously by presenting misinformation. If they didn't know that opensourcing is scheduled, then it's an honest mistake and I have no issue with it. Depending one's words and actions, the angle of the player is betrayed - as are the motives. Look if you don't like a coin, why are you posting in the thread? Why even get involved?
I own a few XHCs and I am waiting -as you are I imagine- to go to the moon. I buy a lot of anonymous coins because I'm a believer in the anonymous market. I rarely post in threads of coins I don't own. "Forgive" my low tolerance for BS. |
|
|
|
You seem to FUD every coin that might threaten DRK.
Care to point out the FUD? Oh yes, there is none. |
|
|
|
Good luck with Honorcoin, I'm just dropping a few notes regarding the announcement: The problem
In the Honorcoin team, we are concerned about the privacy issues Bitcoin-based cryptocurrencies have. Right now, the 99% percent of the altcoins have not addressed this problem, mainly, because many developers do not have the expertise to develop a solution.
May I ask why the sudden interest in "privacy", beyond the " it's the latest trend"? Darkcoin was concerned about the privacy issues like months ago... People said " oh, who will want to have Darkcoins... sounds sketchy... the government will ban you... it's a futile effort... it's money wasted as the exchanges will surely ban you... no no, that's a small niche we don't want to be associated with" - and other things like that. How is it that suddenly everyone and their grandma "sees" the problem while they marginalized Darkcoin for seeing it and actually trying to address it? Only a few coins have come with a solution for their own Blockchains, such as Darkcoin, Fedoracoin and others. Their solution is against cryptocurrency fundamentals, and what Satoshi Nakamoto wanted for Bitcoin. They have come up with a solution that is not open source, and they are not willing to share it with the rest of the coins, and teach how to implement it.
This crosses into misinformation territory. DarkSend was always intended to be open-sourced, once it is finished. The development plan itself, is updated often and has as the last milestone the release of the code to the community. Time horizon for this was around early July now it's gone back by a month or so due to the issues that Darkcoin itself encountered in RC2. The anonymity aspect is still being worked and will get an upgrade in RC4. Close-source solutions are dangerous to the Cryptocurrency space. If Bitcoin’s source code was not open source it would not have succeeded. Open source and cooperation is what drives cryptocurrencies. We need to stop closed-source solutions.
You are right on that closed-source solutions are dangerous. They also require trust. DarkSend aims to be trustless and open when its finalized. It is not finalized and its peripheral elements (masternode payments) caused forking issues. Nobody is delaying this because they want to. It's simply evolving organically, as it did for months - it's just that now people take notice due to the rise in price. As for cooperation between cryptocurrencies, that's almost absurd. Dark is crucified all day and night by Bitcoin + altcoins. Cooperation is not really the intent here. The intent is "give me your code and I'll make a clone coin to cash out in a pump & dump" - just like it's happening already with all the coins that claim anonymity through some kind of central mixer or ...coin-forwarding-wallets that only cause laughter. Let's be honest: Coins and coin devs don't care about the user's anonymity. They didn't care in the past (no interest in developing anonymity a few weeks or months ago), they don't care now. They only care to ride the latest train - and put their users privacy at risk while doing so. The only ones who do care and actually made something that works, go out in transparency, with their own name on the line, and are vilified with false information about "closed source" bs, when it's a known - in every development schedule of Darkcoin - that opensourcing will happen in a few weeks. On top of that, DarkSend uses a heavily dis-incentivized system of having extremely expensive masternodes as a method to prevent "bad actors" from mapping the network. This value per masternode dis-incentive is a part of the game-theory component that makes DarkSend operational in Darkcoin. Say DarkSend was opensourced right now and a new clone coin says "we will implement it". How are the users of that coin protected from having their transactions mapped when the marketcap of that coin is peanuts and anyone can buy all the nodes and map all transactions? Case in point, DarkSend would not really be an adequate solution for such coins and new solutions would have to be implemented anyway. There would be no 12.000 USD disincentive per node for bad actors because the coin marketcap is useless. The only reason one would implement it would be to cash out on the ignorant because it would provide no security guarantee, outside the context of the game-theory component. Again, good luck with the project + the anonymity solution you are working at. As citizens we'll need all the improvements we can get in that area. |
|
|
|
Spikes like these are nothing to be noted. Come back in 3 months and see where price is.
Price seems fine... Check  |
|
|
|
Uro is a unique currency that is long term 1:1 backed to the value of 1 metric tonne of Urea fertiliser (the world's most important fertiliser)
First coin whether physical or cryptocurrency to ever be literally backed by shit? Ahahaha that was good. |
|
|
|
The facts will indicate that bitcoin.info is a lone centralised server. Darkwallet is in alpha/beta and has been for months. Moreover, they can only do two party coinjoin. They may getting working eventually. But in mind I keep thinking, why can't we just use masternodes to perform this complex task? Darkcoin is good enough technology with a development path.
Masternodes, as good as they are, and that's not an inherent weaknesses of the node structure btw, is that they know who is doing the transaction. They could be used in a way where they wouldn't know who is transacting what in order to improve their current weakness which might create other problems. We'll have to wait and see what the next step is regarding development. Perhaps we might even see a multiple implementation in the future like - Normal send - StealthSend / Stealth Addresses - Masternode mixing where the node knows - Masternode mixing where the node knows (multiplied by X number of mixings so that even if the nodes know, it will become irrelevant) - Masternode mixing where the node doesn't know As for Dark Wallet, the demand for BTC mixing is good, so I think it'll get there at some point. |
|
|
|
Would someone care to explain the block reward system?
When is the block reward going to get cut down? seems like there is a lot of downward pressure due to the hype surroinding this coin making it profitable to mine and dump +1 As it seems, it won't change... it has already been pointed out as a factor & discussed. |
|
|
|
He's also complained about his name being used to promote Darkcoin, so splashing his name around lots might not be for the best.
/\/\/\ Be extra careful with this in public announcements, facebooks, twitters etc. Avoid it entirely if possible if the man doesn't want to be associated. fwiw; it is not wise to honour the person who just publicly tried to tear you down, especially since he made the accusations without even looking at the code. In these forums, he is equivalent to the king of France in the 1200s when he wiped out the Templars without evidence. He is a respected member of the community and knows his stuff* regarding privacy. I've read (some of) his posts and I've learned quite a bit. Now... he has certain preferences regarding bitcoin vs altcoins and he has a certain philosophy that he has expressed as to why bitcoin-based clones are redundant, scummy, evil or whatever. Apparently any bitcoin-based coin doesn't interest him hence the zerocash and bytecoin mentions (which are near-DOA themselves due to their problems and ...security assumptions). He kind'a took the wrong turn in the coinjoin thread when he trashed drk and then complained that this is only technological stuff etc etc (which, in a way, it wasn't as the not-so-veiled criticism was there) in which others shouldn't post fanboy messages etc etc, but he rectified it to some extent by taking that discussion elsewhere. * Some of the points he made though, like Darkcoin = centralized due to closed source, was like "what the...  "  It's not like this is an inherent property - rather a short term situation until the code is final. Almost personal-level criticism I've read about the darkcoin developers has also been uncalled for in some of his past posts. If Satoshi was around he'd tell him to cool down and that this is the nature of opensource. If someone wants to build something on top of Bitcoin he can. If he wants to build something in parallel to Bitcoin, he can also. Why the need to go to extremes to protect Bitcoin against altcoins? Satoshi would probably say "if Bitcoin is somehow vulnerable to altcoins, maybe it's because it doesn't do as good of a job" and I doubt he would get very emotional about it. No matter how one looks at that, once again DRK shows why it's the Platinum (=potent catalyst + rare / great store of value), by catalyzing the whole altcoin field towards the pursuit of privacy and anonymity. Even Bitcoin must now catch-up, with things like Dark Wallet. |
|
|
|
He's also complained about his name being used to promote Darkcoin, so splashing his name around lots might not be for the best.
/\/\/\ Be extra careful with this in public announcements, facebooks, twitters etc. Avoid it entirely if possible if the man doesn't want to be associated. |
|
|
|
Awesome, thanks! Mind if I steal this for the official Facebook page? It'll need some tiny corrections + the cold storage is not anonymity-related. |
|
|
|
|
If you redo the challenge, make at least 10 transactions and ask the contestant to pinpoint 2.
1 can be achieved by guesswork but 2 requires guesswork^2.
Still, if the result of guesswork^2 is used as the password it can be brute-forced pretty easily.
|
|
|
|
Something's wrong with the LTC/DRK pair at mintpal showing 226$... I've done way more volume than that by arbitraging the 1:1 LTC/DRK offers with DRK being priced at 160-165 levels. DRK=>LTC (@ 1:1) => BTC => DRK => repeat |
|
|
|
3. you can't also say to everyone else, we have mined 12.5% of all the current coins, but now we want that to be 50%
The initial 84mn formula with moore's law difficulty adjustment + annual reward halving, would produce no more than 10mn coins. 84mn was the theoretical maximum. The practical maximum of the initial formula was 10-11mn, not 84. This was then altered (after community consultation) to 84mn (due to the formula being too restrictive) which, again, after discussion and a poll took the final form of 22mn with 7% annual reduction. |
|
|
|
Uh, yea when the coin has no real value to folks and is just a speculative bubble or a speculative hedge... thats what happens. Not my cup of tea at least. As I've said, I normally leave the altcoin stuff alone— except for the rare novel idea, or someone pulling me in for an opinion in one way or another.
What happened with bitcoin was unique and non-replicable because it started its coin minting by generating zero-priced coins. So from zero price it could only go upwards, despite new coins being added to the monetary base (inflationary effect). Bitcoin's inflation has hampered it much later in its life, like what's happening right now (3600 BTC x 650$ = 2.34mn USD required every day to keep price steady). This is the only barrier to the price getting to five digits right now. Altcoins are different because they start with some expectation from the start. They have an initial value per coin that can't be kept steady. For example, we launch a coin today, 1000 coins are mined and it is listed in the exchange for 0.01... Second day we get to 2000 coins... so with the price being steady at 0.01, there is a +10 BTC requirement to absorb the new +1000 coins. Otherwise the price of all 2000 coins crumbles. Even cryptonote-based coins have extremely bad inflation right now. Their price went up too fast and it wasn't sustainable given the inflation rate (so they crashed back down). Hundreds of BTCs per day are required just to keep CN-based coin prices steady. So real-life value and application cannot overcome the inflation issue. Investors simply don't have that type of money to throw in, every day. Nor can one wait 3-4 years for the inflation to get better and then buy. By that time the coin will be perceived as dead so there's no way one would seriously consider it. So it's a problem for altcoins on how to distribute the monetary base in a way that is fair, that does not kill the price (and the coin) through inflation and also preserves the PoW to future-proof levels. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
