Only way to make price get higher is to cut off all ways to spend BTC. stop the adoptions by merchants.
Paypal, eBay go home!
If merchants hold BTC, pay bills and salary with BTC, BTC value can be raised. This is the problem. It's next to impossible to obtain BTC unless you have fiat to buy it. You can sell stuff for BTC. |
|
|
|
Hello Reader,
Will TV commercials, billboard advertising and sponsoring events or racecars raise the value of BTC or LTC?
If you have an another Idea please reply. I am thinking of realising one or more ideas.
Use BTC in massive online games, for player transactions, selling accounts etc. An entire generation of people, that can handle technology with ease, can grow with BTC. If the price/metcalfe corelation is right, then there is nothing better than real world use. And what better than to give millions of gamers the ability to transact between them just by downloading a client. |
|
|
|
First the BBC scares all the pensioners in Scotland to vote NO by massive lies, then they run this: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29283124"The squatting developer behind the new Bitcoin tech Islamic State want for money laundering." FFS, nobody tell them about Evan. The invisible islamic enemy that wants to take over the west, and that publicly wishes Bitcoin to become anonymous so that the authorities can ban/control/restrict Bitcoin on the grounds of "terrorism"?  Yeah right... |
|
|
|
Much faster MN consensus on transactions also inherently secures against all double-spend shennanigans as it greatly reduces the window of opportunity. You now have a few seconds to pull off a heist, not (sometimes many) whole minutes.
Actually, it completely eliminates double spending from being possible. Consensus requires a set of masternodes to agree that a transaction will be considered valid by the network, if they do the whole network honors it. It's as good as block confirmation. And if the merchant doesn't see the instant validation, then they know something is funny and should wait for block confirmation. Can you ask Kristov his input (privately or publicly, doesn't matter) on possible vectors that aren't immediately apparent for the proposed system and things that could make it fail? |
|
|
|
There is no fucking PR here and still - Kristov.
I don't give a fuck about this tiny man.
Evan responded. Period.
EDIT Almost all attacks are infeasible.
Calm down and show some respect. Kristov did a great job. all attacks are infeasible.
The attack vectors mentioned were all theoretical and would require a considerable amount of laboratory-level control to even prove possible. It's theoretical until someone actually performs it. Consider the following scenario: A competitor coin just runs 3-4 clients of Darkcoin to "provide" a lot of mixing peers for various denominations, over the duration of a single day. They pay their transaction costs and all, and by the end of the day they mapped 70-80-90% of mixings for a cost of X DRKs through a customized script that creates "maps", similar to those on KA's paper. They then go out and issue a whitepaper about how they mapped DRK's transactions for a single day with a cost of X DRKs / Y USDs and how a far more capable adversary that would be willing to pay the costs for 24/7/365 monitoring through fake mixing peers, could Sybil-monitor the transactions. So 3 peers is a better solution but if there are still more improvements to come, by all means. |
|
|
|
From XC thread.
Why are we discussing XC here? Can we stay on topic? Glad DRK is going open source soon and all this will be over. Because we are in this thread. Should we discuss the XC venom in the fucking Microsoft thread? IMO, the line was crossed when placing Darkcoin in official PR material. I have been very restrained. But it's hard. I'm trying, but it's really, really hard. DRK is the anon industry leader... so mentions are inevitable from all would-be DRKs.... And when you are the industry leader you'll probably mention your biggest rival or future threat. XC at least has some dev that actually codes something, and that's why it hasn't got down to zero compared to other pumps and dumps, most with anonymous devs of dubious credentials, that spiked and were annihilated later on. Competition is good in this space, as is the exchange of ideas. Perhaps when XC has something good to offer we can "borrow" some concept too... In my view the greatest potential to get ideas is in things related to network anonymity, rather than protocol anonymity, as Dan's background is heavier in networks. In general this has been a somewhat weird day in anonland... -DRK up, -XC mentions DRK and then has issues of its own, -XMR has a DOA-moment due to BCX claiming a coin-killer issue, after BCX was trolled by a Monero fan and BCX took it upon him to prove a point... |
|
|
|
Heh... Antonopoulos was speaking about the trollfest and paranoia that goes on in cryptoland https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qEi5fQcVak...and how some things go on in a very predictable pattern. That's around the 37-39m. (from around 22m to 37m he talks about the cryptonote scam accusations, monero scam accusations, ring signatures etc.) |
|
|
|
I speculate it will be an evolution of the pre-mixed coins... kind-of "pre-spent" coins that one simply takes ownership of in some way. Whether it is, or it's not, there'll probably be some catch associated, otherwise there would be the "it would take a lot of money to attack it"... so it must be vulnerable but if the attacker has more to lose by attacking it, then it shouldn't matter. Again pure speculation as the info is scarce, so let's wait and see  |
|
|
|
You won't see CryptCast until all Crypt is Mined. The Devs can afford to hold and use POS to gain even more coin and if the price is right then they sell off at that point. Notice how the Devs are solo mining 50,000 coins a day spiking up to 40GHash sometimes. If CryptCast is something that will be viable or people decide they want to use then not selling their massive holdings will only make the price go higher while the Devs dominate the POS phase also. No-IPO and No-Premine are a Ruse since the Devs basically Insta-mined at 500 block rewards. While everyone is distracted by the fact that they can not turn a profit mining it the Devs quietly hoard the coin now.
So the only way to Ruin the Devs plan is to just dump on them and never use Crypt. They won't really care since they are gambling with our money anyways. This is all contingent on how deep MindFox is in with these Devs. If MindFox is in on their Fraud and PnD then CryptCast will come out when POW is done, if not then MindFox may decide that the Fraud and PnD associated with the coin should not be rewarded by his work, since he would be considered an Outsider to their Fraud and made his promise Pre-Fraud and Pre-PnD. Think about the scenario at play here and the bigger picture. I would be surprised to see CryptCast come out before all coin is mined.
When does POW end? |
|
|
|
|
Is anyone using data sets of facebook members on bitcoin & altcoin groups/pages for their (private*) projections? The rationale is that they should depict the network effect and expansion rate in a way which is perhaps more accurate than addresses.
* I haven't seen anything posted publicly, so...
|
|
|
|
Would you support a name change, and was Coins101 right to take the lead in changing the name or should we decide as a community first?
I think you've missed the point. DarkSend, I have no problem with that. Once I mix my coins, I will happily DarkSend them. What you fail to grasp is the action taken to mix the coins has been put together in a way that didn't exist. It's an invention. It's Evan's invention. And, yes, he can call it what he wants. But - the bit you don't get - everyone calls CoinJoin, gmaxwell's invention. They will call Even's invention, gmaxwell's invention. But they are not the same. gmaxwell will get the credit for something he didn't invent. Darkcoin will look like it is copying others ideas. Which it isn't. Differentiate the mixing process and give it its own name. It's an invention. It could have been patented because it did't exist before. It doesn't have to be the brand name. DarkSend can be the brand name. But at the core of darkcoin mixing, it's still coinjoin (+denominations). The only difference is that the mixing sends the coins back to your addresses instead of other people's addresses so that you can later send them without bothering about the transaction flow being visible - as the link backwards (to you) has already been broken. And of course you don't have to wait for something (mixing) that has already been done. |
|
|
|
What is happening with this coin right now? I'm never seen the price this low. I want to invest but why are people selling?
If you want to invest, wouldn't you prefer a low price for entry? |
|
|
|
That paper was ninja launched.
We should have had a count down timer. Can we delete the last few pages of posts?
It's already linked from facebook, so, we'd rather not sorry guys i put it out there already !! FB , G+, Twitter, reddit ...>> and now please post it yourself !!!
spread the word !!!Keep in mind this is not pump material. Page 23 is pretty clear on what remains to be fixed. Of course, this is not a zero-proof system, so attack vectors will always exist, but if we can reduce the number, it'd be cool. |
|
|
|
"A number of variables must be carefully selected in order to practically limit the size of Darksend+ transactions and “blockchain bloat,” such as the number of Darksend+ peers per round, the number and quantities of denominations, etc. Note that the majority of Darkcoin transactions do not necessarily use Darksend+, such as exchange transactions, mining, mining pool payouts, web services, etc. Considerations for whether Darksend+ is scalable in the future are beyond the intended scope of this document."
Is scalability an issue for us due to potential blockchain bloat?
Scaling is an issue even for Bitcoin - if transaction numbers spike. DarkSend, especially with multiple round mixing, creates bloat but it can be pruned from the blockchain at a future time. If DarkSend creates, say, 10x bloat compared to Bitcoin and Darkcoin has 1/10th of the transactions of Bitcoin, it would be around the same in terms of usability. Numbers are out of my a$$ btw. |
|
|
|
That paper was ninja launched.
We should have had a count down timer. Can we delete the last few pages of posts?
It's already linked from facebook, so, we'd rather not |
|
|
|
|
Nice paper. Kristov did a great job at reviewing the protocol and now it's up to Evan to take it even further, addressing every known weakness, to the degree possible.
I was 100% sure, when I saw Evan saying that he takes darksend peers from 2 to 3 that it was due to the upcoming paper highlighting the issue of almost certain Sybil attack with just 2 peers. The (tx) cost of anonymization makes it easy to both Sybil and bloat. Perhaps it should go up.
|
|
|
|
"If CoinJoin was a car wash that you traveled to and drove through in order to clean your car, Darksend+ would be a service that washes it in your driveway every night so that you always find the car clean when you’re ready to drive." (still reading) |
|
|
|
can sb explain to me why open source should be beneficial to the price?
why should clones be good for the price?
lol
Clones are overrated in terms of impact as the low marketcap affects their sockpuppet resistance. Why would I anonymize coins through a low-marketcap coin that has bigger sockpuppet potential? That's a no-no. Established coins with good marketcaps adopting DarkSend+, that's the real competition. |
|
|
|
Hype got this coin to $15 a piece and made the whole crypto world know it's name.
It literally had no tech backing it then.
Hype? No. A whale started buying like no tomorrow and then everyone came onboard. There was no marketing or hype. Hype, buzz, whatever strategy, are overrated whether RC5 is ninja'ed or it's programmed. The moment it is announced that it will be launched at X date, then the market will price-in this launch after the announcement, and RC5 itself will be the " ok, now what?" point. Or something like that. So it doesn't really make a difference. But the the hype did not cause this coin to crash. Impatient investors dumped it as soon as they saw a problem. If everything was OK, DRK would have been somewhere between 0.013-0.017 right now. Hey will have this go up 10time, but comes down, it will be still 3x 4x the starting price. The primary buyers / whales, kept the coin throughout the delays and forking troubles of May / June... They even bought the dumpers and we all stood in awe of how the price didn't give a fuck. The price started dropping through gradual dumping from 0.013 to 0.009 and then, near RC4, dumping accelerated, amidst a general climate of altcoin cashout. In order to see the price moving upwards massively, whales must buy a lot of coins. It's not hype-related, it's buyer related. If whales don't come in the short-term, then it's all about the long-term plan of adoption and adopters money who use DRK, which will be a gradual process. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
