7% per year.

2015 - 930,000 DRK
2016 - 864,900 DRK
2017 - 804,357 DRK
2018 - 748,052 DRK
2019 - 695,688 DRK
2020 - 646,990 DRK

That's just the average, and as it is going, we seem right on track to hug that blue line, so the red line is really an unlikely max that I'm afraid people think could be real.  It's not, and I would  like to see the formula continue as it is.  I think it's unwise to shorten the lifespan of this coin.  You have to remember, there will exponentially more and more people joining the crypto coin community over the next few years, and more after that.  It will become an acceptable form of currency, there is  no stopping it now.  So the mild  inflation will be quickly absorbed by demand, and allowing for meaningful rewards in the long term will keep this coin viable in our lifetime!  

This coin should be the exception to the rule of, "lets get all the profit we can out of it asap to heck with the future!"

As it stands, DarkCoin can live forever, if the artificial 84million cap were removed.  It is still rare, it takes a century to get to 100 million.  Look at the United States Deficit!  It's in the Trillions!  And people think 100 million coins for the world population is too much?

If I understand it correctly, you want to decrease DRK joining the market by 20% every year.

So it goes like this for the DRK being mined:
2015 - 800,000 DRK
2016 - 640,000 DRK
2017 - 512,000 DRK

Or am I not getting something?

Just so I understand...
We are voting on a decrease in block reward of 20% per year?
That would mean that the total supply would be 12-49 million drk?

Keep up the awesome work Evan!

can you show on the graph what existing looks like?

Reward depend on diff change,It is always very prefect.
Why not keeping？

eduffield

Please dont misunderstand what I am saying. You are doing great work no doubt of that!

I have seen some concerns here about DRK really going to the bad side of things and I think it is good that it isnt 100% anonymous. Like you said 99.9% effective. That is definitely good enough for the mass market.

It is nearly impossible to create a 100% anonymous solution short of combining a mixing layer with a zeroknowledge layer and a lot of other stuff. This is why it does not exist yet, except the TLA's have their own version of course.

DRK is NOT about allowing people to break the law. It is about giving people back their privacy that has been slowly eroded by tech.

While I am active in the NXT community, I strongly feel that the world needs a replacement for cash. It is disappearing and bitcoin is a zillion times worse. I am currently working on a multisig based gateway for NXT AE and I will be supporting DRK as one of the assets. I think if we did a bit of cooperation (not sure of details), we can create a pretty simple way for people to get to 99.5% anonymity.

Send DRK to the NXT AE gateway, it goes in, gets combined with all DRK assets and it comes out. With NXT assets (and NXT itself) it has no inputs and outputs. There is no historical txout to txin, so once it goes into a shared account, everything becomes fungible. This still doesnt get around the really sophisticated attacks, but now nosy nellie needs to delve into two different blockchains to have a chance to figure anything out.

Another possibility would be to send DRK into the NXT AE and then zap it out in the form of BTC. This would allow using DRK to purchase anything that can be purchased with BTC. There would be conversion fees, but much better to have the option of using DRK for any bitcoin purchase. I think that cleanly solves the "what can we actually buy with DRK" question with the answer "Anything that you can buy with BTC"

James

P.S. I hope you can find the white hat guy, he is probably not so easy to find. Maybe busoni will help you get in touch. The white hat is amazing! He is in Brazil and read the XCP source code on the bus during his commute and found several problems including the biggie.

It seems to me that with the current darksend/denominate implementation it is dangerous to just dump the change from a darksend back into the wallet and use it with the rest of the balance. See the following chart for an example:



In this chart, either or both denominates could be non-dark sends, although it is most likely that the first will be denominate. Denominate is very easy to identify as it uses the same adress for all outputs, and has powers of 10 as most output amounts. As it is trying to refigure the balence and it is easy to identify, it is very effective at showing that one person owns all of the addresses involved, potentially tying together a large amount of addresses. At some point after a darksend, the change address will most likely be included in a denominate or non-dark send with other addresses. If the change address can be linked to one of the inputs to the darksend, the intended output can usually be worked out, as there generally will only be one possible output.

This could largely be fixed by pooling denominates and having each denominate output go to a different address. Another possible improvement would be to have an option to send the change to a different address, so one could send their change to a completely different wallet, to avoid accidentally mixing it, although their transaction could still be worked out by process of elimination if the other transactions mixed with theirs weren't done as carefully.

They have a moderation process for first time posts and adding links. If you email them they will manually check and respond: Keith Horwood: keith at coindesk dot com

The journalist of the article has since been on twitter promoting darkcoin....looks like he tweeted your interview with Simone Brunozzi. Tweet him back the paper and ask for an interview /  write up on coindesk



https://twitter.com/jonmatonis

Something stinks on Coindesk! I have been trying to submit the DEVs whitepaper on coindesk in the comments section, but for some reason they wont allow it??? Preferouss has 10 negative comments and I cant even submit one comment that shows what a turd he is??? Am I missing something?

These nodes will monitor DarkSend,when any misbehavior is detected they will “cash” the transaction by signing and broadcasting it.
=> These nodes will monitor DarkSend and when any misbehavior is detected they will “cash” the transaction by signing and broadcasting it.

using a sigScript to make them only valid for a given period of time.
=> using a sigScript to make them valid only for a given period of time.


These outputs are new addresses not connected to their identity. This implementation allows for amounts to be sent of any precision without reducing the quality of anonymity provided.
=>These outputs are new addresses that are not connected to a user's identity. This implementation allows for amounts of any precision to be sent without a negative impact in the quality of anonymity.

"there is no risk of lost money from the master node being a bad actor, a slave node would be elected to replace the master node and the collateral would be forfeit to the network.
=>
"there is no risk of lost money from the master node being a bad actor as a slave node would be elected to replace the master node and the collateral would be forfeited to the network.

I had an idea so I created a diagram for it. I think it would help further obfuscate amounts being sent using DarkSend. Furthermore, the amounts would already be denominated for future DarkSends.

Some very, very minor grammar corrections. I'll leave the readability on the technical issues to those smarter than me.

Last sentence of the first paragraph in the "Introduction" section: "This has implications. . ."
Second paragraph in the "Introduction" section: ". . .of Conjoin as its implementation. . ."
First sentence, first paragraph in the "Darksend" section: remove a in the sentence ". . .into a larger anonymous transactions. . ."
First sentence, first paragraph in the "Defending Against Attack" section: ". . .challenges to dealing. . ." or ". . .challenges in dealing. . ."
Second sentence, second paragraph in the "Defending Against Attack" section: "A transaction for. . ."
First sentence, fourth paragraph in the "Defending Against Attack" section: eliminate space after first parens
First sentence, fourth paragraph in the "Improved Anonymity" section: ". . .will be elected in its place."
First and second sentences, first paragraph in the "Master Node Election" section: ". . . transaction IDs in the darksend pool. By adding up the hash values of the transaction IDs,. . ."
First sentence, second paragraph in the "Master Node Election" section: ". . .pubkeys of the 
users' outputs."
Second sentence, second paragraph in the "Master Node Election" section: Not sure of sentence construction here, ". . .can know who is master, that is 
tamper­proof and decentralized."
First sentence, third paragraph in the "Master Node Responsibility" section: ". . .their inputs and outputs. . ."
First sentence, first paragraph in the "Improved Pool Anonymity" section: "Users who want. . ."
Third sentence, second paragraph in the "Reward Curve vs Reward Halving" section: ". . .drop very steadily over. . ."
Third paragraph in the "Reward Curve vs Reward Halving" section looks unfinished?
First sentence, second paragraph in the "Proof-of-Work Utilizing X11" section: ". . .more difficult to create. . ."

It is called "justify" and I totally agree with you (coming from experience  )

"X11, a chained ...." => needs better flow
"creates much slower advancement of mining technology" = a bit vague (?)
"to provide quick responses" => quick response to large mining power fluctuations
"This came at a cost" line, needs rephrasing for better flow.
"This thas implications"
"In 2014 we realized that we could make a crypto­currency that used a decentralized version of
CoinJoin as it’s implementation for anonymizing transactions, we have named this DarkSend. "
=>
"To solve this inherent problem of privacy, we created a new crypto-currency (DarkCoin) that used a decentralized version of CoinJoin in order to anonymize transactions. We gave this implementation the name DarkSend.