If that's your idea of "slammed" then we don't have much to worry about.

Usual garbage about "centralisation", answered here.....https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985039.msg10820536#msg10820536

Some nonsense about DRK having a lack of liquidity when in fact its over 4 times as liquid as its nearest 'anon' competitor.

A splitting hairs discussion about what the best anon-technology is which amounts to Apple's and Pears because your comparing one high marketcap legacy compliant currency with another low cap non-legacy compliant one. Also dealt with here.....https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=985039.msg10825312#msg10825312

Your all hammering on about splitting ball hairs over what anon is more bullet proof than another - it doesn't matter.

What matters is having everything in a reasonable balance, all monetary properties. Great - you got a ultra sooper-dooper only 3 years old, rubber stamped by cryptographers anon technology. Know what ? Anonymous money has worked for 5000 years without it.

Darkcoin / DASH's is as bullet proof as a cryptocurrency can reasonably get right now while still retaining some semblance of useability and adoptability within the current infrastructure. That all of these are going to continue to improve and develop is a given.

Meanwhile, people can say what they like about DASH's dual layer network, but it's already delivering major practical innovations and solving some big problems. It's only going to continue because a service oriented network architecture is what made the internet explode and it's currently torching a load of cryptocurrency problems. Near instant transaction confirmation was one of the first but there are plenty more in the pipeline.

So while everyone else is busy scraping the next nth decimal percentage point of anon-security to the exclusion of everything else, DRK/DASH will be getting on with business  

I actually agree with this.

The unitary "Bus Factor" is clearly an issue. But you pay your money you takes your choice. As far as I was concerned, Apple Computer had a "Bus Factor" of one as well.

You can't have everything and I'd rather invest in a creative dev that's unique than a dumb one that has a clone. He seems healthy enough to me right now and I'll just have to hope he looks both ways before crossing any roads  

R.O.T.F.W.L. !!

Amazing what a bit of (missing) context can do for creativity.

Looks like Tsipras is finding some novel approaches to his liquidity problems....



(Full boring version....http://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2015/mar/19/eu-leaders-summit-greek-bailout-talks-live-updates )

Now now. No need to turn the forum into a YouTube moonhoax comments column.....

The spork cannot override the fundamental philosophy of mining democracy other than to support an interim revertable revision with the miners consent. Everyone knows that.

Icebreaker simply had a slight lapse of memory thats all.

Tick tock...



Seatbelts fastened...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-19/after-pillaging-pensions-greece-raids-utilities-repay-troika-bonds-plunge-bank-run-a

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-18/ecb-prepares-grexit-anticipates-95-loss-greek-debt


...if not "Grexit" then possible "Graccident" on the cards.

Ok, better start thinking about some kind of truce I think.

It's clear that it winds a lot of people up the fact that this thread gets too 'celebratory' and exclusive about technical developments.

It's also clear that there are a considerable number of those developments about which people are genuinely satisfied.

However "cultish" we get in here we can be assured that an equal and oppositely  aligned 'cult' may manifest itself in other places. Just check the bitcointalk subject list for the number of "scam this, instamine that" threads that have been started up.

The world of crypto is self - balancing !   (Thank god for markets where people can ultimately make up their minds - cult or no cult  )

Here's some music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkiCJx9Mx1k

ok, I agree that dissing dissent for the sake of it isn't healthy. But I don't agree that "supporters miffed by the rebranding" were universally castigated. Most of the replies I saw were respectful of their position but asserted the contrary view.

Sh*t - I'm not going to make any apologies for arguing my point robustly if it's something I've put a lot of thought into and the other poster clearly hasn't. I mean look at that guy you just quoted earlier - he's saying that Darkcoin has a "liquidity problem" because its coin supply is less than a competing cryptonote currency. What a completely clueless statement - as I pointed out in the other thread, liquidity alludes to the amount of monetary value available in markets at a given price range, not some arbitrary count of monetary units.

You think the Argentinian Peso is more "liquid" than the US Dollar because it has smaller monetary units ? Darkcoin/DASH already has 4 times the liquidity of its nearest cryptonote competitor simply by virtue of having 4 times the marketcap.

Despite this nonsense, people like you join in the hysteria and go and post this crap in big red fonts in an ANN thread and you accuse us of "cult-like" behaviour ? Are you kidding ?

Then you bang on about cryptology left right and centre and this is bullet proof and that that's full of vulnerabilities and da..da..da. Meanwhile the devs behind those technologies are quite happy to farm out to "3rd parties" the most critical and vulnerable portal in the whole of this space - the wallet - because it's "not a priority" ! Talk about building a castle and then leaving the drawbridge permanently open with pot of gold at the door.

Cult-like behaviour, sure. It's everywhere. It isn't a question of having it or not, it's a question of which one has a chance of delivering a return on your investment.

I suppose it might look like that to someone parachuting into this thread or even following it for any length of time.

I was in your shoes when the whole Blackcoin mania started taking off in the middle of last year (or was it 2 years ago - it's a distant memory). I got shocked at the amount of 'fanboy' mania that was going on in that thread and started posting what would probably have been considered FUD by them but what I considered to be genuine challenges to their optimism.

The reason I thought they were all so deluded was because, having just discovered 'POS' (Proof of Stake) they all thought they were onto the new hold grail, whereas POS was old hat. Peercoin had it, NxT had it etc. Blackcoin just had a bit of a buzz at the time and they all thought it was going to be the next Bitcoin.

I don't feel the same about Darkcoin / DASH.

For a start, its a genuine original in many aspects. The 2-tier approach is a bold yet obvious move because any network that's service oriented is going to have a huge amount of technical options available to it that monotier networks just don't. I realise we get attacked left right and centre for that but I never get convinced by any of the arguments - they all revolve around some totally misplaced notion of the concept of 'centralisation' (as I've discussed in that quoted post above).

Apart from that, this project has done justice to its original design priorities - whatever you think of their merits. It has survived a year long hammering from genuine competition, fudsters, technical setbacks and commercial challenges to emerge as a top 5 crypto. That in itself endorses my original instinct about where this project was going.

So I don't make any apologies for making generally favourable posts in this thread - even though they may get characterised as 'cultish' by adversarial contributors. It's just the 'nature of the beast'.

Maybe we should all break out into spontaneous bikkering and confrontation once in a while to make the 'spectators' feel more comfortable - but then again, that would deny some of them a fulfilling hobby  

Rux, why are you blanking xxxgoodgirls ?

I think you've mis-identified.

P.S. Message for you from xxxgoodgirls...

No. They are categorically not 'centralised' because of that.

Your talking about hosting of particular instances of the daemon as opposed to the logical architecture of the network. This word 'centralized' gets jumped on as if it's the holy grail of everything - a hammer that turns everything else into a nail. Its use with regard to cryptocurrencies alludes to the logical interaction of each node with the rest of the network. The whole *point* of a decentralised architecture is that things like machine hosting of particular 'nodes' have no bearing on this.

All of crypto, including bitcoin, is inundated with cloud mining facilities - in fact they are positively *promoted* all over the place. Despite that, if you consult blockchain.info's metrics regarding mining 'centralisation', they're not remotely interested in who's hosting the mining nodes, rather what pools they are subscribed to.

This is just another example of picking some random aspect of a network's demographic (not its logical architecture) and manically banding about straw men based on it simply to have something to shout about.

Now lets consider a couple of extreme cases - say, [1] - if a hosting company were to shutdown all the nodes it hosted and [2] - if it were to compromise (take control of) all the nodes it hosted.

Case [1] is a benign attack. The nodes can simply be resurrected elsewhere (because, being wallet daemons, they are logically decentralised). It's no different in that respect from shutting down a cloud mining array - in fact it's even more benign since the blockchain hashpower isn't affected. That is secured by the regular mining function just as in bitcoin.

Case [2] is impossible. The attacker needs the private keys to the masternode collateral account to gain control a masternode and they are held offline and have nothing to do with where the particular daemon happens to be hosted.

Even if you did have access to the actual machines hosting masternodes, so what ? All cryptocurrency architectures have to *assume* bad actor operations in every aspect of their design. With the next revision of node blinding, you won't even be able to learn anything from the logs and even if you did, all you'd do at the absolute theoretical worst is de-anonymise some random transactions between one anonymous part of the money supply and another.

There's no systematic vulnerability there.

How are masternodes 'centralised' ? They are just regular nodes performing an enhanced role. Any 'node' can perform a masternode function and there's not even a question of recourse to any central authority when setting one up - you just fire up your daemon, point it at a collateral address and thats it. I think what your alluding to is the fact that the mixing process bounces off a few nodes before it returns to your wallet but calling that 'centralised' is stretching it a bit. It isn't much different from the steps that lead to bits of a transaction ending up in change addresses in a regular QT wallet.

Like I said in the last post, attaining extreme levels of encryption just isn't the objective when it comes to money (at least IMO). Who gives a f*ck if your transactions are encrypted to kingdom come when you can't access half the service infrastructure in the industry because you had to build your own railway as well as the train since it had the wrong gauge.

Cryptonote fell at the very first hurdle on this one because they couldn't even get the most basic infrastructure of all - a useable wallet - off the ground. It was "farmed out to third parties" due to lack of development capacity.

Anonymity isn't just the money. Although I accept that cryptonote - as an encryption system - is a nice solution and notionally bullet proof, there's not much point in travelling by concorde for 50 miles when you've got to walk the next 10. The number of ways that a transaction can be 'de-anonymised' by means other than simply looking at the blockchain is immense (like simply 'buying something'   )


Liquidity isn't a question of how many coins are in circulation numerically, it's a question of how much monetary value there is across the entire coin supply. The coin with the most 'liquidity' is therefore the one with the highest marketcap, not the 'most coins'. Emission curves don't have jack to say about liquidity unless the valuation is there to support it.


You like using that word 'centralisation'. Thats one of the reasons I always find these assertions you guys make about Darkcoin so unconvincing. Call it 'centralisation' if you like, but service oriented networks are everywhere because there's not much you can do without them and anyway, in Darkcoin the client server relationship is mutual, just like in any other cryptocurrency. A 2-tier (or dual role) network where the nodes are diversified in function has nothing to do with the term "decentralisation" as commonly used in cryptocurrencies to mean lack of a central liquidity issuing authority.

I'll give you that Cryptonote is an interesting technology and - at least as far as cryptography goes - can be more secure than a single round in a mixer. But I don't think it's very well suited to supporting anonymity or fungibility in cryptocurrencies.

The problem is that while it might be very secure in terms of 'hiding' a transaction, cryptonote puts all its eggs in one basket - a totally centralised solution. Break the cryptonote algo and you've rendered the entire money supply useless with subsequent collapse of the whole financial system based around that currency.

That might be only a theoretical threat, but the fact that it's architectured in that centralised way creates a huge potential single point of failure that hangs over the currency forever.

On the other hand, the way that DRK/DASH has approached fungibility is far more of a monetary oriented solution.

You manage to de-anonymise a single transaction ? So what ? You need to reproduce the effort iteratively a million times to even begin to threaten the money supply because each transaction has to be separately solved on a case by case basis. It's the very *absence* of a systematic cryptographical approach that keeps the coin supply secure as a whole and stops that crack from propagating.

Further, all the comparisons you get on these threads between the security of "cryptography" and the security of "mixing" are totally unrealistic because they compare a single cryptographically secured transaction with a single mixing transaction. In fact the way that the Darkcoin network is architected means that you're mixing transaction has hundreds of layers of redundancy behind it. You aren't transfering from a known source entity to a known payment entity and trying to hide it, your transferring from a mixed wallet to another mixed, anonymous wallet to another mixed, anonymous wallet....add infinitum.

In addition to that, the coin supply is pre-emptively anonymised, so at the point of transaction you're just doing a regular Joe bitcoin payment from one address to the other. There's another monetary property ticked: visibility and accountability. No nuclear-secret paranoia, it's all out in the open just anonymous - exactly as true cash should operate.

So I don't deny the cryptography fanclub their 'Concorde' against DRK's Boeing 747. I just think they're solving the wrong problem - messaging encryption instead of monetary fungibility and maximum adoption by way of supporting the legacy infrastructure.

LoL

Paycoin's been up the Eiffel Tower and back down again in the space of 2 hours.

All you have to do is make sure you're on the right side of this little trip (and I don't mean 'right' as in left-right    )

LoL.

Talk about clutching at straws. "Bad karma" ?

I think I might stick with following developments before deciding whether it's worthwhile or not rather than trying to work out what f*cking 'karma it has.

Fact is, when and if crypto ever hits mainstream, EVERYTHING will be considered an instamine by the unsuspecting public. If miners want ot have a little internal debate about launch ethics then far be it from me to stop them. What concerns markets is return on investment from here on in and features that are relevant to improving its viability as a monetary medium.

The words "innovative" and "productive" apply, make no mistake about it.

I think your just a buthurt miner windbag with your nose too far out of joint over something that happened in pre-history.

Keep on 'girnin' all you like but I'm buying the future not the past.

Most innovative, productive project out there right now.

It's interesting that Paycoin's TA positively DESTROYS the idea that some trolls - in particular AdamAnt - promote about DRK.

Paycoin's TA behave's exactly as a so called "scamcoin" should - with random pumps on no particular news, against the flow of fundamentals, only ever when there's a very thin liquidity line for a significant distance up the 'asks' in order to provide an inexpensive ladder. Some of the patterns painted by Paycoin charts are totally ludicrous and sometimes quite hilarious.

By comparison, DRK's price evolution is positively painful with ever decimal point having to be fought for with weeks of project development and hundreds of tiny buys on top of the odd big buy. It is by any standards 'real' - whatever timescale you look at.

Also an easier way to loose all your money than betting. The price went vertically up, not passing through any natural cycles, which means it's going to go vertically down as soon as Josh feels he's got enough of a BTC mountain to dump into.

Don't worry. I wouldn't expect a bidding war.