The distribution in that coin is sick. There are bagholders with 200-300k bragging in the forum. What are people expecting when buying? At market cap of >10mn has to top at some point. Some of the fundamentals are there (dev seems qualified) and some seem lacking and that's not good because it'll attract attention that it doesn't want to. "oh, so what? you are just a centralized mixer... that's not very anonymous". The only thing that exists is a basic mixer like DarkSend pre-alpha status - and even this is controlled with cmd, not gui. The rest are "in development" for 3weeks / a month ahead+. It's not decentralized btw. Decentralization is a future plan (rev 2.0) as is strong anonymity (aiming NSA-proof levels). Of course, even the current implementation is closed-source for obvious reasons (=>avoiding copycats). The "sugar" in the implementation is the network expertise of the dev to add encrypted communication - something that DarkSend has plans for. The application platform through the network and its supernodes are stuff like encrypted messaging systems built-in with the wallet - which might even extend to mobile devices. Essentially the dev is giving a vote of confidence to the DRK model by adopting a lot of its aspects (on paper at least - because in implementation its not done) but doing the POS spinoff to be "first POS anon" and spicing it up with network encryption. Competition is good because it allows better focus on the job at hand. The anonymous / private market will have a good marketcap, so there is plenty of room for clones, imitators, spinoffs, new entrants, second/third generation coins with anonymity etc. If even 10% of the transactions go private/anonymous, we are talking about a market of 700mn marketcap shared between anon coins. We are running close to 1% of the transparent market right now (all anon coins combined) and that with problems (BCN & clones) and projects in development (DRK, X11coin etc). There's much more to come I believe for the whole market, but every single solution must mature. |
|
|
|
The whole damn economy is built on selling dumb shit to dumb people who don't need it [...].
Bang on description of what caused DarkCoin to reach this ridiculous unsupported over-valuation. Yeah, it offers nothing but "lulz" and "asic resistance" compared to doge or ltc. Anonymity / Privacy is a huge market and it covers real needs that the transparent market cannot. |
|
|
|
|
To be fair though, it's very difficult to
a) distribute the monetary base (which has to be distributed to the users, otherwise there are no coins to play around with)
b) do it "fairly" (every single definition of fair is vulnerable)
c) provide good store of value that prevents massive inflation (otherwise inflation is corrosive to one's investment)
d) provide future-proofing (as proof-of-work will require miners in the future too)
...all the while aiming for perceived success (price rise) which catalyzes actual success (=> more buying / adoption etc) instead of perceived failure and consequent death.
|
|
|
|
Why not? Wolong isn't the XC coin dev or something, he's just some guy that just started to buy XC yesterday to hedge in case it beats Darkcoin. He was a big DRK bagholder so had to have a backup plan in case XC beats it. Are you not a good enough trader to work around the Wolong factor? People post noob tips all the time for trading like "work with the bots on the exchange, not against them". Wolong is for all intents and purposes the same thing as a cryptsy bot. If you know what the bots are going to do, make use of that info.
I'm not following wolong since the doge & unobtainium days... where is he writing that stuff about drk and xc? I haven't seen something mentioned in either thread (and I read ~90-95% of the posts). |
|
|
|
poloniex froze drk market?
I noticed that too. What is wrong? Unfrozen... no explanation though. |
|
|
|
Maybe all the FUD, attacks, etc. in the last month have left me skittish -- but I wonder even in the short term what might happen to the coin if there is an organized effort to hurt DRK based around pools cheating. If Evan does go through with this then I hope I am just worrying over nothing.
If? It is a given that at least half the pools and big farms (a lot of them nowadays) won't be paying. So the 20% will be more like 10% for the masternodes, =what they were expecting anyway. But it will be a disproportionate weight to the "fair" pools. The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right  Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development. Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds? The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily) We also need improvements in DarkSend. The competition (MRO) is integrating I2P (as we've said) and XC will be using encrypted communication between nodes (as it has been said of DRK's future plans as well). I know this sounds like a mom's "to-do list" to the child until she gets back home, but priorities are priorities, and price or reaching litecoin immediately are not a priority. If the code is sorted out and the product delivered in final form, LTC will start rolling down. Too fast of a price rise with a half-baked product is problematic. LTC can't compete anyway in fundamentals like inflation (10x the BTCs to absorb LTC production compared to DRK) or innovation so they will be dead anyway by debasement. #2 is a given. Preserving #2 is not due to the competition. Who is gonna buy 300k USD of LTCs per day? It'll go 0.019 -> 18 -> 17 over time. It doesn't look that "hot" of a property. Only buys will be for cost-averaging buys at 0.025+. Having said that about the #2 competition, the anonymity competition actually looks pretty lame (BCN and clones too many issues, XC mostly vapor for now but that could change a few months ahead as they seem to have the prospects of delivering a product similar to what Evan has at like 70-80% completion). But we can't base our strategy on others failing or being pumps & dumps that are "threatening" us due to pumps => we must excel and take the market. Then bring V2 for "fatality". Otherwise the risk is there for more serious contenders appearing. My 2 duffs. Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here  I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right. By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low. Yeah regarding faith in humanity, mining is a greedy business - not necessarily because people are greedy, but because it barely breaks even as it is right now for most coins (especially if electricity is high). Implement the solution when you believe it solves the problem, or use some other system that is not going to cause network instability. If in doubt, make a call for people to flock into testnet and experiment with bad behavior. Regarding 20%, there was a question asked like a week ago "what happens when mining rewards are too low?"... So futureproofing is critical. If 10% doesn't cut it in 3-5-10 years, there will be no masternodes running if they have to deal with 10-100-1000gbps attacks that cost more to handle than the mining income. |
|
|
|
I wonder if there is a lack that Evan cannot calculate and that is condemned to be manipulated by DDoS maniac charlatans among the market?
Is DarkSend delayed to 14 June?
If there occurs a problem, DarkCoin will be history. Are developers aware of this fact?
DarkSend is ACTIVE now, the only thing delayed is the incentive to run masternodes that perform the mixing for it.. C'mon ppl do some research ffs this is getting out of hand. Sorry. I did not read everything. I mean in MNs activity. There are ~300-400 masternodes active for serving DarkSends. These nodes however are not getting paid. That's the part missing. |
|
|
|
I wonder if there is a lack that Evan cannot calculate and that is condemned to be manipulated by DDoS maniac charlatans among the market?
Is DarkSend delayed to 14 June?
If there occurs a problem, DarkCoin will be history. Are developers aware of this fact?
Darksend works, masternode payments don't. The update on the 14th will enable masternode payments, but in a different way the last update. DarkSend works, but only on RC2 version and limited to 10 DRK, right? Yep. Limit removal is for next RCs. |
|
|
|
Ok time for some gossip... I was over at the XLB thread (they were planning to implement anonymity) and IconicExpert left their ship. Now they say he is a scammer etc (he might be, I don't know him - BC guys probably do). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600322.msg6979945#msg6979945The interesting bit: Official Statement regarding the event occurred today and the future of Libertycoin.... AnonymityLibertycoin Anonymity Development (past)As you might now, we offered a bounty of 7 BTC and 30,000 XLB to implement any kind of anonymity in the Libertycoin protocol. Almost a week ago, Tranzium and others started developing it. A standalone version was set up here: http://cosmiclottery.com/libertycoin/ Around two days ago, we received an email from the team working on that implementation saying they could not finish the work because they were struggling to implement it into the wallet/daemon, so we keep waiting for them and finish it while finding someone else to do the job.Libertycoin Anonymity Development (today)Today Polzki contacted us with a possible solution. He says he knows the CEO of a programming company in China, so they can help us develop a new and innovative anonymity function for the Libertycoin protocol.The website of the company: http://www.synv.com/At 1:50 pm (China) he will be talking to the CEO of the company. The CEO is his friend so he might make us a huge discount for it, but we will also support him with the bounty we raised if it is needed. They will use Tranzium's code, so they won't start from zero. Trying with devs => fail. Next step: Outsourcing anonymity development to Chinese companies...  I mean, you can't make this stuff up. |
|
|
|
The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development. Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds? The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily) +1 Fitting development priorities to price is the road to disaster. F*ck the price. If a change needs a hardfork then thats what it should get. I'm not saying that absolute maximum care should'nt be taken to make the disruption minimal, but design priorities and technical strategy should be done around quality, not markets. And markets ultimately like quality  +1 Should be brought to Evan He may not be writing due to time constraints, but I'm fairly confident he's reading. Evan knows what brought us here - the recipe of success. Part innovation - part tweaking the financial model to certain parameters which are very favorable (targeting of the private market which will be huge, low inflation, scarcity, masternode mining and incentive to buy/hold, future prospects of a project with ongoing development etc). If we change the balance to tweaking the financial model in order to compensate lack of innovation / stability to avoid forks => the recipe is changed and the "customers" may not like it. You can't please everyone. Some will say -"wtf? this is not serious for a coin of this size" and some will say "ok, and what does DRK offer now that the X,Y,Z coin does it PLUS something extra?"... so it's a choice of having the right people on board, preparing them that this coin is different. It's a development platform that can have a bumpy ride and that this is its essence that has made it a serious contender against dinosaurs. People here are buying prospect. Litecoin has no prospect to go anywhere. That's the thing. If you trade prospect for stability => you reduce the competitive advantage. I'm not saying to "break" the coin, just that development shouldn't be hampered by Evan avoiding hardforks. |
|
|
|
The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development. Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds? The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily) +1 Fitting development priorities to price is the road to disaster. F*ck the price. If a change needs a hardfork then thats what it should get. I'm not saying that absolute maximum care should'nt be taken to make the disruption minimal, but design priorities and technical strategy should be done around quality, not markets. And markets ultimately like quality |
|
|
|
...trolling...
The morning shift arrived |
|
|
|
Maybe all the FUD, attacks, etc. in the last month have left me skittish -- but I wonder even in the short term what might happen to the coin if there is an organized effort to hurt DRK based around pools cheating. If Evan does go through with this then I hope I am just worrying over nothing.
If? It is a given that at least half the pools and big farms (a lot of them nowadays) won't be paying. So the 20% will be more like 10% for the masternodes, =what they were expecting anyway. But it will be a disproportionate weight to the "fair" pools. The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development. Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds? The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily) We also need improvements in DarkSend. The competition (MRO) is integrating I2P (as we've said) and XC will be using encrypted communication between nodes (as it has been said of DRK's future plans as well). I know this sounds like a mom's "to-do list" to the child until she gets back home, but priorities are priorities, and price or reaching litecoin immediately are not a priority. If the code is sorted out and the product delivered in final form, LTC will start rolling down. Too fast of a price rise with a half-baked product is problematic. LTC can't compete anyway in fundamentals like inflation (10x the BTCs to absorb LTC production compared to DRK) or innovation so they will be dead anyway by debasement. #2 is a given. Preserving #2 is not due to the competition. Who is gonna buy 300k USD of LTCs per day? It'll go 0.019 -> 18 -> 17 over time. It doesn't look that "hot" of a property. Only buys will be for cost-averaging buys at 0.025+. Having said that about the #2 competition, the anonymity competition actually looks pretty lame (BCN and clones too many issues, XC mostly vapor for now but that could change a few months ahead as they seem to have the prospects of delivering a product similar to what Evan has at like 70-80% completion). But we can't base our strategy on others failing or being pumps & dumps that are "threatening" us due to pumps => we must excel and take the market. Then bring V2 for "fatality". Otherwise the risk is there for more serious contenders appearing. My 2 duffs. |
|
|
|
dark is not even 100% anonymous
If it was, it wouldn't be planning anonymity upgrades. (upgrade in anonymity = my anonymity is not perfect). No coin today is NSA-proof. Same is true for BCN & clones. But their competition might just give us such a coin as the technologies and ideas evolve. XC is just starting and currently it offers basic mixing. Zerocoin doesn't exist and won't exist for a while, and the issue of trusted key must be resolved. Facts in this info are correct.
Very correct. The guy doesn't even know what DRK is. He says DRK = quark clone (lol?), using 5 hashes (it uses 11), being a PoS/PoW coin (not). The fact that the first blocks were instamined by the first miners due to slow diff adjustment is well known and even the dev himself proposed an airdrop to fix the issue of initial distribution in the past. The community voted it down (initial distribution was already irrelevant). There is no point to fix something that the marketplace took care of. NXT was created out of thin air and distributed by the creators. People are buying it or proposing it as a good investment. People were buying RIPPLE that the Ripple guys created out of nowhere. PoS/PoW coins are instamining their whole monetary base in a week or two, and nobody has an issue that late miners will not mine but will rather have to buy from the first ones. Instamining and creating coins out of thin air is a "feature" not a scam. Ethereum is the next big thing and will be selling coins that don't even exist through massive ICOs: "We are seriously worried that if we offer a small cap then some large investor will simply gobble it up all at once, and then we'll basically have Ripple. Judging by the response we have gotten so far, we realized that it is entirely possible, even if unlikely, that some whale with 200000 BTC sitting around will decide that Ethereum just might be the right coin to throw 10% into, and we need to work around such a possibility. If no whales come onboard on such a scale, then we will have a small market cap to start off anyway."
...so they'd rather sell a large cap for our own good  Contrast the above to buying 100.000 DRKs for 2.5 BTC (rate between jan 19 - feb 5), up to 15 days later after the launch from the instaminers (current cost of 100.000 DRKs = 1700 BTC / 1mn USD) - with a distribution formula in place that was twice as scarce as today's (84mn theoretical maximum / 10mn practical limit due to Moore's law + 50% reduction every year instead of 7% which is now). |
|
|
|
We need to increase block time ASAP or say "bye" to decentralized mining.
And when you do that, don't increase the reward per block... too much inflation. Did I mention that already?  Any block time adjustment will come with a block reward scaling to keep the emission curve the same. It's not fair to current or future users to have the rules changed after the blockchain has started. There would be a perpetual instamine stigma (for good reasons). Inflation is a basic feature of PoW. There are plenty of other coins for the 'scarcity'-obsessed crowd (like XC, which is suddenly cutting the max supply to benefit the early adopters). I admit I am in the scarcity-obsessed crowd and highly anti-inflationary in terms of economic philosophy. But you do have to realize that coin price will degrade if it needs 50-100 BTC per day to pull daily production off the market. And if price is degrading, the consensus is that "the coin is dying". And when the consensus builds up, people are like "fuck this" => sell => chain dumps => "it's dead" => taking a look at coinmarketcap => finding the highest ranked BCN clone => "that is successful" => buy buy buy that one => more success for that one, etc etc => establishing it as the dominant coin. There are very strong points on why one shouldn't change something which is considered fixed (changing the rules of the game while the game is played => might turn off investors) and why they should change it if it threatens the coin with "death" (perceived death due to price degradation that catalyzes actual death). The alternative is just to let price slide so that daily production can be absorbed with greater ease, and expect price rise when coin production will slow down after 3-4 years. With altcoins being the ADD-paradise, it seems unlikely that people will like MRO then. The rationale will be "ok, this is been around for 3-4 years with no success... why should it even interest me?". However this is a time stamped post and it will be fun if someone bumps my post (2017-8) to laugh at me. |
|
|
|
We need to increase block time ASAP or say "bye" to decentralized mining.
And when you do that, don't increase the reward per block... too much inflation. Did I mention that already? |
|
|
|
8047 difficulty.
wtf is going on? after all that value lost how come everyone and their dog is mining this?
XC switched from pow phase to pos phase, so part of the hashrate returned to other x11 coins. |
|
|
|
Point taken. But we're not talking about consolidating holders. You and I will not pool our DRK and make a node. You'll run yours how you see fit and I'll run mine as I see fit. If my 50,000DRK node gets DDoSed, then that's 50 entries you don't have to contend with for an hour or so. Do I care when I'm getting 50 entries while I'm NOT getting DDoSed? My bigass node is just one node. The network will be glad to see me disappear for a while. ;-)
As with government scrutiny in other places, I love being the big shiny target they can't really hit. It lets all the other people scurry around unnoticed... If I'm pulling odds on 50 entries a block, and get DDoSed for an hour or so, I don't care, and that means everyone else can relax, while also getting better odds...
If there are like 10 multi-ticket nodes of 20k dark each instead of 200x1k, it's not that you'll go down and I'll stay up to take the profit. We'll both be eliminated. The less nodes we are, the less force they require to take us all down. What about a trade off as in a cap of three MN's per address and/or IP.
That could work. |
|
|
|
So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.
Avoid multiple tickets for masternodes. It will reduce number of nodes making the system less resilient. No! Forcing people to manage over 2 dozen separate boxes only generates orders of magnitude more opportunities for human error. Too much of a good thing. I'd rather have one node hardened as hell becasue it's holding a million in DRK. Watch to see how often a node gets elected to know how much is in it.. Only adds that much more incentive to make sure people are securing the nodes and thus securing the network. We've already got somebody who was sloppy enough to get robbed... Maybe they'll start taking it more seriously when they can put 50,000 drk in one node, eh? Maintenance-wise it's a no brainer. 1 beats 50 every day. But for network centralization and resilience, no. You can't have both. It's binary. Either one or the other. And 50 is always more decentralized than 1. Think of the DDOS vector: If someone wanted to take all the payments to their nodes, they'd only have to DDOS a very few number of multi-ticket masternodes. And fuck the payments, if they wanted to map transactions, they'd only have to bring down the honest nodes and keep online the bad actors. Their job is far easier in this way. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
