Top idea.

That would be a huge leap forward for DRk kind. LTC got a lot of traction that way. XPM also had some markets.

No it isn't. In this sector, choice is BAD, coercion is good.

The choice you have is to use another network. The whole point of privacy would be lost if it was optional. That's the huge advantage DRK has over anything else.

What's the point of using the Darkcoin network to keep your finances private if every bit of income you receive is transparent to all and sundry ?

If somebody **chooses** to use the DRK network because they wanted totally financial privacy, then that choice can only be done justice to by hiding their income as well as their expenditure.

Well, thanks to Ghostplayer....


..... my DRKs might be out of that red zone for good (if I can get the 'let cold wallet talk to hot wallet and tell it you've really got the readies' bit working)

Darkwallet is never going to be a substitute for a truly dark network for 1 huge - elephant in the room - reason: it's optional.

What that means is that although you can keep all your expenditure private, you've no control over the privacy of funds that you receive - your customers might use dark wallet to send you money and they might not.

It's a gimmick.

LoL. Everyone wants a "piece of him" now it would appear

I suppose, for fairness to Darkcoin, I should complete the picture.

The other day I did quite a lot of background research into they guy I consider to be the "real" inventor of Darkcoin - this guy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chaum

During my research I discovered a whole pile of other interesting stuff which quite floored me - namely that the "Darkcoin project" is actually about 33 years old in it's wider aspects and that it has a substantial technological, academic and - surprisingly - commercial heritage.

Rather than write it all again I'll just quote my original posts which I'm sure some of you already read. Sorry if it's a bit alarming - I was deep into reading at the time and got a bit stunned by all the background that I'd uncovered. Still I think it's very worth knowing about if your interested in DRK and it's "true" history:



then later...

I think you're being highly selective in deciding what you regard as being "fundamentals".

DRK has certainly improved on Bitcoin in several ways - algo efficiency, anonymity etc - but those are technical properties, not necessarily "fundamentals" that impact on it's status as a reserve currency.

Bitcoin has been superseded technically by almost all new altcions, but they have never put a dent in its value - not even litecoin did. So technical superiority isn't "it".

In fact, your computer hardware example actually undermines your own case because if you look back at the evolution of the digital industry, hardware technology hasn't been one of the "fundamentals" while those areas that have been have persistent against a wave of "improvements" on their original design:

 - the Unix operating system: 41 years old, now underpins all new Apple desktop hardware, not exactly considered "antiquated"
 - The ASCII and Unicode character codings for information interchange, 50 and 27 years old respectively
 - SQL, Structured Query Language for database access, 44 years old and only getting more widespread adoption with every year
 - TCP/IP that underpins the internet: 40 years old
 - all the high level internet protocols and markup languages - http, smtp, html etc 24 years old and getting more widespread adoption with every year

What these show is that the "true" fundamentals do not get superseded. They persist and consolidate with time and adoption.

If Bitcoin is still around in 20 years you can bet your bottom dollar that it's not going to get removed from "reserve currency" status just because its algo is outdated. See the things I mentioned in my last post - those are the real "fundamentals", not technical characteristics.

That's true. But they also haven't had time to understand what gives a coin "network effect" and what doesn't.

I agree that litecoin can be replaced. But Bitcoin can't.

It's nothing to do with the fact that "other coins" improve on it - it's to do with it's status as reserve currency. The more people "come no board" the more that status is consolidated because every new currency is priced in Bitcoin.

So Bitcoin is actually encroaching on the market through stealth - piggy backing on all these new currencies. Even Darkcoin is priced in Bitcoin.

When people get excited that Darkcoin is "rising" in value it's because they've implicitly gained more bitcoin, not more darkcoin.

Apart from all that, when the ETF's come along it will cement Bitcoin's position because it takes about 2-3 years for an ETF application to make its way through the regulatory authorities. Bitcoin is light years ahead of every other currency in all these areas - including earning its "right of passage" though being kicked to death by the media, Goxed and "malleability crisis'd" and survived intact.

I can see Darkcoin's value approaching Bitcoin's but I don't see it ever replacing it.

It's ok - found out here: http://askubuntu.com/questions/326978/restore-etc-init-d-rc-local

EDIT: In fact I don't even need that. El Presidente's one can just be pasted in.

Thanks GhostPlayer !

I'm getting somewhere now.

Only thing is, I can now see I've totally corrupted /etc/rc.local from my unsuccessful attempts at editing it last night - it's full of nonsense commands as I mistook the text edit cursor for the command cursor.

How can I restore a fresh copy or the original  /etc/rc.local ?

Can somebody plase help me out on the text file editing parts of the chaeplin's guide ?

What text editor are people using for adding the extra lines to the ip routing table there - gedit ?

I only ask because the guide is so literal everywhere else - every step included - but if I call edit at step 6 it says it isn't installed. Are the text-editing sections implicit ? (i.e. it's assumed that we know how to download and use our own command line text editor make the appropriate changes as described).

Another thing that confuses me is this line seems to throw me into some kind of text editor which I don't know what is:

/etc/default/sysstat : "ENABLED="true"

When that's called, the cursor chafes to a ">" which I assume is because I'm in the text editor. CTRL-X does nothing and CTRL-C gets me back out but doesn't save the modification. With me not being a linux geek, I'm assuming the line of code above is some shorthand for editing the file without explicitly calling the text editor in the code.

I'm obviously missing some basic step here. Thanks for any tips which can resolve this !

Whats "the Silver Propaganda" out of interest.

Is that where people try to promote LTC as the "silver" of crypto ?

What has "come to light" ?

Market engines on pre-ignition warm up.

4 hour correction cycle approaching it's 3-day close without a major stumble. 12 hour long and short momentum averages are buttered on and don't appear to offer impediment to any prospective market enthusiasm.

Likeways with short range charts which appear to have rinsed out any pent up correction ready to pull the last couple of bars of the 4 hour MACD histogram out of the mud.

Market depth starting to thicken - 14k bids vs 13k asks - from 8k / 8k 2 nights ago, so reinforcements have arrived at both fronts and something is clearly afoot.

It's an amber trading alert. Expect engine spool up over the next 24 hours and a possible fifth assault on on the 18 resistance.

Yer. Irriz.

LoL. How exactly do you expect them to do that ?

Through some system of centralised control ?

It's not a weakness, it's a strength.

All you people calling for a hard fork don't realise you're asking for a disaster.

Right now, no mining pool can take their mining power past 50% because it will break their business model. That's why GHash are calling for this - so that they can take their "monopoly" past 50% without devaluing the bit coin economy.

We need to let this scenario play itself out and NOT pander to mining monopolists. Over time, mining businesses will start to naturally decentralise through their inability to grow limitlessly.

On the other hand, if we implement a hard fork, the happiest of all concerned will be the pools who will now safely be able to grow their monopoly to 75% or even 90% without the prospect of an inhibitory devaluation at 50.

That's what people are asking for here with this hard fork nonsense - 90% mining monopolies. That prospect is far more daunting that a pool hitting 50% where the worst they can do is double spend the next block the odd time.

You're not a "believer in decentralized crypto currency". If you were you'd understand the merits of the current philosophy. What you are asking for is more centralisation, not less.

Take a look at what's happening right now. GHash is approaching 51%. Who is that most a problem for  - THEM. Because if they get past 51% the entire Bitcoin economy will devalue and their business model will go down the pan. Being one of the biggest Bitcoin businesses, they also stand to be one of the biggest losers, so they HAVE to do something about it to save their business.

One the other hand, lets examine what will happen if we implement this suicidal solution that you propose in your post: GHash will then be able to safely continue to grow their monopoly towards 75% or even 90%.

The prospect of 90% mining pool monopolies will be far worse than a 50% one where the worst they can do is double spend the next block - and even at that not for very long because of the economic pressure to mitigate their mining monopoly.

In fact, what will happen if we simply allow this scenario to play itself out is that this period will be seen to be the age of "peak mining pool power" because from now on they'll understand that the sector has a glass ceiling to growth. They'll be less financial incentive for mining pools to grow and they'll naturally start to de-centralise.

Do NOT solve GHash's problem for them. DO NOT make it possible for them to gain a 90% monopoly by "fixing" Bitcoin. The system is good - let it do it's work.

I don't think Bitcoin should pander to monopolists.

The 51% threat MUST remain in place as an important cornerstone of it's decentralised nature. GHash.io need to realise that if they want to grow then they picked the wrong industry sector.

What needs to be done here is exactly NOTHING.

This whole scenario needs to be allowed to play itself out so that mining pools naturally start to dissipate due to lack of incentive caused by the glass ceiling on growth. No technical modification is needed to address the 51% problem because the solution is already built into the Bitcoin economy and Peter Todd has already demonstrated that.

Again, GHash.io need to realise that this is not a sector that businesses can "grow" past a certain size because once they approach the 51% mining monopoly, the Bitcoin economy will start to devalue in its entirety causing them to be stuck in a catch 22 situation.

People don't seem to have thought this through. What would a technical solution do ?

[1] - it would remove the economic inhibitor to mining pool growth

[2] - give the green light to mining pools that wanted to grow past the 51% level

How is this possibly in the interests of Bitcoin users ? The answer is it isn't. It's purely in the interests of mining pool businesses.

Leave things exactly as they are.

It will be a problem for a while and then it will never return again as pools realise that this is an industry sector with anti-monopoly mechanisms already built in and their ambitions for growth won't be pandered to.

I for one am more than prepared to allow the price to sink for a while to allow this these mechanisms to play themselves out.

You got time on your hands then ?

The only thing it's proof of is how desperate some people are getting in their little private crusades to scrape up any morsel of adversarial gossip they can get their hands on to undermine their pet cryptocurrency hates.

Make sure you milk it now. Never know when your next meal's gonna be

LoL. Or put another way, 3,000,000 NxT was just bought ! 

Not bad volume if true.