The fees stuff was all obviously "thinking aloud" as eltito stated. "What if people could bloat the blockchain with by using this option.... Then we should ....". Nothing to be concerned about.
These are things that have to be built in as design parameters. You can't expect the attack to happen and then patch. Bloat = cost. No cost = tremendous bloat for the lulz. Well the answer is quite simple, no option to bloat the blockchain at all, given current baseline anonymity is good enough for everyone, using the current safeguardings already in place in the btc protocol (transaction fees required if coin age <<) How do you know it's "good enough for everyone"? Sure, it's pretty hard/impossible to prove a link, but if there's for example only 3 senders > 3 recipients, there's still the straight probabilities in play. Someone dead set on finding out who sent money to recipient A could possibly track down all 3 senders. Anonymity/privacy *always* has caveats. You can accomplish approximately what is being suggested by Darksending to a newly generated address for yourself, then forwarding the coins from there in another Darksend transaction. It takes longer and costs more, but you get "better" anonymity. so you basically infer that the main feature of darkcoin, darksend/darksend+, could not provide good enough anonymity at the core level to discourage a normal attacker (not the N*A) to identify the two parties if he really wants to? That is not my intention, no. Edit: I'm not trying to come at this from my "pedestal" as if I have all the answers; sorry if I'm coming off that way. Rather, I'm trying to pose valid ideas and questions. so you basically infer that the main feature of darkcoin, darksend/darksend+, could not provide good enough anonymity at the core level to discourage a normal attacker (not the N*A) to identify the two parties if he really wants to?
Depends on what is good enough, and what the "core level" is ultimately decided to be. This is really what it boils down to. I further submit the question: is it our responsibility to decide what is "good enough"? << not rhetorical |
|
|
|
The fees stuff was all obviously "thinking aloud" as eltito stated. "What if people could bloat the blockchain with by using this option.... Then we should ....". Nothing to be concerned about.
These are things that have to be built in as design parameters. You can't expect the attack to happen and then patch. Bloat = cost. No cost = tremendous bloat for the lulz. Well the answer is quite simple, no option to bloat the blockchain at all, given current baseline anonymity is good enough for everyone, using the current safeguardings already in place in the btc protocol (transaction fees required if coin age <<) How do you know it's "good enough for everyone"? Sure, it's pretty hard/impossible to prove a link, but if there's for example only 3 senders > 3 recipients, there's still the straight probabilities in play. Someone dead set on finding out who sent money to recipient A could possibly track down all 3 senders. Anonymity/privacy *always* has caveats. You can accomplish approximately what is being suggested by Darksending to a newly generated address for yourself, then forwarding the coins from there in another Darksend transaction. It takes longer and costs more, but you get "better" anonymity. |
|
|
|
Two things to take away from that exchange:
Extra fees for better features is a bad idea. It's not going to happen.
Should it become necessary for the safety of the network, we could look at ways to discourage malicious, intentional bloating of the blockchain by making it costly to do so.
Everything else was just people thinking out loud.
I don't really see it this way. If we were literally talking about charging XX for doing extra mixing, that's silly, and I'm 100% against it. It doesn't even make sense. To me, normal TX fees is what makes sense. You want extra anonymity: Extra anonymity/privacy/security/whatever = extra mixing = extra transactions = extra fees (20% of which would go to MN) Edit: to clarify, mixing is *free*. You can't then charge for multiple mixings when one is free. Doing multiple rounds of mixing absolutely improves anonymity, as more people coins get involved and the probabilities go down. |
|
|
|
Nobody spreads FUD like Langley!
What's the objective of the "FUD" out of interest ? - to scare banker personnel into keeping quiet ? LOL, I'm not privy to the Illuminati high council, but anyone who can do basic arithmetic knows the whole financial system is a joke that can't last forever - my guess is that keeping people quiet for as long as possible fits the current masterplan, whatever that might be. It's actually pretty impressive just how much mass delusion can be relatively easily sustained, humanity on the whole ain't that bright. You are in the running for smartest Brit. |
|
|
|
07/08 19:26:35 98718 [1][2][3] x11ltc1btccom tx_0_vout_1 - XiFSHNMaaskVXHRsvoRbMWPDEjrv2jt7uz 07/08 15:41:34 98633 [1][2][3] x11ltc1btccom tx_0_vout_1 - XiFSHNMaaskVXHRsvoRbMWPDEjrv2jt7uz 07/08 14:39:23 98613 [1][2][3] dedicatedpoolcom tx_0_vout_1 - Xt6EVxK2tEXVuqokqAKXhkiEWdeCGaaZkB 07/08 11:54:45 98543 [1][2][3] x11ltc1btccom tx_0_vout_1 - Xt6EVxK2tEXVuqokqAKXhkiEWdeCGaaZkB 07/08 07:47:04 98450 [1][2][3] miningpoolhub equlto: XiFSHNMaaskVXHRsvoRbMWPDEjrv2jt7uz 1.000000 XiFSHNMaaskVXHRsvoRbMWPDEjrv2jt7uz Got 5 payments today 3 of them of chinese lobster  ehhh life is life.... I got 3 in a row to the same MN from them. :/ |
|
|
|
MineP.it, apparently, are in the process of updating their pool !! Big round to them, thank you Dan! Pool Police stats update tonight. Currently this pool has 91 GH/s !! and the biggest piece of the pie in terms of hashrate. I Think they're chinese
Usee google translator to help navigatehttp://x11.ltc1btc.com/here is the link to the contact form. (will not work under google translate thought) http://x11.ltc1btc.com/index.php?page=contactformPlease send them a friendly notice to update! The fork is eminent, and they'll have 100% orphaned blocks. These guys are the biggest anchor right now we have! Send them this link please. Be nice about it, no need to antagonise! http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/ImportantLets get this show on the road folk! While the fork will hopefully be eminent, I think you mean "imminent".  |
|
|
|
Has anybody also had a problem with vultr server. Mine was shut down again and i don't know why.
Server was running but darkoind was shut down. It looks like server gets started new but darcoind
is not into startup routine.
I have not had any trouble with them. I set up alerts as El Presidenté suggested, and they have only showed down once (been up since payments started). I went and looked right away when the alerts showed down, but they were all up, so even that must have been a glitch. I also had that. I believe it was because the alerts check if your masternode is seen by all Presidente's masternodes (keyword = MNaddress:6). If he stops any of them for whatever reason, the page where the robot checks shows MNaddress:5 (or less) and you get an alert. No big deal if he doesn't play with them a lot Right, I understand what it's doing. It was just weird because when I got the emails, I immediately looked and all appeared normal at his site. |
|
|
|
Has anybody also had a problem with vultr server. Mine was shut down again and i don't know why.
Server was running but darkoind was shut down. It looks like server gets started new but darcoind
is not into startup routine.
Look into Crontab. Mine all good been up 9 days now no problems +1 The standard Ubuntu images definitely don't reboot on their own. |
|
|
|
But back to the sub-1 change issue. Let's say we need to send 17.54321 DRK from A to B (we can ignore other senders/receivers):
A sends 20 DRK to MN1; he get's change back as follows:
C gets 10 DRK
D gets 5 DRK
E gets 1 DRK
F gets 1 DRK
G gets 1 DRK
H gets 1 DRK
I gets 0.54321 DRK
J gets 0.45679 DRK I think it's obvious that this will work the same way with 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, 0.05 ... and smaller inputs. True, but it does get rather awkward as far as size and # of addresses are concerned. Does bloat become an issue? How deep into the denomination tree does it become an issue? You also can't go too small or TX fees can become a problem. Anonymity/privacy in crypto ALWAYS (so far at least) has caveats. |
|
|
|
The problem is address J is now tainted and could potentially link some things together if used for future transactions with F, G, and H (if used with all 3 simultaneously, it would 100% link the original A to B tx). Additionally, it has the further weakness of not being very useful for future Darksend+'s, as it won't denominate well.
The potential "fix" that's on my mind (maybe just a workaround) is to store up these "tainted", mostly useless addresses until you have them totaling more than 1 (or 5, or whatever), at which point they could be sent to a special "redenominating" pool (and maybe you don't even need a pool, I haven't taken the time to think through all the implications of just doing it like a normal Darksend+) for recycling back to standard sized change addresses. You would still end up with one sub-1 address every time, but that's not too big of deal in my view.
Any thoughts?
Does this become a non-issue if Darksend is mandatory? If not then yes, some in-wallet automagic might need to happen. I don't really know. With Darksend+ going around all over the place, the blockchain will be really foggy, particularly to humans. But a computer might be able to figure some of it out, maybe just in specific situations dependent on size of tx. Whether Darksend+ should be mandatory is another topic entirely. I'm not presently sure you could even make it so. Nodes (or the block finder) would need to reject transactions not originating from the elected masternode(s) with an exception for the block reward I guess. |
|
|
|
Has anybody also had a problem with vultr server. Mine was shut down again and i don't know why.
Server was running but darkoind was shut down. It looks like server gets started new but darcoind
is not into startup routine.
I have not had any trouble with them. I set up alerts as El Presidenté suggested, and they have only showed down once (been up since payments started). I went and looked right away when the alerts showed down, but they were all up, so even that must have been a glitch. |
|
|
|
Please tell me someone will be ready to put this on the OP and draw attention to the fact that DS has been drastically changed/improved? Shame to wait for days for an OP update on something this big... How does it deal with decimal point leftovers? Those could act like flags on change addresses... When do you send exact even numbers anywhere? Shouldn't these be duff-level denominations? Image just dumbed down? That sub-1 change still has all sorts of problems from my perspective (note: when sending a "rounded" tx, the above method seems pretty nearly flawless; the only weakness I can think of at this time is if there's say 3 transactions happening, and one of the wallets doing the sending has (and is trying to send) less than either of the other two. It wouldn't work in this case, as one could still simply follow inputs/outputs.) A way to somewhat alleviate the above scenario would be to have a "Prepare wallet for Darksend+" button, which would complete step one (with masternode 1), leaving a bunch of denominated change around to send in later transactions. Then you would have different transactions involved in an actual Darksend+ transaction versus who shared in the change denomination session. But back to the sub-1 change issue. Let's say we need to send 17.54321 DRK from A to B (we can ignore other senders/receivers): A sends 20 DRK to MN1; he get's change back as follows: C gets 10 DRK D gets 5 DRK E gets 1 DRK F gets 1 DRK G gets 1 DRK H gets 1 DRK I gets 0.54321 DRK J gets 0.45679 DRK Now the transaction can proceed as normal, going to MN2 as expected (addresses C, D, E, F, and I get sent). B receives the requested 17.54321 DRK. The problem is address J is now tainted and could potentially link some things together if used for future transactions with F, G, and H (if used with all 3 simultaneously, it would 100% link the original A to B tx). Additionally, it has the further weakness of not being very useful for future Darksend+'s, as it won't denominate well. The potential "fix" that's on my mind (maybe just a workaround) is to store up these "tainted", mostly useless addresses until you have them totaling more than 1 (or 5, or whatever), at which point they could be sent to a special "redenominating" pool (and maybe you don't even need a pool, I haven't taken the time to think through all the implications of just doing it like a normal Darksend+) for recycling back to standard sized change addresses. You would still end up with one sub-1 address every time, but that's not too big of deal in my view. Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
doesn't mean this wasnt enevitable b.t.w. sorry to disrupt this valuable review of proceedings mike (I did defend you b.t.w.) but "enevitable" is spelled with an "i". No you didn't?  Something gotten into you today? He definitely did. I was there. |
|
|
|
Your going to see sub 0.01 prices. I told you all this would happen weeks ago but you all said I was stating FUD. Go look at my previous posts from a month ago if you want to know what's actually happening to the market.
Expect strong resistance @ 0.01, but expect it to drop through shortly after. Play the swings here and rebuy back @ 0.008, I'm fairly confident this is the floor.
If anyone here even tries to say this is FUD and not sound investment advice ill digitally slap you across this forum.
Hopefully you'll all be able to make some money from this fall, there will be a recovery once the bottom has formed. Don't expect it to be sharp though.
Peaceeeee
See, I have no problem with this post. I've bolded the reason above. I didn't like your posts around a month ago because you were "150% certain" something was going to happen and just generally came across very confrontational. The post from today doesn't have that, and indeed, seems quite polite (to me). Others might not see this the same way.  Apologies it came out that way. I was 150% sure of the impending dive. Bubbles arn't sustainable. This is probably the most black and white theory in economics. I am not so sure of the bottom. Once it breaks through 0.01 any stabilisation below 0.009 for an extended period should be seen as the bottom, 0.008 seems the most likely as DRK still has competitive advantage given its already established position. Good luck. I agree, but technically, he was wrong a month ago.... But, I'll pretend to be him for a second and say we're going up to .015... Might take a week, might take a year. I'll return when it does, and will ignore any sort of swing, in either direction, in the meantime. I honestly couldn't care less whether his analysis was correct, rather just the tone it was presented with. I don't mind his tone today. I'm fully (can we be fully???) aware of confirmation bias, et al. |
|
|
|
Your going to see sub 0.01 prices. I told you all this would happen weeks ago but you all said I was stating FUD. Go look at my previous posts from a month ago if you want to know what's actually happening to the market.
Expect strong resistance @ 0.01, but expect it to drop through shortly after. Play the swings here and rebuy back @ 0.008, I'm fairly confident this is the floor.
If anyone here even tries to say this is FUD and not sound investment advice ill digitally slap you across this forum.
Hopefully you'll all be able to make some money from this fall, there will be a recovery once the bottom has formed. Don't expect it to be sharp though.
Peaceeeee
See, I have no problem with this post. I've bolded the reason above. I didn't like your posts around a month ago because you were "150% certain" something was going to happen and just generally came across very confrontational. The post from today doesn't have that, and indeed, seems quite polite (to me). Others might not see this the same way. |
|
|
|
Does mixing through masternodes create any bloat?
There is no mixing, thus, no bloat. What about the change? Change will cause "bloat", but not really a significant amount. Presently it doesn't, but if/when it becomes denominated, there will absolutely be larger blocks. I don't think it'll be meaningful though. |
|
|
|
Here's the thing. Even if people were to get full payments, will running a masternode still be a good investment? I could take the same amount of btc that people have tied up in a masternode and likely make 10% in a week based on previous returns. omg with those skills borrow and steal as much capital as you can and 100x it in a year. Please, let me invest a masternode's worth into you. Heck, I'll give you two, and you only need to trade one for me; the other you can keep for yourself. Plus, you don't even have to make 10% per week; I'll be happy with just 5%! (I know, I know, I'm missing out on almost $1,300,000 only getting 5%, but I'm ok with that) Can you do simple math? 10% of $10000 is $1000. Multiply that by 52 weeks = $52000. So I don't know where you come up with $1,3000,000. But this thread is so filled with misinformation, unrealistic expectations, and sugar coated everything, that it's no surprise that you would post this crap. Right, so....remind me why I wouldn't compound my returns? |
|
|
|
Here's the thing. Even if people were to get full payments, will running a masternode still be a good investment? I could take the same amount of btc that people have tied up in a masternode and likely make 10% in a week based on previous returns. omg with those skills borrow and steal as much capital as you can and 100x it in a year. Please, let me invest a masternode's worth into you. Heck, I'll give you two, and you only need to trade one for me; the other you can keep for yourself. Plus, you don't even have to make 10% per week; I'll be happy with just 5%! (I know, I know, I'm missing out on almost $1,300,000 only getting 5%, but I'm ok with that) |
|
|
|
Yes it could be. But what happens when people don't realize the profit they thought they would get from running a masternode? They have close to $10,000 tied up that could be put to use elsewhere with potentially much higher returns. If the number of masternodes starts to decrease will that be an indicator of long term uncertainty?
Honestly, I'm a bit surprised there are still 500 or so Masternodes online. 1 DRK per day is nothing -- NOTHING -- for having 1000 DRK tied up. And if you're paying for server fees and such, it's even worse. I don't know who would run a MN that costs probably $10-$20 per day in fees just to earn $10 per day in DRK. Some of them are likely IT professionals using company servers for their own gains; I can't think of any other way to make it truly worthwhile. 10-20 usd for a server?  You want the gold plated one, don't you? ;-)) I think it's the Ferrari edition. I, too, was like "whaaa???" <$10/month would be much closer to reality. Edit: even an AWS 32-core C3.8 instance costs less than $10/day. |
|
|
|
<@evan82> luigi1111w, not really, back to RC4 for me What a gem! Context? Oh nothing really, I suggested a few more things he could do with his distribution script and he replied with that. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
