So at the moment I can send  coins anonymously with XC?

No you cannot send coins anonymously. This functionality was completely removed from the current release.
The mixer was not working properly and apparently the dev was not able to fix it till now.

See the dumbest thing ever written on the forum, why is it ok to go to town on one coin but not the COIN YOU HAVE.

Thats the hypocrisy on the forum at the moment.  

Lol !!!! So i can disable the rootkit or Trojan and be safe yes ?? Closed source is closed source dont matter if you can put a sign there "I don't want this code to work"

EXACTLY... He could have copied everything or even have hidden mining code for himself.   Who would know without a PEER REVIEW??

Thanks for pointing that out.  After yesterday's ridiculous trolling and arguing, which completely put me off the forum, I'm surprised they were so kind to us (well, maybe it was published before the chaos.)

Just logged on, but I hope I'll see a more civil thread today!

I wish TanteStefana or someone competent would moderate this topic. It would have 300 pages less, but it would be more readable.

please?

we gotta lay off x11coin or whatever. Looks bad. I know it copied the algo, the masternodes, the basic idea and even the whole look-at-me-and-my-resume dev. All we should say is, don't know if they will succeed in their quest, don't understand the white paper(really don't), they copied x,y,z, ....wish them luck. Period. No need to fight a fight that will be won not on words but on the actions of the dev.

Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here   I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right.

By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low.

+1 Should be brought to Evan

If? It is a given that at least half the pools and big farms (a lot of them nowadays) won't be paying. So the 20% will be more like 10% for the masternodes, =what they were expecting anyway. But it will be a disproportionate weight to the "fair" pools.

The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right

Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.

Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?

The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)

We also need improvements in DarkSend. The competition (MRO) is integrating I2P (as we've said) and XC will be using encrypted communication between nodes (as it has been said of DRK's future plans as well).

I know this sounds like a mom's "to-do list" to the child until she gets back home, but priorities are priorities, and price or reaching litecoin immediately are not a priority. If the code is sorted out and the product delivered in final form, LTC will start rolling down. Too fast of a price rise with a half-baked product is problematic.

LTC can't compete anyway in fundamentals like inflation (10x the BTCs to absorb LTC production compared to DRK) or innovation so they will be dead anyway by debasement. #2 is a given. Preserving #2 is not due to the competition. Who is gonna buy 300k USD of LTCs per day? It'll go 0.019 -> 18 -> 17 over time. It doesn't look that "hot" of a property. Only buys will be for cost-averaging buys at 0.025+.

Having said that about the #2 competition, the anonymity competition actually looks pretty lame (BCN and clones too many issues, XC mostly vapor for now but that could change a few months ahead as they seem to have the prospects of delivering a product similar to what Evan has at like 70-80% completion). But we can't base our strategy on others failing or being pumps & dumps that are "threatening" us due to pumps => we must excel and take the market. Then bring V2 for "fatality". Otherwise the risk is there for more serious contenders appearing.

My 2 duffs.

This coin is too unstable. All the participants were very upset. Development should be to do something. Of course, if you like, please help!

You observations are correct. However the plan as I understood by reading Evans posts is to soft fork the payments of the masternodes and later on, well prepared, hard fork it in. In this case it is a short term and long term win. Short term the masternodes get what they deserve (with no pools cheating that is), later on it is guaranteed for all because it is then hard forked in.

I think it's a good start. Doing masternode payments via soft fork will allow them to get paid like promised, we can at least get the larger pools to pay the fees. Later on, we can hard for and enforce them.

Right. Shaming them might actually achieve the reverse effect and make the pool bigger.

If it's only hurting others indirectly, aka the MN users, then as a miner, I would go where the largest block reward is.

With a non hard fork for the time being yes it would be possible for a pool to cheat.

Your issue is the equivalent of asking what if one pool creates their own generated bitcoins instead of twenty five per block.

That part:


...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

There were originally two strategies for masternode payments. One requires a hardfork and one doesn't. I originally decided to do the one that does, because you can't cheat as a pool operator. But, that comes with a price. The code must reject cheating blocks and that's what caused the forking issue.

The other way is to setup the client to pay nodes in a provably fair way. If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

Like others have suggested, all of the groundwork has been laid. I have implemented the masternodes, the election system for payments and it's compatible with this soft fork.

So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.

My goal with Darkcoin has always been to take the #2 spot from Litecoin. I believe we have the best chance we've ever had now and these changes will actually help realize that goal.

As for my communication? Lately I've just had my nose to the grindstone, coding all of the time. I intend to be much more involved with the community in the future. This will include getting a team of software developers and managing the vision of the project. I think my time might be better spent in the future doing interviews, speaking at conferences and being Darkcoin's figurehead.

The problem is in the wallet, NOT in the blockchain, the fork was needed to enable the payments and is already done.

The wallet/daemon/masternode software is what needs the update now.

The most disappointing thing is that it was an attack, not just a hard fork problems because of the versions not up to date.