Just look at the charts...

This coin is being overly hyped lately and constantly being pumped about 2x in a few hours and then dumped to 1.5x (example pumping from 0.17 to 0.33 then dumped to 0.27) this is creating a lot of interest in the coin and making people think that even if they buy at X price after a dump the price will at least eventually go back to the latest high.

Now it was pumped from 0.3 to 0.6 and IMO it will settle at around 0.40-0.47 for a few hours/days. What happens next is anyones guess but I will stay away from DRK until the rollercoaster is over.

marketing says 150 MH/s....machine say 105 MH/s.

Must be a Butterfly Labs model.

I'm taking partial credit for it!  

This is similar to what I was trying to achieve with stealth sending, minus the denomination of receiving addresses. Usually users want to send to a pre-existing address, optimally DarkSend would be able to denominate the receiving party's amount as well. Stealth addresses allow you to generate infinitely many addresses from one receiving address. Sadly, the only way to see if you have coins in a stealth address is to have the private keys in memory which destroys cold storage completely. You would not be able to see whether or not someone had sent you coins. Without stealth sending though, the master node would have to issue new addresses which cannot happen for obvious reasons. If someone can think of a way to fully denominate the receiving party's amount it would push the coin into complete darkness. When combined with Evan's I2P implementation Dark would be as anonymous/private as possible.

Ok, well I think this is a great solution, definitely the best idea proposed so far.  I have spent several hours thinking about ways to break it but I can't seem to come up with an Achilles heel.

A couple suggestions off the top of my head.  I think it would help if there was some randomness added to the way things are denominated. Ie sometimes 1.5 is denomated 1+0.5 - sometimes it is denominated 1+0.25+0.1+0.1+.05 sometimes it is denominated 0.5+0.5+0.5.  This would make it substantially harder to figure out what is going on in the blockchain

My other concern is that whoever gets the biggest amount of change is put in a precarious position.  In the above example this would be John. If John sends X+Y+V+Z+A he is outing A as the sender to C.  Even if John Darksends these coins he is still outing address A. Then once he outs himself, Joe (as the second largest change recipient (7DRK) is at risk of outing himself if he sends (or darksends) W+K+J+E. I suppose this whole scenario is a non-issue if we consider that more than one transaction can be sent into the pool from the same wallet, so it would be impossible to tell for certain who got the most change, as someone could have submitted multiple transactions and received 20,30,40 change coins to the same wallet.  

Seriously though, this is a fantastic solution, I'm relatively certain the logic is sound, and the level of anonymity will be very high. I'll sleep well tonight for sure

Yep that would work.  The problem with multiple change addresses though is later if the person sends all of the coins on their change addresses to a new address you could analyze the blockchain and see that all of the change addresses merged into 1 address then work backward and link all of those darksend transactions together in the original darksend.

Please describe the flaw in my logic

C and E are linked on the block explorer because 8+2=10, one is the change address one is the receiving address. If C lightsends DRK to any vendor compromised by law enforcement, they will know that either:

C was sent 8 coins from whoever holds change address E
or
C sent E 2 coins

lol  not crying , i dont even have account with them . They should go bankrupt - I will make the next exchange better and stronger

That email means jackshit. Anyone can type that out. There are some very gullible people on this forum who believes everything they are told.

My position is clear......only time will tell.

Identify? where?

Precisely my thought all along.

All too easy and no proof of any hacks.

It was theft, did the owner of Poloniex call the police?

Too many exchanges means not all can make a living and be profitable. It's like having 100 superstores in a village of 1000 people.

Temptation to steal knowing one's identify is unknown is great.

Only time will tell when we all get back the 12%+.....then this isn't a scam.

The ideas of shares, which i made clear is absurd, IPO, etc......could be the 2nd part of the scam.

Scam are done two ways - short game, small 'profit' and quick before moving onto the next target.....or.......- long game, big 'profit', attacking same targets.

The idea, without proof that Poloniex (tristan, Busico whatever) were not part of the hack/theft, everyone suddenly praising their honestly and transparency is laughable.

sorry . but your business was hack , so it should be Ur business that take the lost . Image if paypal lost money from a bad employee. We wouldn't stand for our account to be lock or our balance to be touch. Surly Poloniex has made 10% in profit.

Poloniex should declare bankrupt of they cant afford the lost , It time for competent people to start running these type of business.


Your happy when your making huge profits with fees , Making us trust you with our money , then cry when you cant manage your affair.

Nothing to do with freedom of speech............but bias. Only those who were affected by the theft can comment, others not affected can advice but not make compliments.

Freedom of speech isn't an excuse to make oneself look stupid.

I think you are doing the right thing.  Good on you.

blah

blah

blah

blah

I do not currently have an account with your...virtual currency entity.  VCE?  But I'm willing to open an account


WHAT!!!


You do not even have an account, so you can not make any judgements, especially compliments.

So when someone robs your bank....do the bank deduct the losses from your bank account?

Do the bank say, "You should try to get whatever you can instead of crying like a idiot. You always know the risks with these banks and you put your money in them."

Please do think on a higher level of intellect like some humans are capable of.....but i know you are not.

Quote from front of announcement page by Dev

"Quite the opposite.

If all coins are bought (900BTC), the transferred once (say to an exchange), then there will be 818,181 coins left. Worth 900 BTC minimum, that's if every coin is sold back at (market cap / supply) price, and nobody buys any coins on market, and no coin is transferred more than once, and if no coins are put up for sale at all in a 9 week period. If any one of those things does happen, the price and market cap will go up.

Ultimately, every trader has a different strategy, some sell on market immediately for 25% more than they bought, some may be more aggressive and sell 10% for 400% more than they paid. Some may sell off market and destroy more coins by transferring ownership. Some may hold for 4 weeks, or 12 weeks, or a year.

The biggest gamble, is how many to put to market, on which week, to make the most profit.. or whether to hold and let it rise trying to make 1000% of percent.

Usually coins have a supply, and if supply outweighs demand, price goes down. InsanityCoin is different because the money supply always reduces, forcing the price of each coin upwards, while ever people buy and transfer it, the value of each coin can only go up.

Everything is good for this coin, including people not buying it, because any coins not bought over the 9 weeks are destroyed."

I don't plan on buying any of these "Everything is good for it" coin that can never drop in price. I just think it's important for people to know certain things and schemes that go on behind the scenes. Like I said good luck, hope no one loses in this "game".

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from existing capital or new capital paid by new investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation. Operators of Ponzi schemes usually entice new investors by offering higher returns than other investments, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the high returns requires an ever-increasing flow of money from new investors to sustain the scheme.

Decision
I want to change this back over two weeks to how it was.

Week 3
I will be buying and selling, making whale moves in both directions, and the spread will change up and down over several hours. Those playing will make the most money for the week by buying and selling, and focussing what I, the whale, am doing. Expect no huge bumps, just a volatile market where active traders will make profit... obviously a fair chunk of buy orders will be filled in the process though.

Week 4 - Supply End
The time will change from a fixed 6 hours, to me trading with the pot at any time whilst the supply is closed. 12:00 Sunday to 10:00 Monday.

Supply End - Week 9
Bump, at a random time each weekend, 100 BTC will buy up the book in a single order as high as it will go.

I've changed parameters based on feedback several times, it's made the game more boring, getting back to roots now

might be good to have something like a drip feed, or limited coins per week..
otherwise it'd be easy to sell some coins, go back to the source buy some more with the earnings etc..

I am unavailable 00:00 to 10:00 each day, roughly.