Ok => Bitcoin is a lot like HTTP. It is an application layer protocol and tools can be built on it (like websites can be built on HTTP). There is a class of cryptocurrencies that promise features like casino websites and exchanges and anonymity protocols to be built on top of them.
When creating a new website, one doesn't make a new protocol unless it is necessary. For example, HTTPS is an encrypted version of HTTP, therefore it is useful and necessary. When creating an app such as "DarkSend", one doesn't need to make a new protocol such as "Darkcoin". This is synonymous to making an HTTPS alternative (eg. HTTPSX) for your new website for encrypted chat and not adding any new security or functionality to HTTPSX.
Because Darkcoin is by far the most popular cryptocurrency of this class, the Darkcoin example will be covered in this section.
The Darkcoin devs created a tool called DarkSend. DarkSend is an implementation of coinjoin (an anonymity feature originally implemented in Bitcoin[4]) which utilizes the Darkcoin network to organize the coinjoins. If DarkSend becomes open source and is useful, it will be ported to Bitcoin with a few small modifications.
It won't. It requires a hard fork and Bitcoin will not hard fork for DarkSend, nor jeopardize regulation issues. Currently DarkSend masternodes are paid 10% of the block reward after they hold 1000DRK in order to become a masternode.[5] This is flawed because while purchasing 1000DRK is trustlessly verifiable, a user running a DarkSend masternode isn't trustlessly verifiable.
True, but the risk of having a "bad actor" controlling the nodes is reduced. Also doesn't factor in anonymity enhancements (RC3+) It is also costs bandwidth to run a masternode, therefore there is an incentive to buy 1000DRK and get a chance at the 10% block reward masternodes are being paid, but not actually act as a masternode.
Misbehaving nodes don't get payment. So false. For this reason, DarkSend would work better if the masternodes were paid by those they were helping coinjoin, or if there wasn't a masternode at all and everyone collaborated in a decentralized fashion.
That's the plan, not paying bad-behaving masternodes. The better implementation not vulnerable to the attack described is compatible with Bitcoin, therefore, the Darksend protocol serves no purpose.
Argument based on bullshit => Bullshit. |
|
|
|
Excellent! Thank you for your hard work!
In my opinion, XC is earlier than DRK in implementing the annomous feature,
that is very impressive
This is not so much a matter of opinion... rather a matter of historic facts: DarkSend was/is live since Feb (testnet) / March (mainnet). I am confused, I think DRK is still in the testing (i know they started in Feb, but i think they are still testing and they are trying to implement masternode soon), but XC is almost ready for implement. Please point it out if I am wrong. DRK is implementing masternode payments in a few hours. That's part of RC2. DarkSends work ok but, up to now, masternodes weren't getting paid 10% of mining output. RC3 will bring more in terms of anonymity. Basic mixing was achieved within days back in February. For 99% of the cases a mixer is private enough for most uses. However governments can still catch you if they can monitor the nodes. That's the 1% extra effort that DRK is trying to do in the last months in the form of negative incentives to run multiple nodes from "bad actors" (that's why masternode payment protocol / 1000 DRK requirement was put into place). RC3 will try to improve anonymity further - always that last 1%. We will be switching away from the masternode topology in REV v2 - I don't want to give away the secret sauce, but it is going to be high-end anonymous end to end encryption, provide 100% true anonymity and be the foundation of our blockchain v2.0 phase Also our Rev v1 release can't be "monitored" at the node layer :-) Good stuff... btw, I see you are a qualified dev, which is kind of a rare quality around these cryptocurrency places. Do you believe you can achieve NSA-proofing? For the time being it is an elusive property for most coins of this kind. |
|
|
|
Excellent! Thank you for your hard work!
In my opinion, XC is earlier than DRK in implementing the annomous feature,
that is very impressive
This is not so much a matter of opinion... rather a matter of historic facts: DarkSend was/is live since Feb (testnet) / March (mainnet). I am confused, I think DRK is still in the testing (i know they started in Feb, but i think they are still testing and they are trying to implement masternode soon), but XC is almost ready for implement. Please point it out if I am wrong. DRK is implementing masternode payments in a few hours. That's part of RC2. DarkSends work ok but, up to now, masternodes weren't getting paid 10% of mining output. RC3 will bring more in terms of anonymity and a lift of the 10 DRK limit per transaction (as it has implemented denomination pools of same sizes for improving anonymity). Basic mixing was achieved within days back in February. For 99% of the cases a mixer is private enough for most uses. However governments can still catch you if they can monitor the nodes. That's the 1% extra effort that DRK is trying to do in the last months in the form of negative incentives to run multiple nodes from "bad actors" (that's why masternode payment protocol / 1000 DRK requirement was put into place). RC3 will try to improve anonymity further - always that last 1%. |
|
|
|
Excellent! Thank you for your hard work!
In my opinion, XC is earlier than DRK in implementing the annomous feature,
that is very impressive
This is not so much a matter of opinion... rather a matter of historic facts: DarkSend was/is live since Feb (testnet) / March (mainnet). |
|
|
|
WOW...Just WOW... Keep up the excellent work Dev's, most of the investors are investing in the Dev team's ability to manage a project...
No fake promises, no crappy untested code just delivery and innovation, which is what brings true value to a coin...
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help...
Just keep your expectations in line with the project's evolution: DarkSend Code is RC status, not final and bugs / frequent updates should be expected (= "crappy untested code"). Same with masternode payments which are a big hack to the block reward payment system affecting peripherals like stratum, p2pools etc. Final version + bugfixed should be out in around a month+. |
|
|
|
Any chance you could link the post? Or do you happen to remember who it was made by so I can find it a little easier? It would be great if everyone could just link to it in the case of future trolling on this topic. That and the FAQ. Thanks.
It won't help (much). These trolls and professional FUD spreaders will (and are already doing this, Litecoin-Forum is full of it) tell you the devs sold the coins to themselves. I don't get why devs having their own coin should be demonized. They didn't premine it. And when you make a coin, it's intrinsically a worthless coin until you, as a dev, give it value. Unless you do that, you are generating 0 and 1's that nobody wants to pay for, as there are tons of shitcoins. There's too much fud regarding dev's holdings. There is both "uncertainty" and "doubt" because you can't prove a negative (that you don't have something). But claiming stuff like 2mn is self-defeating even for trolls. Devs should have something like 100-200k in early february, the equivalent of 2x-4x of what "large" buyers bought back then at batches of 50k for a few BTCs. What happened next, I've no idea. Some could have been sold at the ccex spike of 0.008 (if they had sell orders), some could have been sold at 0.0012-0.002 the next two months, some could have been bought at 0.0011-0.0012 or sold at 0.003+ to 0.028... who knows. Invested dev = good for the community as the quality of the coin affects his pocket as well. And he is not some sketchy dude hiding behind a "shitcoin" nickname. That's a huge plus. If you're wondering if you should be buying, this lot have been buying shit loads of DRK with shit loads of money, at prices that are much, much, much higher than when the coins were worth pennies.
Some people will sell and then cry for DRK's unfair distribution at the top and that masternodes are for the filthy rich. A month ago a masternode cost 1.2 BTC... everyone was warned by Evan, when discussing the 1000 DRK requirement and if it'll change in the future, where he analyzed the mechanism of the price feedback loop, that it'll become expensive and more expensive until it reaches insanely expensive... since darktrolls wont let monero thread in peace, time to remember whats really in your hands:
Wow, we have a Quark PoW/PoS clone with 5 hashes, instead of a PoW X11 coin. LOL. |
|
|
|
Where are the trolls now?
Some times I don't know if trolls are working in favor or against the whales. Whale buyer of course want his investment to look shiny, so he wants less trolls. But short term, the whale buyer needs trolls to buy his way upwards by making other people not-buy or holders to sell, otherwise he is paying more BTCs for his DRKs. Anyway. |
|
|
|
|
It's over 800 BTC combined at 0.02 if you factor cryptsy+mintpal.
|
|
|
|
Darkcoin started life as xcoin on January 18th with 80mil max coins then was re-branded Xcoin XCO, then later to Darkcoin and max supply reduced to 22mil. The dev is very sorry that he sits on 2 million instamined coins because the block rewards were "erroneously" set to 500 instead of 50. Currently 4.3mil are mined. No Windows-qt or Mac wallet on launch and no pools. Early google searches of "Darkcoin", lead you to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT coin with a total coin count of something like 100,000,000,000,000,000 units and an abandoned thread. Darkcoin fraudulently claims to be the first anonymous coin, it is not, Bytecoin is it for 2 years already. https://bytecoin.org/about-privacy.phpHow a coin with this parameters can rise as it did is nothing short of astonishing. Will Monero archive something similar with no pre-mine and better anonymity than Darkcoin? There is too much FUD re: darkcoin and these parameters are in error - so that's why it doesn't make sense when you have false information. 1. The first 1.7mn coins or so were "instamined" in the sense of fast block rewards and problematic difficult retargeting. 2. Those mining were mostly linux miners - which are the vast majority of miners anyway (not mac or win users) 3. The instamined coins were being sold for 10.000 DRKs per 0.25 BTC as people who are given coins abundantly do not really value them. Two weeks later, when it hit the exchanges, DRK was trading for 0.00001 - 0.000025 BTC. Charts are available on ccex.com / poloniex.com (that added DRK a bit later at 0.00008). This altered the initial distribution completely from miners to buyers. 4. The coin limit was capped by community consent and vote (>100 votes) like 2 months after. 5. The instamine and consequent distribution to buyers had a positive effect in inflation as the debasement rate was far smaller than other coins. Right now DRK is giving out 2880 coins per day, vs 28.800 of LTC vs 3600 of BTC. 6. Darkcoin is one of the few coins that actually has a dev that codes stuff. Most coins have big dev teams that code nothing and pretend to be "a great dev team". Darkcoin dev, alone, has produced X11 (favorite hashing algorithm of 2014), DGW3 for block retargeting, Masternode payments and DarkSend. Everyone who can't code $hit, expects to clone Evan's work when it is opensourced (DarkSend) - as for the other stuff, they are already in use in over 25 coins. Regarding the rise: Note that if just 1-10% of all market transactions will happen private/anonymously, something that Bitcoin won't be covering due to regulatory compliance, then private/anonymous coins can share between them something north of 70-700mn market cap. I had pointed this earlier in the the thread, prior to DRK rising, but nobody paid attention. As for Monero: It's a Bytecoin clone - which was the first cryptonote innovator of the field (2012). However, since Bytecoin surfaced on 2014 from the deep web, it was said "ah, you had 80% premine" (because most mining had already been done when the public learned about them). MRO stole/repackaged Bytecoin's code and said "we are offering a fair Bytecoin". The Bytecoin ecosystem is problematic for investment due to the first coin being a 80% preminer and the clones being clones who can't even make a decent GUI on top of the backend to increase useability. Personally I hold some MROs as a hedge to DRK but I do not really trust the development course. As time goes by, more and more altcoins are eroding away bitcoin shares in the total crypto currency realm. DRK is getting interesting at this moment.
Is it reasonable to have a altcoin factor put into the price forecast algorithm?
Good Point about DRK and something I was about to ask about here.. Someone said only way to buy DRK is with BTC? And there is a BIG Pump and Dump going on right now with DRK.. Could that be a big part of what is driving BTC up right now?? If so, scary and seems pretty thin ice.. 1. Altcoins have not really gained relative to BTC in the last months. They still account for only 9% of the total market cap. If this number rises to more than 20%, I would start to consider them. Otherwise no need. There is a reasoning fallacy in that altcoins are grouped together in terms of marketcap. This is not the stock market where you can buy the index (and all associated stocks). You pick the alt due to certain prospects that other alts do not have. Is it a clone / shitcoin / that offers nothing new or useful? => Discarded. Is it something that offers something and has potential? => You can consider it. Altcoins, especially after the appearance of DOGE, have gone full retard in generating all kind of coins with no fundamentals (aka shitcoins). Those who offered something new/different etc made it to top25 of coinmarketcap. |
|
|
|
Vertcoin - lets do privacy Litecoin - lets do privacy Bitcoin - we should think about doing privacy Darkcoin - Now we got privacy, lets build on that and innovate some more. Darkcoin is acting like a catalyst for cryptocurrencies. Unlike the fail-trends of memecoins/animalcoins/colorcoins/pos-coins etc privacy is actually something useful that needs enhancement. Litecoin in particular has been threatened by DRK's catalytic effect at least twice: 1. Threat of X11 fork 2. Now, with the rise of DRK and their planning of their defense strategy. |
|
|
|
That was hilarious. Bunch of idiots sold, and the recovery was near instant.
It's a trading thing actually... if you believe a falling wave is strong you sell so you can buy back cheaper after 2 minutes. It's self-reinforced in a way. But if you don't read the market correctly on when it'll rebound = you lose your coins for cheap and never get them back. |
|
|
|
My suggestion is a reduction in the number of coins or altering of the reward curve.
Have to disagree. The goal shouldn't be to have an "investment", its a currency for use as a tool. I'd rather see trade-facilitation stuff built in, and a greater circulation - the value inherent in the coin will be driven by market uptake. The reason BTC was successful initially is it was used for a large range of commercial transactions.. being able to spend it on goods/services created the demand and built the price. Artificially limiting the number of coins to preserve the current spot price is just a short-term prop for traders, and ultimately adds no value to the currency. Without the means to use it to buy actual items, its worthless, just like fiat. There is nothing "artificial". The initial number of coins that a coin creator chooses is more or less arbitrary. Whether tomorrow one uses 2 MROs that cost 5$ or 1 MRO that costs 10$ for a pizza is irrelevant. In real world terms there are "hard currencies" and not so hard currencies. If you live in a country with not-so-hard currency (that's pretty much 70-80% of the planet really) you appreciate more a currency which is stable in value and is not being debased frantically. You can't have debasement like 50-100% per year etc. It's problematic for investment / problematic as a store of value that one can buy. Currencies should have adequate store of value. That's my economic viewpoint on this issue. |
|
|
|
Reliable info. Darkcoin = Quark clone with 5 hashes (and not X11 coin with 11 hashes) Darkcoin = PoW and PoS. Seems legit  |
|
|
|
THE FACTS ABOUT DARK COIN
1. released without windows QT so that only dev and pals could mine it.
Convenient fact skipped: Most miners use linux, so the largest percentage of miners could mine straightaway. 2. Instamined harder than any other coin out there 12.5% of the current minting was mined in the first day
PoS/PoW hybrids with initial PoW phase are instamined way faster, not only for 5-10% of the monetary base, but for the 100% of it. After a week or two, noone can mine anything, they have to buy it from the first miners. You are a supporter of such coins like Whitecoin who use instamining as their primary technique of coin distribution. Your pretentious concern for late miners is totally hypocritic as you support coins that completely exclude miners after a small instamine period, or tell them to mine something else and buy your coins after totally excluding them from the possibility of mining. How can that be compared with DRK in which early miners instamined something like 1.7mn coins compared to a monetary base of 17-22mn coins (and then sold them for peanuts at rates of 10.000 DRK for 0.25 BTC) where another 15-20mn coins were to be issued? 3. Later they decided to cut the minting by 75% to turn their 12.5% instamine with no windows QT into 50% instamine in 24hours - nice hey
You contradict yourself. First you say only dev and friends did the instamine, then you say "they decided to turn their instamine" - when the engagement for the decision involved much more than 3-4-5-10 persons. Actually the vote was >100 persons: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525093.0Why would 80% of the people agree to having a problematic distribution? THINK HARD. The answer is because the initial distribution had changed through the marketplace. Something that you omit from your "facts", intentionally, pretending the 50% distribution held true at the time of the decision. |
|
|
|
|
Price was stagnant for months. Then the "drk is scam" threads appeared in April and price has boomed 20x. I guess there's truth to "there is no such thing as bad PR".
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
