Το προβλημα του Dark Wallet ειναι οτι το mixing γινεται κεντρικα. Αρα οποιος ελεγχει τον κεντρικο server που πεφτει το mix των χρηματων = ξερει τα παντα. Προκειται για "trusted" solution οπου πρεπει να εμπιστευεσαι οτι αυτος που κανει το mixing δε θα σε δωσει ή δεν ελεγχεται απο την NSA.

Decentralized & trustless λυση εχει το Darkcoin με το DarkSend. Το θεμα ειναι οτι αμα εχεις bitcoins δε σε βοηθαει ιδιαιτερα, εκτος αν κανεις convert BTC => DRK. Ή αμα το Bitcoin υιοθετησει μια λυση τυπου DarkSend στο μελλον - που οπως το βλεπω δε θα γινει καθως το bitcoin foundation εχει ξεσκιστει να δινει διαβεβαιωσεις στους αμερικανους επισημους οτι ειναι εντελως διαφανο κτλ κτλ.

Το zerocoin που θα βγει στο μελλον, θα πρεπει καποιος να εμπιστευτει αυτον που θα παραξει το αρχικο κλειδι και οτι αυτο δε θα το μοιραστει πχ με την NSA ωστε να τα βλεπει ολα τα transactions "διαφανα". Θεωρητικα η παραγωγη του κλειδιου θα γινει με τροπο ωστε να μη το παρει κανεις, αλλα στη πραξη πολλα γινονται. Επισης, λεγεται, οτι θα ναι ευαλωστο σε quantum computing.

People, with various motives, write all kind of stuff all the time. If people are so quick to adopt any FUD they read, without analyzing the truth themselves, then they probably deserve to lose their coins, or the train. A quick glance on the thread would be enough to see that there is no X11 fork imminent or planned.

Darkcoin implemented X11 first and it has stayed exactly the same from the start.

If you can mine X11 for DRK-clones, you can mine X11 for DRK too.

The fork concerns DarkSend (anonymous transactions functionality), not X11.

Darkcoin is the first X11 coin. All you need to do is mine with X11 cpu miners or X11 sgminer (sph sgminer) - which if you've done in the past, you can do it again with no problem.

The algo mix is the 11 hashes that are used in X11. Do you need to know them by name to mine X11? No. You just download the miner and mine. What's so confusing?

darkcoin wallet = the wallet of darkcoin

dark wallet = a web-based bitcoin mixer that is unrelated to darkcoin

If you have sync issues with darkcoin wallet, dowload the latest darkcoin wallet.

You can also see it in this light: You have true DRK supporters who plan to hold for the long term but also want to increase their DRK stash... So the situation is getting better really because more coins are then owned by those who have a long-term position and are stronger believers than those who follow pumps & dumps, hopping from coin to coin creating long-term instability.

He's not a hater guys, relax. He just says that, obviously, if the GPU was processing full time it would not be consuming half the energy. CPUs for example don't have this less-heat-issue-at-full-load so, apparently, it's not the algo itself, but rather the GPU implementation of the algo.

Could it be improved? Perhaps, but then we'd all consume more energy. So as far as noone has a much better GPU miner we are all better off. The problems start with FPGAs and ASICs when the pressure for more optimized GPU miners will mount.

We'll have to see what nvidia can do with cuda too... perhaps cuda might be better suited to x11 than amd/opencl.

Hm... in my 5830 and 6850, the x 800 gives more hashrate than x 400 but it's also giving more rejects. Actually I got around 3-4% more hashrate with experimental intensity 400 and less rejects compared to i 18. Could be different for 280/290 though.

As far as I know, the plan has been to populate the denomination pools with various sizes. It wasn't about just one pool - that's now, not the final. In any case, even if there is a practical limitation at some size, it could be solved with two deposits, no?

I suspect you have deeper concerns for DarkSend than that and it's good you keep poking the thread so that we can get the best product available. Technological criticism is good. We've had discussions in the past where someone could say "oh DarkSend is broken" (that's when it had quite different specs) and the price would tank (ok it would drop, not tank), but we are somewhat past that point now due to more people understanding that something in development can actually "shapeshift" into new forms that deal with prior problems, before it solidifies as a final product. And even then it can (and will) be improved.

I know you lack intelligent counter-arguments for some of the issues presented but this is not a cryptographic mailing list and the level of discussion is consequently not up to standard. The people that can intelligently and factually discuss these issues, in this thread, are perhaps numbered in the fingers of one hand.

If there is one weakness I can say that it can present problems is that Evan is just one man. Given that the day has only 24 hours and he must do all the work alone, plus run a pool, answer pms, follow discussions or chats, or I don't know what else his tasklist entails, it will be that either the work will be delayed, or the work will go on schedule but not be top-notch in terms of quality refinement (=appearing "sloppy"), or a mix of these two depending the situation.

I've heard/read some criticism (perceived as sloppiness or "not being a serious" coin), like the broken libs in the wallets, the versioning numbers on the beta/rc clients, the dgw requiring multiple versions to be ok, the tray icon of the xcoin, a complain about something that was unchanged from litecoin and worldcoin and that does some network fuckup between lite/world and dark networks and which needs a hard fork to fix, the issue of the problematic network sync for some wallets, the diff issue when the coin started etc etc. DarkSend operation has also been criticized until proposed solutions were discussed.

One can stretch this line of reasoning and say "if there are so many problems with simple stuff, what guarantees that DarkSend will work 100% from the start?" and the answer will most probably be something like "it won't - it'll have to be patched/hardened/have some elements rewritten as it goes along".

For a programmer the "ok this broke, we'll fix it with a patch" may be the most natural response, but when millions of USD are engaged then things start to get "bumpy" in the charts. Satoshi and others had the relative comfort of time to develop stuff because there was not so much economic pressure: The market wasn't mature and nobody cared. Here people have already put money and thus can panic or lose confidence or not engage due to some things appearing sketchy / problematic / sloppy, etc. Of course the speculative nature of the investment also determines the (low) price, for if we had an ironed out and 100% working / hardened tech, right now, the price wouldn't be low - so, in a sense, it balances out because it's already factored into the price.

My personal stance on the issue is that I understand the limitations of having just one man to do the job but backing the coin is a given because it offers something significant in terms of technology which aims at an even more significant market segment that can be in the billions. I am a computer guy so I can understand the issues of coding but I can also understand the end-user or investor perspective of those who are less tolerant when a string of perceived glitches / failures can seem sketchy for the overall project, or when some questions or info presented cast shadows over the project. I am prepared for bumps (ups and downs) that may come up as a result of the situation but I am in for the long term, so these won't really affect me. For the shorter term, the bumps of ups and downs can be desirable because the volatility can present great trading opportunities but in the mid-term they must be reduced significantly so as to have a stable currency. In any case, it's always better to be actually backing something up that has some technology in it, rather than backing a shitcoin that offers nothing.

Anything interesting for the future?

GPU miners remember to check experimental intensity in sph-sgminer. I've used experimental intensity at 400 & 800 with slight increase in hashpower and less rejects.

For x11 / DRK miners who use classic intensity settings: Try experimental intensity 400 / 800 instead and report back with hashrate and reject rates. In my experience, experimental intensity of 400 provided better hashrate and less rejects on a 5830 and a 6850.

It depends on the version of the gpu miner. The latest sph-sgminer should give more than that for 290/290x.

Is the miner using any cpu to enhance the speed? Btw, I've often thought what if some of the hashes are better performed in the cpu than in the GPU? What if some functions were done in the CPU and some in the GPU for max performance? Surely there'll be a waiting impact from CPU-GPU crossover as data flow from GPU ram to system RAM but it may be worth a try to see if something can actually be improved way more (like +20/30/50%)... Then again the performance hit from waiting as data moves from cpu-gpu-cpu might be too large to gain anything.

You actually wrote: "I made some speed improvements in the GPU miner listed on the first page."

The GPU miner listed on the first page is sph-sgminer, not the cpuminers.

The correct phraseology would be something like "I tweaked the cpu miners on the first page to work with openCL and now I'm getting better speeds than even sph-sgminer" (which from I gather from those posting their 280 results is not really slower).


Yeah well, this is cryptoland... you know how things go. Sorry I can't check your code to see if it works (I lack the skill) + I've uninstalled my GPUs due to rising temps.

The screenshots are from the CPU miner, tweaked to show GPU hashrates.... Which means you are probably trying to scam people.

He's joking...

Can't you use an encrypted folder?

http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/address.dws?188207.htm

This guy keeps stacking... added another 10.5k to his stash today, currently standing at >200k DRKs.

Yep, I predict much butthurt from whiners.

No, what I'm saying is that this slice does not represent 1 person. It's the sum of all solo miners, fpga miners, large gpu rigs that mine without a pool, small pools that are unlisted, botnets etc etc. It just appears as a unified slice, however there is no single person that controls all that slice. It's fragmented to many smaller and larger parties.