Could we please stop discussing on the self absorbed rants of camosoul ? He can open a thread specifically dedicated to his vibrant story if he wants to, thank you very much

You could only make those said choices because one guy invented crypto currencies from what I have read so far - and that guy was not you.
So it was a good thing you were lucky enough to invest into bitcoins the right time, but that being said, it was still pure luck.
"Normal" people have families, parents to support and can't live as homeless hoping one day they will get lucky.

Big test will be official RC4 announcement - to see if we are back on track market-wise
But Evan should hire a PR guy to manage the relationships with crypto communities, it could only bring some good

the official wallet does at least, and most merchants as well

same way some guy satoshi decided 6 confirmations was good enough to prevent double spendings.
someone just needs to do some maths and makes an executive decision based on that.

so you basically infer that the main feature of darkcoin, darksend/darksend+, could not provide good enough anonymity at the core level to discourage a normal attacker (not the N*A) to identify the two parties if he really wants to?

Well the answer is quite simple, no option to bloat the blockchain at all, given current baseline anonymity is good enough for everyone, using the current safeguardings already in place in the btc protocol (transaction fees required if coin age <<)

Great, but let me explain why it is not a good idea that could enrich the coin features, but just a gimmick that would only cause confusion and PR damages when comparing DRK to competition.

2 things:
if normal anon procedure is not good enough for people to use it on critical transactions confidently, then instead of providing a paid wall, the community should focus on providing a good basic level of service from the start.
if it does provide a satisfying service level, then adding more options is purely gimmickal, and the additional service would be use very rarely, because of its limited interest since normal service is already good enough. Therefore, using this kind of option would be at the end some kind of big red flag bringing some specific curiosity into the transaction you are so desperate to hide. No good.

EDIT: and the fact that some fees could be required could even decrease the anonymity of the transaction potentially, in my opinion.

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.

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.

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 ("DRK is scam to enrich MN owners, blabla shitcoins provides free guaranteed anonymity for everyone however blabla ... ... Ad nauseum" - we don't want that)

If fat there is indeed in the blockchain, it could be deal with at the later stage but we need need the feature/coin to be massively used FIRST before putting some fence in place. Pure greed motivates those suggesting otherwise.

I concur, it is the stupidest idea ever to prevent mass adoption of the feature, and the coin.

No
Failed 2nd fork has cost us much now, as you could see today looking at market charts.
Everyone needs to cool down and wait for a perfectly polished product.

+1 we should wait for it to be entirely bulletproof
It would be a bad PR move to be public about something still barely tested that could still easily go awry at this point
Payments are working but still not 100% enforced for some pools furthermore

Ok I guess I was not so lucky last upgrade , some nodes lost their connection, I had to regenerate masternode priv key
Thanks

Three times the charm, I'm asking again
What is the safest way to upgrade darkcoind on masternodes?
Is there any inline procedure that won't break the link with the remote wallet?

BUMP

I don't have access to my cold wallets hosting the 1000 DRK at the moment. if I update the darkcoind on my masternode servers, would it break the binding and deregister my nodes?
Thanks

I think it is. My nodes went back online one hour ago and appear here