noticed you guys listed it as 0.9.1 version while it is still on old 0.8.6
It is not even 0.9.0
seems misleading, is their any update on when we can expect 0.9.0.x core or newer version.
Beta is on 10.0.0 right now, the regular is 9.1 or something like that. We had a hard fork for an improvement to dgw recently. |
|
|
|
My client is not connecting to any nodes, anyone got a conf file example I could copy?
Had the same problem, it took like an hour + to connect to a node but it's all good now. I just left it alone. Both seed nodes were down, I forget to check them. Anyone else want to host a seed node? - It needs to be configured to 200 connections max - Must have 9999 open from the outside - Must be a static IP - Must be permanently available PM me and I'll add them to the source Would it be of any help to use an amazon tiny ec2? Only 1 cpu, but if it's just to run info through? Let me know! |
|
|
|
Still another 3 hours until April Fools is officially over. Go DarkDogeCoin!! Not...  Much time, 5 hours, much laugh, much moon! |
|
|
|
In a way, this might be a good thing. If the asic developers can't make money because coins simply change their algorithms this time around-and probably in the future, it's possible we won't even have a future threat! Game over, we won!
What if all of that is followed by a Bitcoin hard fork for the same? Can you imagine, for a brief moment, the insanity that would ensue? Might not be that brief! LOL Although, I must say that running an asic on my computer is nice because it doesn't effect the usefulness of my computer. |
|
|
|
|
In a way, this might be a good thing. If the asic developers can't make money because coins simply change their algorithms this time around-and probably in the future, it's possible we won't even have a future threat! Game over, we won!
|
|
|
|
The issue Anonymint raises is not about losing anonymity, but of Darksends being blocked
good thing he also proposed a divide and conquer workaround
getting that added to Darksend will make it 10 times better!!
Blocking darksends? Why would the NSA want to do that? It would be detected, they don't want to be detected, they want to gather information. |
|
|
|
Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.
I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.
Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin. eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot. I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users. If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete. Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node. Best of luck with it. Thanks AnonyMint! You are the real deal in anonymityland James What he suggests is unlikely, but even if some nodes are run by the NSA, which is likely, why not?, then they might get info for one transaction. Big deal, they can't always be the master node, there are too many other nodes running. And to "fix" such a minute problem, or possible issue, one would have to complicate the system to such a degree, I am certain you'd create more holes than you can cover up. sounds good, in practice it's a disaster. KISS, Is the way I think it should go. That Anonymint will never understand, as he keeps going on and on about the same half dozen issues. It's like conspiracy theories. yah, they could have happened, but how likely is it? With other more reasonable explanations and the fact that the government is so dang inept. It's just silly. |
|
|
|
Interesting article in Wired about Bitcoin's place as a hybrid payments system: http://www.wired.com/2014/03/bitcoin-currency_martin/What I found most interesting as a DRK holder were these final paras! "The existing, bank-based payments system is expensive and antediluvian — but also profitable and therefore jealously guarded by its powerful owners. Other technologies co-exist — such as cash payment face-to-face, or the developing world staple of hawala for international transfers — but they cannot seriously compete with banks. If Bitcoin’s technology is as cheap, as scalable, and as secure as its advocates claim, it may be different.
That last point, of course, is crucial. One reason that cash, that most archaic of payments technologies, still exists, is because it really is anonymous. Anonymity in transactions can be abused, of course. But it remains a basic civil liberty. Payments systems that use ledgers rarely offer the same assurance. Efficiency and economy are nice to have: but not at the cost of our right to privacy."+1 nice article it's always nice when someone brings into focus in a slightly new way, what currency really is and always has been. We're not reinventing the wheel, just adding the wings so we can take off and land and drive in the air  |
|
|
|
You can always see when TanteStefana wakes up from the dead. Post after post  I know, I've got to stop doing that. It must annoy everyone! LOL |
|
|
|
Earlier in the development someone attacked DarkSend this way and broke it for a day or so. I ended up coming up with what I call collateral transactions. A collateral transaction is a transaction that is only sent to the master node and if broadcast will transfer money from the node in question to the master node. The main problem is CoinJoin happens in 3 main stages: 1.) ACCEPTING INPUTS (inputs are the money I’m sending) 2.) ACCEPTING OUTPUTS (outputs are who I’m sending to) 3.) SIGN INPUTS (everyone signs their input separately then sends them) In stage 2, what if someone fails to send their output? In stage 3, what if someone fails to sign? So with blind signing (footnote 1) when a user adds an output, you know it’s one of your users but you don’t know which. So if a user fails to provide outputs, the whole session must restart and no one can be punished. I've thought about multiple designs for DarkSend, many of which do have the issue you’re talking about: Design A: Users provide inputs and collateral, then later will provide outputs. The master node must know which user didn’t provide the outputs to be able to charge him. If we use blind signing we can’t charge the bad actor fees. Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign. I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying. //Accepting inputs 1. User A provides (Input, txCollateral, Output1, Output2) 2. User B provides (Input, txCollateral, Output1, Output2) 3. User C provides (Input, txCollateral, Output1, Output2) //Signing 1. User A provides (Input, txCollateral) 2. User B fails to provide to sign 3. User C provides (Input, txCollateral) //Fees 1. User B is charged So to be clear, the master must know who is sending money to who. But ONLY the master node will need to know this. Beyond that the blockchain is still anonymous, and master nodes can be decentralized among the users of the network. (1) More about blind signing:
http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/jnw/article/viewFile/0508921928/2053
Question from the other forum: If someone pulls out (bad actor), is the whole DS transaction disbanded? Does it have to start all over again or is another user "invited in" |
|
|
|
Here is the fix for the R9 290 mining.Tested on BAMT 1.6, it worked. You can put it in first post, or not. I have sent a 30 Darkcoin Bounty to cryptogretzky by myself, for the bug finding. If any-one want to pay me back a part of that bounty, here is my address to share the cost. XavaNMidPmofBUt4RWLf6YHhNDUNA7TjY6 As I only have 3 r9 290 I'll make 3 month to recover that bounty with my increased hasrate, but I'll be in peace with this bug. run "aticonfig --adapter=all --initial -f". add these 4 lines into /etc/rc.local before exit 0 export DISPLAY=:0
xset s off
xset -dpms
xset s noblank
Just in case it's not already executable, run: Enjoy, and sleep in peace now So glad you figured this out! I know you've been struggling with it for a long time now. Congrats! |
|
|
|
There's a difference between bashing and commenting.
Everyone here is part of the community even if you deem them negative. Any shit can lead to good shit. Embrace it instead and stop the personal level shit. That just ruins for outsiders wanting to get in.
Thank you, you now have my old job. Take care, I've broken today and I didn't even read any of his rant, LOL. I must be in a very bad mood today, but it felt good to gripe, please ignore my comments above unless they give you a giggle |
|
|
|
I expect nothing less from a self-proclaimed "world-class programmer who knows his shit".  It's brown, it's stinky, I wish he'd keep it in his own toilet! |
|
|
|
This is all ad hominem. Why not simply attack his argument if you believe it's unfounded?
Because it's tiring LimLims! I haven't even read his comments today, and I'm exhausted! Have mercy, I used to have so much tolerance, now I'm dried up, and it's only been since mid January that I've been on this board. I've NEVER gotten so irritated with people before Bitcointalk! Now I totally understand why people get so mean! |
|
|
|
We are talking about two different folks here (hopefully) AnonyMint: Asking good questions. Long time member. ILoveAnonCoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=276866 -> Check his posts. Pure Troll. No approach is correct against these types of cancer. Is most likely the hungsukmom character or someone similar. Anyways back to technical discussions Sorry for the short offtopic. A jerk that's been here since 1908 would still be a jerk, LOL |
|
|
|
the problem with anonycoin, he is dismissive even before he has really seen it, and even before knowing anything regarding the way it works,
its always good to have 3rd party to look things trough, but being desmissive before even knowing anything about this particular implementation thats more like trolling...
Yes, my love, so why do you answer and worse still, quote him? LOL BTW, thank you dearly for misspelling his name, gave me a giggle |
|
|
|
At one point I'm sure one of them will say : "Hmmm I'm not convinced, show me the source code I'm sure I will detect some flaws".
Dude, sometime people share their though, you should listening. if you have better method, please provide. if not, please read carefully what they said, don't ack like you know it all. This is from experience, he isn't being a butt, he's exhausted from Anonymint's constant attacks that are ALWAYS the same thing over and over, and he never accepts the clear answers. You can read all his rants all you like, I've read them before and don't need to again. We have answered and answered him over and over again. One user pegged him as having the Dunning–Kruger effect, and I have to completely agree. I'm done. |
|
|
|
If all the participants to a mix "collect their inputs", then they provide their penalty payment. Then the DOS attack comes in that second step where not all provide their penalty payment. Thus restart and "collect inputs" again. And again, and again and again. Forever.
If the penalty payment is provided before "collect their inputs", then the system knows who is the owner of the input and the output, and thus anonymity is broken.
I don't understand it well enough to give you an answer. *Paging Evan* I do appreciate that you put time into thinking this through. I might have a read through the debate you linked to when I have some time. I'll help here, nothing is started until the payments are in, including the penalty payment. |
|
|
|
CoinJoin can't work. Period. Oh god, I thought I ignored you a long time ago! Good bye #6 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
