|
People are right about predictions and they are wrong about predictions -- the average of coin101's original poll back in April was $3-$5 at the release of RC2 and the price peaked at $15 in mid May. Moral of the story, don't bother getting upset at other's predictions and make your own decisions... nobody really knows what will happen anyway.
|
|
|
|
Also, like I pointed out earlier, this means that Masternodes now have no direct involvement in the actual person to person transaction, so if someone decides to use Darkcoin to so something illegal, there is no reasonable grounds for Masternode owners to be held liable.
Plausible deniability ftw! As someone pointed out above, of course, aways consult your attorney. That said, I'm not sure it's just plausible deniability. Once this is implemented, Masternodes will simply be denominating funds. They will no longer be facilitating the actual transfer of funds for purchases between a buyer and a seller. They are completely bypassed in that regard. Wait, so in this case there isn't any Coinjoin? The pre-denominated funds are directly send from A to B without using a masternode? No Coinjoin mix on the second phase, correct. Non-denominated funds are sent out automatically to a MN for denomination, then sent back to your wallet (this may or may not involve several MN hops, I haven't spoken to Evan about that for a day or two and he comes up with new ideas every 5 minutes). Once back in your wallet, they just sit there, all smug and anonymous until you decide to use them. There's no real need for a need for a 2nd Coinjoin mix to occur after that. When you send funds, your wallet automatically selects pre-anonymized denominations and sends them directly to your intended recipient. I would go so far as to say no Coinjoin at all, right? The denomination step only involves your coins, right? If this is the final solution then I would say that DRK has moved away from Coinjoin to something better which is of Evan's own invention. |
|
|
|
Also, like I pointed out earlier, this means that Masternodes now have no direct involvement in the actual person to person transaction, so if someone decides to use Darkcoin to so something illegal, there is no reasonable grounds for Masternode owners to be held liable.
Plausible deniability ftw! As someone pointed out above, of course, aways consult your attorney. That said, I'm not sure it's just plausible deniability. Once this is implemented, Masternodes will simply be denominating funds. They will no longer be facilitating the actual transfer of funds for purchases between a buyer and a seller. They are completely bypassed in that regard. Wait, so in this case there isn't any Coinjoin? The pre-denominated funds are directly send from A to B without using a masternode? |
|
|
|
Well the primary idea was discussion on enhancing the anonymity levels utilizing more MNs and assess any impacts in terms of bloat etc by going this route. Fees are not really the focus and the concern is understandable but derailing the main point.
Exactly. Far too many people jumping on this DRK is for MN owners to get rich angle which is totally untrue. People need to read and understand the discussion before commenting. That argument should be made for a proof of stake coin -- DRK is proof of service. Without the masternodes you don't have Darksend(+), without incentives people would not run masternodes, but somehow the existence of masternodes is a scam. So frustrating.  I have several MN. But I certainly think the fees proposals was an idiotic one nevertheless it is not like MN owners do not get already paid for the anon service. And to get back on track, I already explained why providing different level of service is not a good one neither. It could be an option. More mixing depth means a longer wait anyway. If people are willing to sacrifice time for more anonymity then if it is technically possible then why not. The fees stuff was all obviously "thinking aloud" as eltito stated. "What if people could bloat the blockchain with by using this option.... Then we should ....". Nothing to be concerned about. |
|
|
|
Well the primary idea was discussion on enhancing the anonymity levels utilizing more MNs and assess any impacts in terms of bloat etc by going this route. Fees are not really the focus and the concern is understandable but derailing the main point.
Exactly. Far too many people jumping on this DRK is for MN owners to get rich angle which is totally untrue. People need to read and understand the discussion before commenting. That argument should be made for a proof of stake coin -- DRK is proof of service. Without the masternodes you don't have Darksend(+), without incentives people would not run masternodes, but somehow the existence of masternodes is a scam. So frustrating. Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?
I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin. I don't think I saw anybody suggesting exorbitant fees. This overreaction is rather absurd. If it costs nearly nothing to bloat up the blockchain then that is an obvious attack vector that could destroy the coin. Can't have a decentralized currency if nobody is willing to download the blockchain. Bitcoin is already starting to have this problem and cryptonote coins may be dead in the water because of the issue. Ideas to prevent this were being discussed... that's all. This whole obviously forced master - slave rhetoric is really boring.  Disclaimer: I have no masternodes or any intention to set any up. EDIT: going back a little further, I see that some people suggested to pay some extra money to obtain additional depth in terms of mixing and so more anonymity. It is still a bad idea, DRK protocol regarding mixing coins at MN should settle at a level considered as good enough (like the 6 confirmations) and stick with it. Additional complexity in terms of charging transactions and the fact people will misunderstand the scheme are not good things at all. If people misunderstand the scheme then they just need to be educated. The goal here is a high level of anonymity with minimal downsides. If that requires complexity (be it fees or some other structure) then so be it. I still can't get why we can't agree on a mixing depth good enough to provide anonymity (99% confidence or 95 or 99%% whatever) - period. Putting different anon service level in place impairs the overall confidence in the anon protocol of DRK. Maybe we can and maybe we can't. My point is don't preclude something just because it involves fees or is complex and scary. All options should be considered. |
|
|
|
Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?
I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin. I don't think I saw anybody suggesting exorbitant fees. This overreaction is rather absurd. If it costs nearly nothing to bloat up the blockchain then that is an obvious attack vector that could destroy the coin. Can't have a decentralized currency if nobody is willing to download the blockchain. Bitcoin is already starting to have this problem and cryptonote coins may be dead in the water because of the issue. Ideas to prevent this were being discussed... that's all. This whole obviously forced master - slave rhetoric is really boring. Disclaimer: I have no masternodes or any intention to set any up. EDIT: going back a little further, I see that some people suggested to pay some extra money to obtain additional depth in terms of mixing and so more anonymity. It is still a bad idea, DRK protocol regarding mixing coins at MN should settle at a level considered as good enough (like the 6 confirmations) and stick with it. Additional complexity in terms of charging transactions and the fact people will misunderstand the scheme are not good things at all. If people misunderstand the scheme then they just need to be educated. The goal here is a high level of anonymity with minimal downsides. If that requires complexity (be it fees or some other structure) then so be it. |
|
|
|
Yeah, there's absolutely no reason to charge exorbitant fees. Why undermine one of the biggest attractive features of cryptocurrencies?
I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin. I don't think I saw anybody suggesting exorbitant fees. This overreaction is rather absurd. If it costs nearly nothing to bloat up the blockchain then that is an obvious attack vector that could destroy the coin. Can't have a decentralized currency if nobody is willing to download the blockchain. Bitcoin is already starting to have this problem and cryptonote coins may be dead in the water because of the issue. Ideas to prevent this were being discussed... that's all. This whole obviously forced master - slave rhetoric is really boring. Disclaimer: I have no masternodes or any intention to set any up. |
|
|
|
Yet I don't see the price going north, , even though the node count is slowly approaching 700 (in addition to the updates). Price had rebounded nicely before the dumps an hour or so ago. Still dunno why you would throw away your coins when new features are on the horizon. If things go badly again then OK I get it... but before the implementation said features is even finished?? -- sillyness IMO. |
|
|
|
Ok, so looks like other team dropped the ball. Since I'm slightly more invested in this coin than in "the other coin that shall not be named in this thread", can we pick the ball up again please ? Let's make sure that the days in which the worldcup turned orange are also the days in which DRK rose above 0.02 again !!!  Regardless of what other coins claim to be implementing (coinwarz and the people involved in such activities are not really not worth mentioning) we have already "picked up the ball". Look at the post above yours, a significant improvement in anonymity is coming in RC4 (end of July) along with other features. Details and links are in the first post. DRK development has been and will continue to roll along -- to RC4 and beyond. |
|
|
|
Quiet day  |
|
|
|
+101   Very elegant. Master node passes denominated coins to one or more master nodes in series. Thats Kick-ass. Masternode passes denominated coins back to client on random addresses, client passes them from random addresses to a 2nd Masternode. bump @eltito Getting these flowcharts in the first post along with Evan's explanation (and maybe some clarification on the issues raised such as change, avoiding masternodes owned by the same entity,etc.) and well as a title update mentioning Darksend+ would be nice. Not asking for too much, am I?  |
|
|
|
Is anyone knowledgeable enough about Amazon EC2 to tell me whether or not they are a threat to the masternode network? What I mean is, could they unveil large amounts of users if they wanted to simply because they have access to the physical machines? With all the xKEYSCORE and general NSA bullshit it seems like you can never be sure that a private company is operating privately any more.
Anyone using Amazon has an account there, with credit card or something. So yah, Amazon has all the information to out you if you have a Masternode with them. Like Google, they could give the Gov any info the Gov asked for (with a warrant) It has nothing to do with Amazon having access to your virtual machine, they don't have to mess with that any. Our masternode ip addresses on the network will definitively show that we are running masternodes. But, there is no law against crypto currency, and if they try to do that, they lose. I meant could the whole Amazon network act similarly to one entity owning 300 master nodes, being a bad actor, and unveiling users trying to Darksend. Thanks for your reply though!  Can you explain in more detail? Or are there some Tor reference materials?
Say you have 5 master nodes on the network: 1.1.1.1 1.1.1.2 12.41.11.35 5.24.156.3 96.4.223.44 1.1.1.1 is selected as MN1. Now it'd be obviously foolish to choose 1.1.1.2 as MN2, because 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2 are very likely run by the same person. Additionally in case of compromise it would (regardless of the fact who runs them) be more likely that both of them are compromised because they are likely running similar setups or may even be running on the same physical machine. I like this idea. Yeah, that does seem like an very good intermediate step before I2P or data encryption. |
|
|
|
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-7th.1735/page-2#post-11487fernando You are right. If someone controlling both masternodes can deanonymize transactions (haven't checked with devs, maybe there is some measure in that area already), the risk is still there. However, thanks to the high number of masternodes, it is extremely low. I've done some numbers for 600 masternodes (we are at 605 now), 800 and 1000. At 600 you need 61 masternodes (now about 436k USD) coordinated to act roguely to get a 1% chance of deanonymize a transaction. With 1000 masternodes you need more than 100 masternodes for that 1%. Of course, if you are just looking for any transaction, even a low percentage maybe good enough, but I'm sure devs can do something in the communication with MNs so the probability goes to zero. Something needs to be left for Darksend++ or the fun is going to be over too fast :wink: You can check the numbers at the table below or in Google Docs: http://j.mp/1mEtWz4- snip - Not selecting MN2 from the same IP range that MN1 is in, will already help to mitigate the risk of choosing two nodes that are run by the same entity. It also shouldn't happen that MN1 and MN2 have very similar or very little uptime. The problem of one entity owning the used nodes is inherent to Tor as well and a lot of the countermeasures Tor takes might be used for masternodes too. But masternodes can be hosted anywhere, if I had another I wouldn't host it on Amazon Australia servers where my first one is. That's not an argument against prohibiting the selection of two nodes that are _obviously_ run by the same person. Can you explain in more detail? Or are there some Tor reference materials? |
|
|
|
Is anyone knowledgeable enough about Amazon EC2 to tell me whether or not they are a threat to the masternode network? What I mean is, could they unveil large amounts of users if they wanted to simply because they have access to the physical machines? With all the xKEYSCORE and general NSA bullshit it seems like you can never be sure that a private company is operating privately any more.
Given the percentage chart posted earlier (soon you will need 100 masternodes just to de-anonymize 1% of the transactions), I think this is the real concern. Just how much can amazon unveil if prodded by the gov't? This alone is reason for some sort of encryption even if it is a major undertaking. |
|
|
|
haha sure is! Lets get these new Darksend+ graphs up on the first post of this thread! Yes! +1 The new charts and the explanation should be in the first post. However before that, if possible, they need to fix the upper part of the first chart as the change adds up to 130DRK rather than 120DRK.  Also this is an excellent time for some organized PR. Let's let people know that the "you are not anonymous to the masternode and thus Darksend is still centralized" argument is now FALSE. |
|
|
|
Do you not agree, however, that there should be a balance? Too much technical talk and the masses' eyes glaze over -- and they outnumber us techies a lot to a little. And then you have the fact that DRK's tech is contently changing -- just how out of date is the whitepaper for example. Talking about details then changing them confuses people technical or otherwise. Maybe the balance is too much swung toward generic information at he present, but move too far back in the opposite direction and there will be problems all the same.
I agree, but the masses don't have to read the post. You want the people like me, like AlexGR, to understand the current state of development, to understand the technology. I can't sell something I know nothing about. I can't defend DRK with general statements. "Don't worry DRK is getting IP obfuscation." "How does that work?" "IDK?" Point taken. Though I feel that this information will come as the tech is set in stone and definitely will be available when Darksend is open-sourced as anybody will be able to take a look at the code. The real problem is that DRK got sidetracked for nearly two months in fixing masternode payments. And while MN's are needed for the current iteration of Darksend, the issues delayed everything and pushed the coin off message. It has been a stupidly long time since anonymity was discussed in this thread. With MN's mostly out of the way, I think you will get what you are asking for in fairly short order -- maybe even a bit today |
|
|
|
Oi, take a breath guys.
Humanitee, the gist was something along the lines of "Hey I think it's a great time to put out some details." "Ok cool". Unless you'd rather I just post a bunch of emails that make no sense out of context?
I feel like I would understand them. I feel like I, chaeplin, and AlexGR would understand them. Even if they were out of order and out of context. Let me tell you why I think this sucks: 1) You go to the darkcointalk forums and the updates there are a pittance of what they should be. They are so very generic sounding and bland. 2) You come here and look for updates and find a big red text saying these are things we are assuming are going to be in RC4. 3) Then you come in and say "yes some of these things are on track except for x x and x." How is this shit being achieved? Cool, we are getting IP obfuscation but how does it function? Is it bouncing between nodes? Is it some other method we haven't even thought about? This is a TECHNOLOGY, so let's hear about how it's revolutionizing the already existing technology. What is going to give us the edge on the growing list of competitors? Blanket statements are only good for so long. The people who know what they are doing in this space are technically inclined, and we want to know how the coin is going to function so when we talk it up to other technically inclined people we can address their concerns. I'm not here to insult any of you. I want the pertinent information. I can't sit on IRC all day where it appears you need to be to be privy to the important information. Hello everyone!
Yes I'm alive and have been very busy working. There's actually three of us working constantly on Darkcoin at the moment so there will be lots to report. We've been also working on a press release and I need a top secret flowchart remade, if you have experience making flow charts and have some time today shoot me a PM.
-Evan
Greetings Evan. Do you not agree, however, that there should be a balance? Too much technical talk and the masses' eyes glaze over -- and they outnumber us techies a lot to a little. Coin won't succeed with just tech types on board. And then you have the fact that DRK's tech is consistently changing -- just how out of date is the whitepaper for example. Talking about details then changing them confuses people, technical or otherwise. Maybe the balance is too much swung toward generic information at the present, but move too far back in the opposite direction and there will be problems all the same. |
|
|
|
Did he adequately answer your condescending question humanitee ? Darkcointalk. Move there. ASAP. Leave this for FUD, trolls and hacks. I am with bigrcanada too. Good job. No, he didn't. He could literally have just put up the chat and we would all go "ok makes sense." It's a sorry excuse, it really is. I want you to do yourself a favor and go back 1900 pages and SEE ME THERE PUTTING FORTH IDEAS. You aren't talking to some troll who is just doing this for the lols. You guys can be as butt hurt as you want, IDGAF. We want stability, not waves of uncertainty. It's not like people are asking for daily updates, it has been awhile. I'm a fucking idiot
I own a substantial amount of DRK you fucking imbecile. Oi, take a breath guys. Humanitee, the gist was something along the lines of "Hey I think it's a great time to put out some details." "Ok cool". Unless you'd rather I just post a bunch of emails that make no sense out of context? Exactly. Unfiltered development information will lead us to another "airdrop situation" which was the result of Evan thinking aloud. The way things are being handled now is correct. |
|
|
|
12 day until next revelation of what's comming . I think this is a lot of time and we could sink a liitle more like 0.008 .
Actually... Evan dropped me a line last night - he's been busier than he let on. Stay close today. Why can't he just drop us all a line instead of you? It would take the same amount of time and soothe many minds. Well play by play on development in this thread wouldn't be a good thing -- it would only cause confusion. I don't see any problem with Evan giving details to the inner team so long as major news makes it to us... which is like to happen today it seems. |
|
|
|
Guys, there was a long update posted a few pages back. @eltito Anyway we can get links to these updates in the first post? I appreciate the time you spent typing that out, but if it gets lost in the thread then people will still say communication is a "problem".
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
