 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
Scrambling my password...
thanks for letting my speak.
I will censor myself now, because I talk too much. I think y'all can figure it out from here...
(I don't belong here. I take programming too seriously. Normal people will never understand us. Where is Steve Jobs when I need him?)
Edit: done. clicking Logout.
Me too! That's it! This guy's just too rowdy! Gettin him outa here! *throws self out the door! |
|
|
|
My suggestion, and I haven't entirely thought this through, is that maybe in this context an unknown pseudonym is better, because it removes the possibility that the purpose of the paper is to exploit the halo of the author. The content would then have to stand on its own merits.
Anyway, there is plenty of competitiveness around here and I'm sure that won't change, but it is sometimes nice to put that aside and just have a conversation for a little while.
QFT |
|
|
|
It's a wired to see that after all this time there are still some darkcoin owners with so less trust in the coin that they are haveing their coins sitting hot on the exchange waiting to dump them all instantly by the slightest negative news. I thought they are all gone by now.
Actually that initial 15k dump very likely came from masternode operator in south korea according to the block. 15 payments of 1000 drk directly to cryptsy from mn addresses. I don't think those first coins were on the exchange. |
|
|
|
Why not name the versioning with popular things trending on google, so that darkcoin will trend along with it? Darkcoin Collins Darkcoin Peterson Darkcoin Seahawks Darkcoin Twin Peaks .. dunno maybe it's not the best idea http://www.google.com/trends/hottrends#pn=p1 |
|
|
|
last time i brought this up i was told i was the one off-topic.. uhhhhhhhh what ? rename this to MSN messenger ? i don't think some of you grasp how forums work and clearly struggle with social situations. i see a lot of mentally ill behavior going on here.. i normal person would not just plow on endlessly like the Spirit of Christmas past.. circle jerking.. but hey keep it up ..it means your taking a fat fucking shit all over Monero and i have to admit i like it  Because : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c2OM7HEfrs#t=1m28s |
|
|
|
Please do sic BCX on defenseless little p2pool. I double dog dare you to force it to evolve or die, because pressure makes diamonds. Too bad you can't.
I have no control over BCX. You seem to be hard of hearing. P2Pool can't be fixed. The specific vulnerability is inherent in the fact that it is decentralized. There is no possible mitigation. Since your feeble technical abilities are becoming too apparent, let me spell it out for you n00b. Since P2Pool is decentralized, there is no central party to hide any information. Thus all the information for the pooling has to be public. Thus there is no way to hide the requirements of the block solution. Thus miners know when they've solved a block, and can choose to not share it. The oblivious shares fix requires a change to the block chain, so that centralized pools can select a secret, then have miners solve a block solution that depends on that secret. Thus the miners never know if their mining share is a block solution or not. P2Pool can't do that, impossible. Now please get a life and leave me alone. It sounds like you're trying to get off the forum for a minute or two, so I'm sorry to ask this right now .. but it sounds like what you're saying is that if someone wanted to accomplish what you're describing, then someone could just have to code a program that lets an individual miner know when they've found a solution on a p2pool node .. and then additionally submit it to the network outside of the pool and receive the entire reward themselves rather than get paid pennies from the pool? So they could forego one pool payment for a full block reward, and then carry on in the pool as if nothing happened .. effectively owning that hashrate from the p2pool network for one block relative to themselves? Would software like that in the hands of all the p2pool miners, if such software were to be open sourced and kept up to date, and made to work with standard mining software be possible? Would that take a lot of work? Or, am I not paying attention again? add: nvm, you would forego the pool payout and just delay the finding of a block for a period of time. got it. but, could a large centralized pool utilize their hashrate to manipulate p2pool in such a way that it would be economically feasible to do so? if mining was 50% p2pool and 50%ghash.io, could ghash take 25% and set it on p2pool and withold the solutions they find allowing a window in which the other half of their pool to, in general, find >50% of the blocks and then distribute to all miners of their pool? |
|
|
|
If you think for one minute you aren't in for gain as well, your full of it. Of course I was in it for gain, I was in it for the long term, but every attempt to better this coin has been ignored. I haven't seen on suggestion that moves this coin forward. So what's the fucking plan? How are you going to get people to invest, if everybody that comes into with an idea is rejected. I don't see any forward movement, just a bunch of people bitching about keeping the status quo. Oh, don't change the name, oh don't do this, keep it the same blah blah. If you keep it the same it stagnates and dies.
But what gives myself the ability to hold, in the face of impending doom over and over again, is that I've not overextended myself for short term gains or daytrading, or even long-term gains. The personal restraint to not place oneself in a situation where one feels the need to ever declare, publicly, the selling of a currency was a talent I built over the course of a long time. Trust me, I've done the same as you are now - public displays of anti-affection and what not - I've always regretted it before I learned. I really just don't have the motivation to go to poloniex and rage, fear or panic sell 'muh stash' because the investment ranges from whatever that loaf of bread costs. It's worked out really well. Sometimes, for the investment of literally a couple dollars worth of power bills, I walk away with >10 BTC. It feels great, but the trick is to never stop asking yourself 'if this was useful today, what amount would I feel comfortable, value-wise, using it for?'. Sometimes, that's $1.00, sometimes that's $60. Yes, loaves of bread really can be that expensive. Also, sometimes I get hungry more than one day in a row. Additionally, these are far from sane investment vehicles. I recommend you spend time figuring that out. Talk to the developers, learn how to compile from source, learn to use ubuntu, change some lines in source code - that's where the gain is here. I'm sorry if you don't agree with that, but it's what brought me back from raging and mindlessly chucking peanuts at these decent folk. Take it as it goes, because there's no plan. It's a crap shoot, and I can sure spare a meal or two. Imagine where you'd be if you bought a loaf of bread worth of bitcoin 4-5 years ago? |
|
|
|
Whats the point of having a currency that has no worth?
Consider that the tough decision made by the fella you were supposed to have faith in, Dr. Zoidberg, asked himself that very same question. His answer was likely not to sell his BBR's, as he would likely think that the decision he made will cement and fortify the long-term 'worth' of his currency. By dumping now, you're making the very transparent statement that windbag and his group of totally-unknown-to-you pumpers would have had a much more long-term impact on the value of the currency than the developer himself. I think that's a strange statement to make, because it was Dr. Z who made this currency what it is and it will be Dr. Z who will continue to make it into what it will be. If you disagree with that notion, then I have to draw the only conclusion that you were only in this for immediate short term gain. As that has placed you into a position where you are now selling it for less than you would have a few days ago, please make sure you let go of every last drop and enjoy your departure. I hope you reconsider, but the gravity of such a decision that was just made is something that has personally inspired me to go to the market and grab a loaf of bread's worth of this currency |
|
|
|
|
Sounds like a nice way of saying they don't support the spork, and the miners on the pool will need to find a new home or move on.
|
|
|
|
cross post, b/c obviously off topic for that thread. That is a thread waiting for an attack on XMR to come to the surface over the next 5-10 days, or not......DRK = off topic? lol i guess drk's never really off topic, but it came up in that thread for the last few hours (guess they were just passing the time waiting to see what happens?). I think the conclusion I drew from the conversation was relevant to this thread, as many people in this thread likely don't visit that one. You make some cogent points, but I'm not sure any of it is really relevant in a scenario where we achieve widespread adoption.
I totally agree, but I guess my sales pitch for wolf0's modifications was trying to encompass the idea that there are people with money tied up in this. personally, I've no attachment to the USD/BTC to drk price, because I'm more technically focused (because again, I agree with you that the utility will make the value). I find the economics hard to skip over in this situation due to the technical and economic relevance to the block reward. I also know that people do have lots of money tied up in this, and even further than that some will be selling within the next month to pay bills and what not. I don't know that adoption, which in this case i've pegged to buying pressure, will be ready to match a 50% increased emission. I hope it does, and time will tell of course. I'm sure it will eventually. Either way, a 50% increased emission will tend to dilute current holdings in the long term faster than what it was a week ago. Maybe that means something important to someone, and maybe that same person has considered that the fiat/btc value of their DRK holdings is more important in the short term than the long-term value, and is/are considering economic changes that reflect the increased emission. The point is that, the emission can be reduced by 50%33% right now by purchasing wolf's hashrate optimizations (add: I think). if that purchase is lower than it would cost someone, or a group of people, to wait out a potential downtrend (if it matters to them), by paying a lesser price for wolf's modifications then maybe someone can save money and a good developer can get paid? one more add: can someone please clearly define the emission schedule for drk? last I read the block reward was dependent on the difficulty, so I'm drawing the conclusion that the recently decreased hashrate has resulted in a lower difficulty, which has increased the emission. Is this still true or haven't I done enough catching up? j/k here's another: Block reward is controlled by: 2222222/(((Difficulty+2600)/9)^2), so for a 33% max increase here (yes I'm ignoring private miners just for this, the emission goes from 7/8 to a difficulty of ~2904 and a reward of (5.94?) |
|
|
|
cross post, b/c obviously off topic for that thread.
Miners who can use a pool which doesn't take some of their block reward, will have an economic advantage, thus masternodes will become unfunded and be centralized (offered for free) by whomever can gain from stealing the anonymity (or what ever value they can extract from centralizing masternodes).
With the recent spork that was done with >90% of the network in acceptance, there are no more pools in darkcoin who can offer a block reward without paying the mns. therefore, miners who choose to mine at these pools will be at a distinct economic disadvantage to themselves. The network now rejects these blocks. If the mn's are economically capable of offering mining for no fee, or a fee less than a non-mn pool (because of the 20% they're already allocated), then that would give them an economic edge over non mn pools. this does assume that the operational costs of the mn and the operational costs of running the pool combined are less than what it receives. evan's latest post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9103691#msg9103691I wonder what the technical limitations are on lowering the amount required from 1000 units, to say, one or two units of the currency? Add: I'd like to make the point that playing with this 20% payment will likely have immediate and lasting effects on the hashrate of the network, because of the chosen emission style where the hashrate defines the block reward. Please note that with this enforcement, the hashrate dropped to levels where the nodes and miners are receiving more currency than they did before because the block reward has moved from the 5drk minimum and now sits at ~7/8drk. I observe that a 20% cut in miner pay seems to have resulted in a 40%50% increase in emission. With no real change in price, this serves to reward miners a net of 20% increase in pay/value reward compared to pre-spork. As many miners may sell at market, this would require a 20% increase in purchasing power to keep this price. This can be countered with a price increase of 20% if someone wants to have the potential ability to collect 'anonymous' information through the masternodes in the future (add: or just really likes DRK ofc ). The price increase should logically be met with a 20% increase in hashrate from where it's at now (which will yield the 5 DRK/block emission), where it will sit until either buying or selling power takes precedence over the other; however, the buying pressure would still need to be increased 20% value-wise in order to maintain no change. The only real benefit to raising the price from a whales perspective in this AFAICS is to keep scarcity up, so that the 50% gain in emission doesn't dilute their current holdings. Personally, I'm expectinghoping for a 20% rise in the nearish future in order to tackle this very situation. Alternatively, the price can decrease 20%. While this seems more likely, it could easily cascade into a decreasing hashrate which will yield an even higher emission (what difficulty does it increase from 7/8 per block to whatever's higher than that?) and then a possible 'race to the bottom'. Considering that there is the financial incentive of either the currency itself, or even the incentive of potentially having the ability to collect anonymous data, I'd think that the increased cost route might be justified. Not my money to spend though, nor do I know who's making the spending decisions so it's pretty up in the air. Alternatively again, Wolf0 has just published a nice increase in hashing power. He says it's '34.34%' overall. The increased hashrate would increase the network difficulty to where it's again sitting at 5 drk/block. economic implications of this are left to anyone that would like to consider the value of purchasing his refinement of the mining algorithm. I'm sure it's less than paying all that extra money on the market |
|
|
|
Miners who can use a pool which doesn't take some of their block reward, will have an economic advantage, thus masternodes will become unfunded and be centralized (offered for free) by whomever can gain from stealing the anonymity (or what ever value they can extract from centralizing masternodes).
With the recent spork that was done with >90% of the network in acceptance, there are no more pools in darkcoin who can offer a block reward without paying the mns. therefore, miners who choose to mine at these pools will be at a distinct economic disadvantage to themselves. The network now rejects these blocks. If the mn's are economically capable of offering mining for no fee, or a fee less than a non-mn pool (because of the 20% they're already allocated), then that would give them an economic edge over non mn pools. this does assume that the operational costs of the mn and the operational costs of running the pool combined are less than what it receives. evan's latest post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9103691#msg9103691I wonder what the technical limitations are on lowering the amount required from 1000 units, to say, one or two units of the currency? Add: I'd like to make the point that playing with this 20% payment will likely have immediate and lasting effects on the hashrate of the network, because of the chosen emission style where the hashrate defines the block reward. Please note that with this enforcement, the hashrate dropped to levels where the nodes and miners are receiving more currency than they did before because the block reward has moved from the 5drk minimum and now sits at ~7/8drk. I observe that a 20% cut in miner pay seems to have resulted in a 40%50% increase in emission. With no real change in price, this serves to reward miners a net of 20% increase in pay/value reward compared to pre-spork. As many miners may sell at market, this would require a 20% increase in purchasing power to keep this price. This can be countered with a price increase of 20% if someone wants to have the potential ability to collect 'anonymous' information through the masternodes in the future. The price increase should logically be met with a 20% increase in hashrate from where it's at now (which will yield the 5 DRK/block emission), where it will sit until either buying or selling power takes precedence over the other; however, the buying pressure would still need to be increased 20% value-wise in order to maintain no change. The only real benefit to raising the price from a whales perspective in this AFAICS is to keep scarcity up, so that the 50% gain in emission doesn't dilute their current holdings. Personally, I'm expecting a 20% rise in the nearish future in order to tackle this very situation. Alternatively, the price can decrease 20%. While this seems more likely, it could easily cascade into a decreasing hashrate which will yield an even higher emission (what difficulty does it increase from 7/8 per block to whatever's higher than that?) and then a possible 'race to the bottom'. Considering that there is the financial incentive of either the currency itself, or even the incentive of potentially having the ability to collect anonymous data, I'd think that the increased cost route might be justified. Not my money to spend though, nor do I know who's making the spending decisions so it's pretty up in the air. Alternatively again, Wolf0 has just published a nice increase in hashing power. He says it's '34.34%' overall. The increased hashrate would increase the network difficulty to where it's again sitting at 5 drk/block. economic implications of this are left to anyone that would like to consider the value of purchasing his refinement of the mining algorithm. I'm sure it's less than paying all that extra money on the market |
|
|
|
Where are these "local communities" that mine obscure cryptocoins but don't even know about btctalk?
Sure, there are not many of them, but there are a number of those who said "what cryptocointalk?". Imagine, some people, somewhere really do know about crypto but absolutely do not care about this forum for sure. Sounds like heaven |
|
|
|
Just observed pool workers number, stats are open on all duck/DarkNote pool. So 10000 workers doesn`t mean 10000 persons, for sure. One person can run many workers. Yes, we expect 2000-3000 of active miners, and much more of XDN users.
Thanks! basically we do not need tor/i2p integration in client. Currently all messages are stored in blockchain, and recipient can always "receive" it with his private keys.
Yes we are thinking about short-life messaging implementation - and we do know the ways, there is no problem to do it. Short-life messages will not be included in blockchain.
After @Alias implementation you will be able to give a name to your address, like
@TheUsualStuf
So, to send you a message i only need to know your alias.
Aliases will be available via client, you will pay for an alias some XDN, miners will receive that rewards for aliasing.
The ways of message using:
Download client -> Mine some XDN with client (help network) -> Send message
#Mail #DarkTwitter #SocialNetworking .... etc can be implemented on XDN encrypted data channel.
Interesting, clearly you can see much further than I can aliasing is interesting, as always, thank you for mentioning it. Could I make the comparison to an email system here, where the darknote system can be like an email network and I could possibly interface your client with thunderbird? So could it be like a fully encrypted p2p email system that is virtually free? This is pretty mindblowing stuff, and I'm really excited at the prospect! I hadn't thought that aliasing can be coupled with an email client, what do you think? |
|
|
|
|
How much does it cost per month to host one of these masternode fellas?
|
|
|
|
I can say that ~10.000 workers mined DarkNote last month on average.
We expect 2000-3000 active miners and more that 10000 persons who have some XDN. That is an approximate value.
Do you mind me asking how you figured that out? Are you taking the hashrate and using the 2000-3000 miner number to represent the average hashrate per user of the network? That's what I'd do, divide the hashrate by the average hashrate obtainable by a standard computer owner I guess. What do you think? DarkNote encrypted messsages is a different too BitMessage technology, and as we believe, DarkNote encrypted messages is much more powerful.
We are working on new features, and one is the almost zero or no fee for short-life messages.
Any service, like "DarkTwitter" can be implemented on DarkNote messages base layer. In future we will improve cryptography to make different use-case solutions. Stay updated.
Does this mean you are considering a type of tor/i2p integration into your client? As far as I understand, bitmessage relies on a few servers to store encrypted messages for a certain amount of time (2 days). Darknote would have this information permanently recorded on the blockchain..unless... Regardless of the implementation, you're saying that your implementation of ring signatures can be utilized to create a short-life message? AFAICS that would involve pruning of the blockchain. Do you mean to say you're going to implement a pruning system into CryptoNote? Is this a reduction/reorginization of useful information stored in the blockchain, or the ability to cut off the blockchain before a chosen certain date? Staying tuned now for sure |
|
|
|
same like you . where rich list and chain ?
The is no rich list, it's not because someone doesn't want to put it together. Ring signatures cause blockchain analysis resistance. What this translates to with a rich list is that the value of any particular transaction seen on the blockchain is very likely inaccurate. A transaction of 10 could look like a transaction of 100 or a different value or whatever. It's just how it works, and was designed that way. As far as the number of wallets on the network, that also cannot be observed by parsing the blockchain. With stealth addressing/one time addresses, it's virtually improbable to describe an accurate number of people using the software. The best statistics for something like that can be found by tracking the number of binary downloads from a couple of different locations. That won't give a perfect picture either though. The blockchain is here: https://minergate.com/blockchain/duck/blocks |
|
|
|
In simple words:
Messages are stored in transaction extra field, like PayLink (Payment ID), but encrypted. Sender encrypt his message with recipient private key (only recipient know his key), message is sent like any other DarkNote/CryptoNote transaction, so it is anonymous, untraceable and even the fact that message was send is unknown.
Recipient "looks" at encrypted extra field and decrypt only his message.
So DarkNote messages are:
-anonymous
-untraceable
-"invisible"
-Mixed with other messages
-Transferred via p2p PoW ASIC resistant decentralized DarkNote network
Thanks a lot for the simple explanation! By what method is the message "invisible"? Does this mean that the tx_extra field from a transaction without a message is indistinguishable from one with a message in it? Do all transactions have a filled tx_extra field? So, when it's mixed with other messages through the ring signature, you wouldn't know if one had a message or not? Also, how long can the total message be? |
|
|
|
not really... for some reason i cant get my fork of sgminer to show 5.0.0
only way i could do it as far as i have found would be to delete my repo and refork it then add my changes back
Turns out I forgot to re-add the OpenCL stuff, after you told me how to do the github stuff. Yeah, my prob was something with git. Anyways, got it all compiled and working happy right now (been a long time since I had my cards doing something useful). Testing it out now, thanks! |
|
|
|
|
