Dear Evan
Your work is remarkable, but we need to be honest with ourselves, is too much work for 2 people only.
I ask to join the group in your forum, but never receive an answer. Maybe was my fault (need try several times). either way, the conversation group has members pushing up the "other" coin, Amazing.
If you need some help, just ask. PM for my email. My first computer was a sinclair Z81, My last work was a device to control an unstable body with huge mass in the air autonomously. (you can calculate the years of coding experience)
https://darkcointalk.org/forums/darkcoin-community-team.48/use this ! [/quote] Tell them to email me at evan@darkcoin.io or jump onto #darkcoin-dev! |
|
|
|
|
I don't usually talk much about price, because honestly I don't really care. I'm mostly concerned with functionality and building something with real utility.
However, that's what the forums have been consumed with so here's my take on this. Darkcoin is six months old, last month we went from $0.77 to $15.00. It was literally four weeks long, and what goes up must come down. Crypto currencies grow in this way, it's actually normal. Next we'll form a base somewhere about here and things will get quiet before we make our next move to the upside.
I don't post all of the time because, I work insane amounts of time on Darkcoin. This is my job and when I'm posting I'm not coding. Plus, I'm an introvert and I really like putting on headphones and cranking out some code. It's what I do.
What's next?
Things will relax and I'll start perfecting the hard fork for the masternode payments, then RC3. When we're happy with that, I have contacts now all over the media that would love to do another article and update our progress.
Speaking of things coming down, that goes for X11Coin too. From the looks of it, you trust your money to the decentralized mixer by the way. They're pretty secretive about how it works, but that's what I gather from it. I'd love to get a response. DarkSend is trustless for a reason, you don't want the "XNodes" running off with the money.
|
|
|
|
Maybe all the FUD, attacks, etc. in the last month have left me skittish -- but I wonder even in the short term what might happen to the coin if there is an organized effort to hurt DRK based around pools cheating. If Evan does go through with this then I hope I am just worrying over nothing.
If? It is a given that at least half the pools and big farms (a lot of them nowadays) won't be paying. So the 20% will be more like 10% for the masternodes, =what they were expecting anyway. But it will be a disproportionate weight to the "fair" pools. The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right  Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development. Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds? The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily) We also need improvements in DarkSend. The competition (MRO) is integrating I2P (as we've said) and XC will be using encrypted communication between nodes (as it has been said of DRK's future plans as well). I know this sounds like a mom's "to-do list" to the child until she gets back home, but priorities are priorities, and price or reaching litecoin immediately are not a priority. If the code is sorted out and the product delivered in final form, LTC will start rolling down. Too fast of a price rise with a half-baked product is problematic. LTC can't compete anyway in fundamentals like inflation (10x the BTCs to absorb LTC production compared to DRK) or innovation so they will be dead anyway by debasement. #2 is a given. Preserving #2 is not due to the competition. Who is gonna buy 300k USD of LTCs per day? It'll go 0.019 -> 18 -> 17 over time. It doesn't look that "hot" of a property. Only buys will be for cost-averaging buys at 0.025+. Having said that about the #2 competition, the anonymity competition actually looks pretty lame (BCN and clones too many issues, XC mostly vapor for now but that could change a few months ahead as they seem to have the prospects of delivering a product similar to what Evan has at like 70-80% completion). But we can't base our strategy on others failing or being pumps & dumps that are "threatening" us due to pumps => we must excel and take the market. Then bring V2 for "fatality". Otherwise the risk is there for more serious contenders appearing. My 2 duffs. Apparently I have more faith in humanity than anyone else around here  I'll implement the masternode payments via hardfork, who knows, maybe all of you are right. By the way, I'm not talking about the price now or even in a year. It's about the security of the network when it's large enough to support a decent amount of transactions. Giving a higher reward simply doubles or triples the cost of such an attack, 10% was just too low. |
|
|
|
That part: If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.
...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed). The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.htmlThe pie chart is revealing. Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.I think it's a good start. Doing masternode payments via soft fork will allow them to get paid like promised, we can at least get the larger pools to pay the fees. Later on, we can hard for and enforce them. |
|
|
|
Many of you have reached out to me about supporting development efforts and looking for an address of mine? XpAy7r5RVdGLnnjWNKuB9EUDiJ5Tje9GZ8 This will be my development donation address if you're so inclined This community is really amazing, I really do appreciate the support |
|
|
|
Anybody else raise a bit of an eyebrow at the "no forks" part of Evan's post? If that can be done, then why did we try to hard fork in the first place? Was the original method really thought through and the best option to pay masternodes selected? Or is there some compromise in implementing forkless payments that is now being ignored becuase of the chaos over the last few days? And then there is the obvious increasing of the masternode incentive (20%, multiple tickets) which I guess is fine... but is also a convenient price lifeboat.
My wallet has remained closed during this mishap and I have no plans to dump any part of my modest stash, but I have a lot of questions right now. Anybody that has any insight (Evan himself is best, but that is hoping for too much) that could answer some of these questions would be appreciated.
Or maybe I am being too skeptical and nobody else sees anything odd here...
There were originally two strategies for masternode payments. One requires a hardfork and one doesn't. I originally decided to do the one that does, because you can't cheat as a pool operator. But, that comes with a price. The code must reject cheating blocks and that's what caused the forking issue. The other way is to setup the client to pay nodes in a provably fair way. If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools. Like others have suggested, all of the groundwork has been laid. I have implemented the masternodes, the election system for payments and it's compatible with this soft fork. So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining. My goal with Darkcoin has always been to take the #2 spot from Litecoin. I believe we have the best chance we've ever had now and these changes will actually help realize that goal. As for my communication? Lately I've just had my nose to the grindstone, coding all of the time. I intend to be much more involved with the community in the future. This will include getting a team of software developers and managing the vision of the project. I think my time might be better spent in the future doing interviews, speaking at conferences and being Darkcoin's figurehead. |
|
|
|
Masternode Payments Fork IssuesThe past couple of days the network has been forking randomly because of some issue with the masternode payment system. This is the first we've seen this issue (we ran masternode payments with nothing like this happening on testnet for a month). To remedy this situation, I am:
1.) Uploading a checkpoint to ensure clients are on the correct fork. If you're on a different block then http://explorer.darkcoin.io/ please pull the changes from the repo and run with -reindex
2.) Turning off masternode payments effective tomorrow. I'm working on a patch to turn off masternode payments and restore stability to the network. This should be done soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Masternodes, please restart!
I've noticed some nodes popping in and out of the masternode lists. I'd like all of the masternodes to follow these instructions to see if the problem gets fixed
1.) stop the daemon
2.) update to 10.8.6 if you haven't
3.) add "maxconnections=200" to your configuration
4.) wait ten minutes (it MUST be ten minutes! This will allow the masternode election entry to propagate)
5.) start the daemon and turn on the masternode
|
|
|
|
Watch other trade press follow suit. Coindesk as already retweeted the Wired article.
Let that sink in for a moment.   Coindesk on twitter...saying they are going to do something on Darkcoin. Based on past performances, probably a hatchet job. I had a fantastic conversation with Stan from Coindesk yesterday. It was about 25 minutes and I gave him a great overview of DarkSend and the masternode system. The article will be great for darkcoin. |
|
|
|
RC3 Progress ReportI've had some substantial progress on DarkSend and have figured out how to make our existing system as secure as ring signatures. Vastly improved security, no bloat (from the ring signatures) and without actually having to trust new cryptography (it hasn't been extensively tested like what DarkSend uses) . So I think it'll give us a HUGE advantage in the coming months. More to come soon, I'm going to start implementing this tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
