I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from. Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks, nor 6 masternodes, so this number seems to pop out of thin air. 6 block confirmation is considered to be a fully "confirmed" transaction. So if an exchange wants to allow deposits with instant transactions, they could set it to 6 and their systems will recognize it as confirmed. Alternatively, a vendor taking money by default will see 1 confirmation and know the money is safe (without the --instantxdepth parameter set). Awesome work, evan. If I understand you correctly an --instanttxdepth higher than 6 is not possible, right? Any additional number of confirmations will slowly come from the miners confirming the transactions. But it will never be possible to do an --instanttxdepth = 100. People will be able to set values from 1 - 6, but not higher, right? Please correct me if I am wrong. It can go much higher. |
|
|
|
I think so, yes. Might be why Evan warned that you can't InstantX over and over and have to wait some time - because the coins have to go back the "normal" route before being vouched for again.
Or maybe it's just that you won't be allowed to InstantX again before your first instantX transaction is confirmed by the block chain the "normal" way, to ensure there will be no double spend.
I'm not sure about that part, I'd like some confirmation from Evan if possible, what scenario is possible, and what scenario isn't:
1) I receive an InstantX transaction and try to immediately send them through InstantX before reaching the amount of confirmation blocks required.
2)I send an InstantX transaction and try to send another one before the first one is completely confirmed.
According to the whitepaper the transaction look is between an input (or more) and an output (or more). You'll still be able to spend other inputs. I meant try to send another InstantX transaction, but your answer is still valid I think The whole process needs to start with a hash to base the masternode selection off of. If you can change that hash, you can pick the masternodes you'll use (if you can pick the masternodes, you could fake a lock). To secure the system I'm using the proof of work hash, that takes the entire network's bandwidth to create so it's safe to start there. After that, it uses a deterministic algorithm to pick the top 10 masternodes and the whole network knows who they are for that specific hash. Before I was using just the current block's hash, that's also very secure, but it means that ALL transactions would go through 10 masternodes and that's not decentralized at all. So instead I'm getting the depth of the first instantx transaction input, and grabbing the hash of that block. So let's say the transaction was included five blocks ago, I'll go grab that hash and base the masternode selection off of that. That means we get security (we don't want users picking their nodes) and each transaction will pick different masternodes (we can scale this). |
|
|
|
I don't understand where those 6 confirmations came from. Your commentary suggest that you explicitly expected not less or more but exactly 6, even though there were no 6 new blocks, nor 6 masternodes, so this number seems to pop out of thin air. 6 block confirmation is considered to be a fully "confirmed" transaction. So if an exchange wants to allow deposits with instant transactions, they could set it to 6 and their systems will recognize it as confirmed. Alternatively, a vendor taking money by default will see 1 confirmation and know the money is safe (without the --instantxdepth parameter set). |
|
|
|
Will instantX accelerates the mixing process?
Will the liquidity update be a sufficient solution?
InstantX will accelerate the mixing process but only if there are other clients available for mixing. If you've already anonymised your coins as much as you would like, why would you leave your wallet unlocked to anonymise more and pay more fees? Liquidity providers are a short-term fix in my opinion. Although there is a big incentive to run a masternode with 1000 DRK, what incentive is there to provide 1000 DRK or more for mixing? I want to set up some masternodes but have been unable to anonymise enough coins to set one up. InstantX will NOT accelerate the mixing process. I figured out a way to use the entire masternode network in a completely 100% decentralized way, but the trade off is it will require inputs that have at least 5 confirmations. However, this means that when sending a transaction, the 10 voting notes are going to be unique, so the system will be very difficult to DDOS (you'll theoretically have to DOS all masternodes to succeed). However, this means you can't send multiple transactions one after another based on InstantX, they have to be a few minutes apart. The really nice thing is this will scale now, to HUGE levels with no effect on the network. Darksend just needs more users, we can bootstrap it with the liquidity providers and it'll take a few hours for people to complete their mixing. Eventually when we have enough users, we can disable the liquidity providers and Darksend will get to the point where it just takes a few minutes. It just needs 2.5 minutes per round, so 4 rounds (which is rather good privacy) could theoretically take just 10 minutes. I'm going to record a demonstration today of InstantX and put it on YouTube, this technology is really amazing. I can't wait to hear what people think of it. |
|
|
|
- 5 minute block target
- 6 Confirms per transaction
- Difficulty re-targets every 60 minutes
- Block reward controlled by moores law ( 1111 / (diff+1 ^ 2))
- 11 chained hashing algorithms
- Premine: 0%
Since the reward is variable and depends on the difficulty, is there a maximum amount of coins to be mined? A maximum amount of blocks? Yes, the max coin amount is 84,000,000 Guys , Im reading a hell of a lot about Drk , but almost impossible to read all , one thing strange to me , Eddufield is talking about 84000000 total coins on page nr 2 of bct , but total is 21000000 correct ? , or was the 84 Mln for Xcoin ? , someone can help me out here ? , 84M was the spec of Xcoin 84M was the amount of coins before we decided to do a finite supply. We looked at various reward curves and let the community vote on the parameters. It ended up being a 7% decline each year, totaling in about 21M coins. Actually the first decline is coming up here in January. |
|
|
|
I wanted to send my DRK to bittrex and I see a message "Unable to locate enough Darksend.... funds".
Anyone know what happened?
Select no preference in the wallet. Quick question, why is darksend the default option for this? because most people use this cryptocoin for the anonimity, using Darksend gets you that anonimity. The default should prioritize anonimous coins, then non-anonymous coins for the remainder if there aren't enough anonymous coins for the transaction. Current implementation is sub-optimal (everyone newbie will have the same question and will be freaked out). This has been an annoyance for me as logic like I suggest is quite implied and expected by user imo. This is something that Evan should improve pretty quickly. That's a cool idea. I suppose it would just warn it's going to be a non-anon transaction if it can't find anything |
|
|
|
|
Enforcement is a success! We officially have 100% payment compliance and no forks on the network anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Just wondering.... When can I expect my MN IP address to be hidden? DRK is attracting a ton of attention right now and I would feel a bunch safer if the world (NSA) wasn't looking at my MN IP address. I don't want to end up on some watch list somewhere........
That's the goal of the multi-path routing system. It's on the list. |
|
|
|
To sum up recent events of the past 24 hours:1) Leak of possible merge between DRK & SDC, discussed by the community, Evan pulled the plugs. ( cancelled) 2) Rumor of OKCoin.com adding DRK on their (FIAT) exchange. 3) DRK featured on FOX 26 news (6-nov-2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YQnYpc52ks4) DRK discussed on Bloomberg TV (6-nov-2014): http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-11-06/can-bitcoin-stocks-hold-up-against-the-feds5) Evan testing first InstantX (INSTANT) transaction successfully in ~2 SECONDS: I just got multiple masternodes to form consensus, lock inputs, literally took 2 seconds to lock the transaction in place... then I tried to spend the same inputs for a higher fee. Works!
2014-11-07 01:13:18 ERROR: CTxMemPool::acceptableInputs()::InstantX : invalid transaction, conflicts with existing transaction lock CTxIn(COutPoint(365de7e2831dc8b85c2c94fef5f2b98e86a95e301879c5b3460db69df757deb9, 0), scriptSig=3046022100e2ca0a35ab1373)
Quote and add in case I missed something, please bump! To those waking up and wondering about the price rise... BUMP! 2 seconds was in a very small local environment! It should be 20-30 seconds in production, 10 if we're lucky. More MNs will mean faster InstantX? No, more MNs mean we'll have more capacity eventually. |
|
|
|
To sum up recent events of the past 24 hours:1) Leak of possible merge between DRK & SDC, discussed by the community, Evan pulled the plugs. ( cancelled) 2) Rumor of OKCoin.com adding DRK on their (FIAT) exchange. 3) DRK featured on FOX 26 news (6-nov-2014): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YQnYpc52ks4) DRK discussed on Bloomberg TV (6-nov-2014): http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2014-11-06/can-bitcoin-stocks-hold-up-against-the-feds5) Evan testing first InstantX (INSTANT) transaction successfully in ~2 SECONDS: I just got multiple masternodes to form consensus, lock inputs, literally took 2 seconds to lock the transaction in place... then I tried to spend the same inputs for a higher fee. Works!
2014-11-07 01:13:18 ERROR: CTxMemPool::acceptableInputs()::InstantX : invalid transaction, conflicts with existing transaction lock CTxIn(COutPoint(365de7e2831dc8b85c2c94fef5f2b98e86a95e301879c5b3460db69df757deb9, 0), scriptSig=3046022100e2ca0a35ab1373)
Quote and add in case I missed something, please bump! To those waking up and wondering about the price rise... BUMP! 2 seconds was in a very small local environment! It should be 20-30 seconds in production, 10 if we're lucky. |
|
|
|
Darkcoin - v0.10.15.21If you are running a masternode on a VPS, I highly suggest you update to 15.21. This update reduces outbound traffic by 90%+ (which is what amazon charges for) by implementing bloom filters. Also load has been drastically reduced by about 70%. https://darkcointalk.org/threads/v10-15-onyx-release.2683/PS. Enforcement is on, everything looks good 
|
|
|
|
"Coming up after the break, we tell you how a Company called Darkcoin is having to defend iteself from online drug purchases..."
Ahahaha. There's the wrong end of the stick. And then there's the wrong stick. And then there's no fucking stick at all. Here's my full statement, looks like they didn't read the whole thing: Darkcoin is about privacy for online transactions, not drugs. Like Bitcoin, it's a decentralized currency, but with strong anonymity at it's core. As a decentralized currency, we have no control over what our users do with their money, although our terms of use make it very clear that we're against any illegal uses of the software. Criminals have always had options like cash to get full privacy, but many crypto-currency users are becoming very aware of the lack of privacy of Bitcoin, which has lead them to Darkcoin. As a side note, there is no Darkcoin company. It's just open source software that people run on their computers, there's no centralized organization. |
|
|
|
|
I just got multiple masternodes to form consensus and lock inputs. Afterwards I tried to spend the same inputs for a higher fee, which failed! The whole thing literally took 2 seconds to lock the transaction in place (in my local environment, very small). Works!
2014-11-07 01:13:18 ERROR: CTxMemPool::acceptableInputs()::InstantX : invalid transaction, conflicts with existing transaction lock CTxIn(COutPoint(365de7e2831dc8b85c2c94fef5f2b98e86a95e301879c5b3460db69df757deb9, 0), scriptSig=3046022100e2ca0a35ab1373)
|
|
|
|
|
It's a shame the ShadowCash merger came out, but I'm going to go ahead and call it off completely. If we got approval from the ShadowCash team, the plan was to bring this to the community. I was never intending to act unilaterally to merge the two coins. However, it appears that a majority of the community is against this idea, so we'll find other ways to acquire talent. Thanks for your input everyone.
|
|
|
|
ShadowCash Proposal Conditions
1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward. 494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.
Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan. I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document. Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community. Be that as it may, you are altering the reward structure by being able to print a superblock to increase the coin supply. It goes against what crypto stands for. The decision to change the reward in terms of balance between miners and masternodes didn't change the max coinage--it was still the same block reward, but split differently. What you're talking about is actually changing the amount of outstanding coins... please tell me you see that. What happens 6 months from now when another opportunity arises, are we just going to print another superblock to merge with them? Where do you draw the line? From the proposal: "In the long term, Darkcoin’s distribution curve will be slightly reduced so we release exactly the same amount of coins in the long term. This will also counteract the effects of expanding the Darkcoin supply." In the long term this is a non-inflationary event. This is the only "coin-merge" that's being planned. |
|
|
|
ShadowCash Proposal Conditions
1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward. 494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.
Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan. I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document. Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community. |
|
|
|
Also thinking out loud, I would not set a specific date - do a weighted average over a period, as shadow could be pumped to get a hugely disproportionate amount of DRK..
There is already a proposal with values to avoid that, it doesn't matter what happens with the price now. This is a great way of adding man-power and development skills to Darkcoin, the merger-acquisition would be proportional to the SDC market cap at the time the deal was finalized so it can't really be manipulated. It just give all of the SDC community and developers to join DRK and convert their value, together we stand... divided we fall. This way they dont loose any of the effort they have put into their own project but preserve that value by joining DRK and ensure that they endure the consolidation that is happening on crypto right now, if they dont take this opportunity they run the risk of just dissapearing. I think is a win-win. However, if between now and that finalized day, SDC rises to say 1-2 million, that's 1-2 million worth of DRK created on a pump. So from this swap, the SDC holders would realistically be making 2-4x as much money being that they can then take their newly inflated coins and sell them. Look at the proposal conditions, there's a fixed exchange rate to stop things like that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
