White papers, presentations etc are more for academics. If you have something working, well, then your code is your white paper, so to speak. Others can analyze it and write 10 papers each, but the magic is performed in the result itself. If you have to convince others through papers and presentations, it's game over.
Academia is good for theoretical stuff like Zerocoin but when it comes to actually making something they haven't produced anything - so it's up to the people, like Cryptonote/Bytecoin people, Gmaxwell, Evan, etc to do the planning and coding.
The people can't wait the "academics", funded by the government, to provide solutions for them. They'll find a way to do things, even "dirty" ways and hacks that improve their privacy/anonymity.
I'm sorry I totally disagree with this. You actually agree and you'll understand why.... It's totally normal to have both high, mid and even low level explanation of the technology involved here to assure investors. To his credit the dev of XC has posted academic papers on cryptography before in the XC forum, and while I'll admit to being unqualified to review the code, the tone so far seems to be "take my word for it". If you are willing to risk $10K, $100K, $1 million or more on promises from someone you don't know, then you are gambling. I would say there is less than a 5% chance that this dev has managed to miraculously pull out of thin air some solution that nobody else in this entire field has been able to come up with. If it were so simple, then don't you think the researchers at Johns Hopkins University would have been able to do it much sooner?
"Assure investors"? A scammer might want to give all the assurances the investors want to hear in any form, including a white paper. That's why ultimately you have to decide on your own, not by what the "brochure" says or what the dev "promises". And your ultimate decision, without whitepapers etc is that he has <5%. You saw the tech, you saw that he can't pull it off except by some kind of miracle, so it was your own decision without the "brochures" - or despite the "illustrations" and diagrams. See that we agree that they aren't so important? If it doesn't work, it doesn't. And if the fundamental structure is flawed, it's flawed. If graduate students researching this stuff for months and years are still working on getting Zerocash launched in the next few months, it seems unbelievable that a single man (who had to hire loljosh to dev the PoS portion of the coin and possibly more) has single-handedly come up with groundbreaking technology in this field well ahead of schedule.
There's a "very good" chance that both XC and Zerocoin have fundamental design errors. I'm not saying I couldn't be wrong, but there is a serious lack of transparency here and investors are at great risk in this market that is rife with corruption, false promises and scams. I truly hope that this technology is for real, it would be ground breaking and exciting, but until it has been thoroughly vetted people need to stop hyping it up as if it is already safe to use.
Agreed. Anonymity is not a toy. People trust their lives to anonymity. It must be fool proof, perfect, impervious to years and decades of future scrutiny and attempts at hacks and manipulation. I would argue that cryptography is the single most complex and difficult art to master in all of academia. It is the art of perfect secrecy, perfect trustlessness, elegant in its design and only the most genius of minds are worthy of such an endeavor. The significance of this undertaking cannot be overestimated.
Yeah well, you can start somewhere to get the ball rolling and increase the level of anonymity (always relative to the power of the adversary that can see through the obfuscation)... otherwise you can wait forever for the perfect program that never comes. |
|
|
|
big brother increasing his stock. now 516k  Xr57hNKbEzNHFkTsUmfhPxKRfnnt9nVe7z Hmm... mr #1 (I mean ex #1) will have a hard time catching up with that. And he made all that mathematical effort to make it a perfect 333.333,3  Top 3 wallets now have ~1mn coins. |
|
|
|
I think you're missing his point. He was really being tongue in cheek as if to say, other fads in the past have much easier to copy, but when it comes to anonymity it is actually the most advanced technology yet.
The reason Bitcoin itself even exists is because of revolutionary methods of applying cryptography to computer networks. This is research level science that is being conducted. Lofty claims of advances in this field are ridiculous and can't be taken seriously at all without white papers, technical presentation, and professionalism.
White papers, presentations etc are more for academics. If you have something working, well, then your code is your white paper, so to speak. Others can analyze it and write 10 papers each, but the magic is performed in the result itself. If you have to convince others through papers and presentations, it's game over. Academia is good for theoretical stuff like Zerocoin but when it comes to actually making something they haven't produced anything - so it's up to the people, like Cryptonote/Bytecoin people, Gmaxwell, Evan, etc to do the planning and coding. The people can't wait the "academics", funded by the government, to provide solutions for them. They'll find a way to do things, even "dirty" ways and hacks that improve their privacy/anonymity. But you have to admit XC wouldn't have taken off like this if Dark didn't have serious problems of its own. I have no problem admitting Dark is way ahead of the game and may be "the best" or most ahead anonymous coin at the moment and I'd much rather hold it if I could afford it, but people try to cover up the fact it has problems too, the whole instamine controversy, masternodes being hosted on Amazon servers, being ripe pickings for DDOS, etc. there wouldn't be a "search" for a better coin if there wasn't a need.
People simply want to catch the 2nd train because they missed the first one. Litecoin vs Bitcoin, memes/animals vs DOGE, countrycoins vs Aurora, "whitecoins" vs Blackcoin, "anonymous" coins vs Dark ...etc It's always the same. As for masternodes being hosted on Amazon, one can host them in their PC and home internet connection. Nobody is forcing anyone to use external servers. It's just common sense for DDOS protection. At the very least I don't think Dark deserves to be anywhere near the 10 dollar and above mark until we have proven 95-99% anonymity at least and full disclosure of source code to insure the technology is safe.
Dark is a development platform. It develops new code, new ideas, new economic models - and you can see the benefits in XC, which in a way are a vote of confidence for DRK's model. XC wouldn't even exist without DRK. Dan himself said it. He saw DRK and wanted to make something better. The price (10$+) means nothing without the coin count and unlike most people who cannot make simple co-relations between price, scarcity, inflation etc - investors understand these parameters. Coin numbers adjusted, Litecoin would cost something like 65-70$ if it had 4.3mn coins instead of 29mn. And the question is why? What does Litecoin offer to cost 65-70$? Under this light, why is Darkcoin overpriced? Even if it had 0 anonymity it would still be able to be closer to LTC for the mere reason that its economic model is better. LTC makes 28800 coins per day and DRK only 2880... LTC requires ~100mn USD to absorb annual production and DRK ~10mn usd. The fundamentals are heavily in favor of DRK. There is still no guarantee after all that either DRK or XC isn't some major honeypot
Drk being a honeypot for what? No reason for FUD really. You can run a wireshark and see if there is anything suspicious. Besides, nobody forces a DRK user to use the closed source DarkSend wallet. They can use the opensource one. If they are in the receiving end of the payment (like a merchant etc) they don't care anyway. It's the sender who DarkSends. |
|
|
|
|
If you are good at trading, why not.
|
|
|
|
Guys,
A bit OT. What would be the best graphics card to mine DRK coin? There is a huge debate on Nvidia beating the Shit out of AMD recently. I was seriously thinking of getting an AMD, but now i am having second thoughts. In your opinion what would be the best graphics card to mine DRK (an indication of the hash rates would be the icing on the cake)? I am on a bit of a budget, so i am looking at graphics cards below $150 at this stage, but if the indicated hash rate is very high for some of the others, i may consider! The PSU on my system is 300W, so it will have to be a card that i can use without having to change over the PSU.
Thanks all!
750Ti Nvidia. Very low power consumption too - it's a killer combo (performance/consumption/price). |
|
|
|
I was checking an old thread regarding QCs and Bitcoin https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3008...very interesting stuff. Anyway, the workaround from having your wallet emptied by a QC is this: You send your money to an address that you do not use for spending. For example the #1 guy in the richlist is safe from QC cracking his private key because he hasn't published his public key for spending. It's all incoming transactions. Essentially all addresses should be used once for spending and then they are useless against a QC. The change that remain unspent should be sent to new addresses for future spending / storage. A guy notes: People think Bitcoin is this:
PUBLIC KEY
PRIVATE KEY
In reality it is this:
PUBLIC ADDRESS
PUBLIC KEY
PRIVATE KEY
Either Satoshi was the luckiest developer of all time or a genius from the future.
By using the PUBLIC ADDRESS which is a hash of the PUBLIC KEY Shor's algorithm is useless. There is no known quantum algorithm for breaking hashes, either practical or theoretical. If you don't know what you are attacking (PUBLIC KEY) then Short's algorithm is worthless.
 |
|
|
|
|
I see it more like future direction / innovation rather than a problem requiring immediate attention... so no conflict with the development plan as it is right now.
|
|
|
|
I think if US govt had QCs the other govts will find out.
Other governments weren't even able to tell they were being spied by the NSA until Snowden came out. And that's the easy stuff which they should be able to pick up. |
|
|
|
The characters are very interesting and somewhat distant reality tells But still you BTC believe and trade DRK/BTC and you have BTC Wallet In your Sing :p
We don't know if it's distant. They could have quantum computers for something like 10 years and we wouldn't know it because they aren't telling us. Withholding your capabilities represents a strategic advantage over your opponents. QCs can break military-grade encryption. It's highly unlikely a country would say "ok, we can make our opponents encryption redundant" because then they would force them into upgrading. It's better to let them sleep. That's precisely why I can't base my money on the QC-dependency / " ass-umption". Technologies with military applications have been known to be withheld for over 10 years. Imagine this happening with disruptive technologies for society at large (economic systems, banks etc) such as QCs... As long as I don't have the option, BTC and DRK are both crackable. If I have the option I can "diversify" my assets towards DRK to a larger degree. A BTC holder of million USDs would likely want some of them to go to a Quantum-resistant coin, just in case. I can also see that working in terms of news. When news go out regarding quantum advancements and prototype quantum computers being trialed in labs, Bitcoin will be crashing and Darkcoin will be gaining. So it's also a financial hedge for day-to-day news. |
|
|
|
Good idea.
Darkcoin needs a bout of Chaos Theory thrown into the mix-ing
The prospect of having my wallet go to zero because some inventor, government, private lab etc has a QC and I erroneously " ass-umed" they hadn't, is from the stuff that nightmares are made of. This is not a market where you can expect the others to show you their playing cards. It's cryptography. Each one is hiding their cards unless they have an incentive. I'm sure if an inventor or private lab found something, they'd get tons of money by the government to acquire the tech and keep it under wraps. It's stupid to expect it will go public and then I'll have to react to the news. If it's in the news it's game over. Quantum resistant will sound quite innovative for marketing too. People will be like "what? Bitcoin ISN'T quantum resistant? WTF? Where am I trusting my money? Let me buy more DRKs"  Yeah, I want to hear those fuckers say "Dark = scam" after that |
|
|
|
To eduffield: I was reading about Bitcoin https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Quantum_computers_would_break_Bitcoin.27s_securityQuantum computers would break Bitcoin's security While ECDSA is indeed not secure under quantum computing, quantum computers don't yet exist and probably won't for a while. The DWAVE system often written about in the press is, even if all their claims are true, not a quantum computer of a kind that could be used for cryptography. Bitcoin's security, when used properly with a new address on each transaction, depends on more than just ECDSA: Cryptographic hashes are much stronger than ECDSA under QC. Bitcoin's security was designed to be upgraded in a forward compatible way and could be upgraded if this were considered an imminent threat. ...and I find it unsettling that it is basing its security in the assumption of something like " ok, nobody has a quantum computer yet, so we are safe". If a government has a quantum computer to break cryptography, why would they even disclose it? You can't wait for these things to happen and then upgrade - you must be prepared. It is also well known that "assumption is the mother of all fuckups". Would it be possible to consult with some cryptography-experts (Anonymint might also be available to offer some feedback) and make Darkcoin => "First Quantum Resistant" too, being more futureproof than even Bitcoin itself, and then forcing Bitcoin to follow the trend? That would be an epic win... BTW, Bytecoin & clones aren't Quantum resistant. My 2 duffs. |
|
|
|
The result though is there is now ridiculous demand for anything related to getting Bitcoin easily. Same thing happened with the offering of GLD in 2005 ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GLD&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=). There was huge demand to buy gold easily. And, outside of buying gold futures, it was nearly impossible to get 100% exposure to the gold market. So GLD came along and at it's max in 2011, the thing held $80 billion worth of gold. Just about every investor on Wall Street wanted to diversify into it. GLD, however, was/is only a market risk diversification tool / value-storing tool. It doesn't have the actual usefulness that Bitcoin and crypto-currencies do. In other words, you cannot buy a pizza for gold like you can with cryptocurrencies. Hence, I think a Bitcoin ETF will be huger than GLD was at it's peak. Tying this back to Darkcoin... immediately after the Bitcoin ETF's likely successful launch, every major Wall Street bank is going to want to create their own products around Bitcoin and other crypto's. The GLD ETF launch immediately saw the launch of dozens of other gold-related, silver-related and metals-related ETF's. Sorry for side-tracking, but just a note: I understand the easy nature of GLD however large investors and funds are shooting themselves on the foot with it. They'd rather buy a few tons off a refinery and take delivery. It's counter to their investment to allow the gold possession by ETF. It's like masternodes. You get the 1000 DRKs and pull it OFF THE MARKET so that price goes up. If you bought the 1000 and these 1000 remained 100% liquid the effect would not be the same. With ETF this gold is not really taken off the market so the investor is going against himself. The investor wants to take physical delivery and increase gold shortages that make leveraging paper-to-physical and overselling physical that doesn't exist => less possible. It's like what Keiser did... buy silver, crash JPM. But take delivery in the process That's how the price goes up. I see the point you're making, however you should know that the SPDR GLD ETF actually does take physical delivery of every gold bar, and I believe they do a daily mark-to-market and either add or subtract gold from their physical gold holdings. Here's a list of every gold bar they physically hold in very secure/very hidden vaults: http://www.spdrgoldshares.com/assets/dynamic/GLD/file/barlist/Barlist.pdfI could imagine a Bitcoin (or Darkcoin) ETF would do the same and have a public list of every address with coins that the ETF trust holds. And ya, I would see much better use in a "DarkCoin Masternode" ETF which would likely kick ass due to having a MN dividend attached to it and having Darkcoin price exposure. Personally I don't believe they own every single bar even if these appear registered (and I'm not the only one believing in their "fractional" practices). The only way to ensure that the gold is off the market and not leased to third parties to leverage it against you is is to take physical possession. It might not be the easiest task for some but it's the most effective. |
|
|
|
Without IP obfuscation, you are identifiable, so he is right. IP obfuscation is an essential component of privacy/anonymity, not just a "bonus". Yes, sure, blockchain transactions will be a fog, but IP analysis can give you away.
It wasn't so much that, it was a moderator giving technical opinions, in public, on traded currencies on their own exchange That could be seen as influencing the market...good or bad impact on a traded asset, that sort of thing shouldn't happen. Need mods, to mod the mods. Actually, as I read what he wrote, it's saying "if you are an idiot and don't follow best practices, or send money to a third party that knows you, then it won't be anonymous". Which is like "no shit Sherlock" He's not FUD'ing that much. I think what he wrote is near the confines of truth. However he overestimates his technical capacity. If someone DarkSends him something with IP obfuscation and tell him "ok where did that come from", he'll have an issue tracking it. |
|
|
|
They are broadcast over the network, so... one can "listen" and keep track. |
|
|
|
Watching the action in the cryptsy trollbox and there is plenty of chatter about Darkcoin. Mostly good, until I saw this  This guy is the trollbox moderator employed by Cryptsy. WTF is all that about? edit...  this guy needs to be reported to a line manager I don't get how people don't get the simple point that it is BLOCKCHAIN anonymity that matters. Who cares if you sell coins on an exchange no matter how much they know about you. The point is they can't trace the coins back to your drug dealer or whatever on the blockchain. Without IP obfuscation, you are identifiable, so he is right. IP obfuscation is an essential component of privacy/anonymity, not just a "bonus". Yes, sure, blockchain transactions will be a fog, but IP analysis can give you away. |
|
|
|
The result though is there is now ridiculous demand for anything related to getting Bitcoin easily. Same thing happened with the offering of GLD in 2005 ( http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=GLD&t=my&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=). There was huge demand to buy gold easily. And, outside of buying gold futures, it was nearly impossible to get 100% exposure to the gold market. So GLD came along and at it's max in 2011, the thing held $80 billion worth of gold. Just about every investor on Wall Street wanted to diversify into it. GLD, however, was/is only a market risk diversification tool / value-storing tool. It doesn't have the actual usefulness that Bitcoin and crypto-currencies do. In other words, you cannot buy a pizza for gold like you can with cryptocurrencies. Hence, I think a Bitcoin ETF will be huger than GLD was at it's peak. Tying this back to Darkcoin... immediately after the Bitcoin ETF's likely successful launch, every major Wall Street bank is going to want to create their own products around Bitcoin and other crypto's. The GLD ETF launch immediately saw the launch of dozens of other gold-related, silver-related and metals-related ETF's. Sorry for side-tracking, but just a note: I understand the easy nature of GLD however large investors and funds are shooting themselves on the foot with it. They'd rather buy a few tons off a refinery and take delivery. It's counter to their investment to allow the gold possession by ETF. It's like masternodes. You get the 1000 DRKs and pull it OFF THE MARKET so that price goes up. If you bought the 1000 and these 1000 remained 100% liquid the effect would not be the same. With ETF this gold is not really taken off the market so the investor is going against himself. The investor wants to take physical delivery and increase gold shortages that make leveraging paper-to-physical and overselling physical that doesn't exist => less possible. It's like what Keiser did... buy silver, crash JPM. But take delivery in the process That's how the price goes up. |
|
|
|
I don't get all the excitement with 600$ BTC. Wake me up at >1000$ |
|
|
|
Do you not understand that even if you change the inflation rate, without constant new funds, the price will still trend downwards?
It's a whole different game requiring 4x funds. I'm sure you understand that. If you have some patience, think what happens:
- We maintain our good image.
- New INNOVATIVE features go in, for now, at the end of the month, which will certainly attract interest (and will compete with DRK directly).
- We look better than coins like DRK who changed their parameters hardcore to benefit early investors.
Stealth addresses were already priced-in after the spike. And then the unloading happened. And then further dumping happened. As for DRK, you can't compete directly with it. You'll need 0.02 x 28.800 = 576 BTC per day to just hold price. DRK only needs 0.02 x 2880 = 57.6 BTC. This inflation parameter does not benefit early investor. It benefits E V E R Y S I N G L E investor and miner who doesn't want their money to be debased. Currency that is not store of value = I sell it today and buy it tomorrow because it'll be cheaper = no reason to hold it. If you are a bagholder and you don't understand this simple premise, there is nothing I can do. PS. Run a community poll just to see interest about this proposal of reducing inflation - not as a decision making poll. I'd open it myself but it's better if the devs do it. I don't see why the devs want to listen to the community only in the issue of GPU mining and not in other things regarding coin direction or economic parameters. You are either with the community or you are not. You can't be with the community selectively only in matters relating to ASIC resistance and GPU mining. |
|
|
|
Where do you find such "facts", I wonder: Lets look at some facts:
Darkcoin is a completely centralized coin. Less than a 1000 addresses hold 90% of all coins. How many addresses the instaminers each have is anyone's guess
Coin distribution is great and it's becoming even better with increasing buying interest. The coin after the emergency intervention survives on live-support and its uncertain if it recovers completely or if the same will happen in a years time again.
Darkcoin is a development platform, not a static dinosaur like LTC. It has had something like 10 forks up to now and it'll probably have more. So what? It's what allows it to evolve and complete its development plan. It's in active development. Realize that. Bitcoin forked and then it got to 1000$+. Right now there is zero market for it as not even the dark market has any use for it.
The market disagrees with you. Better anonymous coins exist and its not the first as fraudulently claimed.
People were darksending money back in february-march. Tell me, which coin could you use back in February-March for anonymous transactions? Bytecoin? That wasn't even known to anyone. Its closed sourced at moment so it could contain keylogers or whatever (anonymous and closed source is worst possible combo)
There are two clients. Open source without DarkSend and closed-source with DarkSend. You can receive DarkSends in your address even without having a wallet (or closed source wallet). You can only send them with the closed-source wallet. If you don't want to use it, use the open source. The block reward was very high at the beginning and not fixed, now ist just the conventional block halving "Block reward controlled by moores law ( 1111 / (diff+1 ^ 2))" (it took bitcoin over a year to have the same number of coins than Darkcoin had in a month, by same max supply)
Yes, and? PoS/PoW coins instamine their entire monetary base in one-two weeks and everybody is okay in terms of "fairness" to future miners who can't mine anything. As it is ASICs resistant it leaves no room for growth in the hardware sector as the dev claimed he will do anything to keep those money hungry large companies out of his coin
It is ASIC resistant because there is no ASIC. The dev has said he hopes for the same path that BTC had (cpu=>gpu=>asic). You are confusing it with VTC. Regulation regarding cryptocoins will come, its a matter of when, not if. A coin with its main purpose of financial terrorism is not going to shine.
Ahahahaha main purpose financial terrorism. W T F. Privacy is terrorism? If you don't want your bank statement for all to see, you are a terrorist? Why would you want your blockchain info to be transparent to everyone? Do you scan your visa statements and post it on your twitter? Then why do it with your cryptos? China not even allowing something humorous like Dogecoin to be used. How will the act once they know about the Darkside.
Their loss. No legit merchant will accept or can accept it.
http://www.bitgild.com/You can buy gold, silver and platinum right now with DRKs. You can also buy products and services. Bitfinex seamed more like a backyard operation than the 'most advanced financial place in the bitcoin world', falling for the simplest of tricks when the instaminers started to trade with themselves on high volume to kickstart the frenzy, after having finished the half year nijamining on high block reward, succeeding the 10% instamine without a windows/mac walled and no pool and a max supply of 84mil for about a month then reduced to 22mil
Yeah, the instaminers apparently also instamined 20mn USD to pump the price. Ignorance in full mode. |
|
|
|
|
I get the rush to add DRK/USD pairs as a large number of people are asking "ok, where can I buy DRKs"? ...but with development being what it is, this creates unnecessary pressure with forks etc.
Can't they just wait a couple of months when DarkSend is final? Having noobz downloading wallets to transfer their newly acquired DRKs and thinking they will never need to upgrade their client (BTC / LTC mentality) can be problematic.
That's where a small warning window "Your client needs update, please download the latest one" can be handy.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
