Hi,
I'm not sure this is the right place to post it, but here it goes:
I made some speed improvements in the GPU miner listed on the first page. it is now 25% faster on my R9 280x (from 1.8Gh/s with sgminer to 2.3Gh/s with my miner). I am willing to either sell it or make it public to the community if i receive enough donations. Please send any offers by inbox.
Screenshots follow:
...
I think it's great you are trying to improve the code but SPH-SGminer already gives 2.3Mhash per 280x. |
|
|
|
Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.
I never understood why this is not standard. I've been going on about this since page 600 and you're the only person who's noticed.  I'm not even sure what this means to be honest. Are you saying you shouldn't need to manually encrypt wallet and add password, it should prompt for a new password as soon as the wallet launches for the first time? Not the first time, because you haven't set a password yet, but if you've encrypted your wallet, it should ask you for a password subsequently, before opening up and allowing everyone and anyone to see full records of your transactions. Or copying your .dat and viewing everything you've done later. You expect to have to enter a password to see your banking online, right? And your email, and your exchange accounts, and just about everything else, for good reason. For an "anonymous" coin, it's a baffling omission. Hmm, yes that is a good point. I agree a password should be required to see history of transactions. The problem I see is that the more times you input your password the more chances a malicious key-logger has to get your coins. :/ It guess it is a tradeoff. |
|
|
|
Need more brainstorming!!111
Suppose we look at a wallet just as we look at a desktop-client mail software. The Receiver can receive his coins ONLY when he opens his wallet and it connects to the internet. (just as a mail client connects to the mail-server and downloads its awaiting mail). By doing so, it can provide various receiving addresses, and hence the denomination occurs. The question then arises where these coins reside in the meantime (between sending and the receiver opening his wallet and claiming these coins? The answer imho - create a side-blockchain, run by the supernodes, of coins waiting for being claimed by receivers. once receiver claims the coins that await him, the transaction is closed. I think there are too many drawbacks. 1) all supernodes would now have a list (via side blockchain) of who is sending who what coins, which is definitely not ideal. 2) you should be able to verify that a transaction was made without having the wallet present - if it works as you suggest you wouldn't be able to set up a true cold wallet and verify that coins have been sent to the wallet via block explorer. |
|
|
|
Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.
I never understood why this is not standard. I've been going on about this since page 600 and you're the only person who's noticed. I'm not even sure what this means to be honest. Are you saying you shouldn't need to manually encrypt wallet and add password, it should prompt for a new password as soon as the wallet launches for the first time? |
|
|
|
So I PMed Evan about this, but I figured I'd throw this out to the community to see if you guys could come up with a solution.
I've been thinking about the denomination of coins in darksend and I think I've ran into a problem.
If I want to darksend 954 coins from Address A to Address B, how will this be denominated? The most obvious way to do it is:
9 entries into the 100 coin pool
5 entries into the 10 coin pool
4 entries into the 1 coin pool
The problem is - it will be clear that Address A sent 954 coins to address B by looking at the block chain - it doesn't matter how much mixing occurs, 954 coins leave address A, then sometime later 954 coins accumulate at address B.
The only way I can think of keep it anonymous is if the coins are sent to multiple receiving addresses. I suggested a while ago in the thread that maybe multiple addresses could be concatenated together and used as a "DarkRecieve" address - this would allow multiple coins to be received in denominated fashion.
Another potential solution is to require that in order to send 954 coins you must have a total of 1000 coins, but this would be a really bad solution because if you just wanted to send 101 coins you would need an addtional 899 coins in your wallet to enter into the 1000 coin pool to ensure anonymity.
Let me know if you guys can think of any great solutions.
Need more brainstorming!!111 |
|
|
|
I make up about 25% of my p2pool nodes hashrate, and they find blocks reliably, avg. 40 mins. May give solo a try.  If I can work out how.  your node probably finds one block per day or less. 40mins is b/c whenever any node finds a block you get paid. |
|
|
|
So I PMed Evan about this, but I figured I'd throw this out to the community to see if you guys could come up with a solution.
.....
Let me know if you guys can think of any great solutions.
My proposal: Sender has 352 DRK in his wallet and wants to send 31 Darkcoins to Receiver. Sender sends 35 packs of 10 drk to the supernode. Supernode shuffles everything and sends: 10 drk to Receiver-address-1 10 drk to Receiver-address-2 10 drk to Receiver-address-3 1 drk to Receiver-address-4 ----- 10 drk to Sender-address-1 10 drk to Sender-address-2 ... x 35 such packs The proposal above means that in EVERY TRANSACTION, all coins in the wallet get shuffled, and come back in packs of 10drk, into new addresses. As for the the reminder coins, they get sent to the supernode mixer only when combined thet are >= 10 drk. But as of yet we don't have a mechanism to generate or send to multiple receiving addresses (except by manually doing it which is not really feasable). I don't see any way we can avoid implementing some sort of larger "Dark Receive" address, that is composed of many different smaller receiving addresses. |
|
|
|
|
So I PMed Evan about this, but I figured I'd throw this out to the community to see if you guys could come up with a solution.
I've been thinking about the denomination of coins in darksend and I think I've ran into a problem.
If I want to darksend 954 coins from Address A to Address B, how will this be denominated? The most obvious way to do it is:
9 entries into the 100 coin pool
5 entries into the 10 coin pool
4 entries into the 1 coin pool
The problem is - it will be clear that Address A sent 954 coins to address B by looking at the block chain - it doesn't matter how much mixing occurs, 954 coins leave address A, then sometime later 954 coins accumulate at address B.
The only way I can think of keep it anonymous is if the coins are sent to multiple receiving addresses. I suggested a while ago in the thread that maybe multiple addresses could be concatenated together and used as a "DarkRecieve" address - this would allow multiple coins to be received in denominated fashion.
Another potential solution is to require that in order to send 954 coins you must have a total of 1000 coins, but this would be a really bad solution because if you just wanted to send 101 coins you would need an addtional 899 coins in your wallet to enter into the 1000 coin pool to ensure anonymity.
Let me know if you guys can think of any great solutions.
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible for a government to compromise Darkcoin by building it's own masternodes?
Yes, which is why transactions will be sent through multiple masternodes. As long as at least ONE of the masternodes with which the transaction is routed is not compromised, anonymity is achieved. Eventually we expect that there will be 500-1000 masternodes, so a single agency would have to own 90-95% masternodes to de-anonymize a significant portion of transactions if transactions were routed through 20 nodes for example. Even if that were the case, the number of masternodes the transaction is routed through could just be be increased to 40, 50, or more to thwart their efforts. Plus they would need to drive the price through the ROOF to accumulate a significant portion of the masternodes. |
|
|
|
What do you believe are the biggest advantages/disadvantages Darkwallet has compared to the two anonymous alt-coins being developed, Darkcoin and Zerocoin? It is my understanding that Darkwallet uses a central server that serves as a hub to organize the mixing. Are you concerned that this hub could be either shut down, or compromised by law enforcement/goverment agencies? Do you have contingency plans in place to set up multiple servers in various parts of the world to circumvent this? Thank you!  |
|
|
|
Price is dropping, but someone is definitely accumulating... http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/address.dws?188207.htmAddress- XosXcEm3Y6Mv6tmBKd1rUWhqB9Pf1hABj7 It started accumulating darkcoins a week ago and now it already has 192,000 DRK !!! That's a whopping 4.6% of all darkcoins in circulation!!! Wouldn't be Bter would it? most likely Btter Nah the deposits started 4/23. Btter has only been trading a few days. |
|
|
|
Guys, stop wasting your time. Unless you are a full time professional website builder with great experience and judgement (which you aren't by the looks of it), you should not be doing this. Darkcoin and its developer deserve better. How can Darkcoin be the next Bitcoin if a couple of hobbyists created the website? Let's put some DRK together and hire a company to create the website (which I'm sure the dev is planning to do after he is done with the final RC). I do agree that the community should be able to come up with good texts for the website though.
On the other hand, we have almost nothing right now, and anything is better than nothing, and as soon as possible isn't soon enough. Sure, we'd all love to have pros doing this kind of thing. My husband is a writer, I asked him if he's help me write an article on darkcoin. He asked "will they pay us some coin for it?" I said no! And, though I will wring his wrist until he helps me (I need time myself) he also wants to be paid for his work. (I explained that if the coin takes off, we are paid in it's improvement, LOL) So you can see, if we don't have a passionate darkcoin enthusiast, who happens to be a great website developer, we'll need to pay someone. I'm sure that will come, but in the mean time, lets get something decent up and updated asap! Seriously I think mannie's site is just as good as any professional can make. It looks great. Just needs some finishing touches. |
|
|
|
Yea that looks awesome IMO. Edit: the link still has the old image though. Sorry, fixed it. The FTP upload didn't work. Yea it looks amazing. Hopefully we can launch in the next 24 hours? In the resources category I think you should include this wiki: http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/Main_PageI'm not sure who wrote/maintains it, but it has lots of great info and is well written. |
|
|
|
Yea that looks awesome IMO. Edit: the link still has the old image though. Sorry, fixed it. The FTP upload didn't work. Yea it looks amazing. Hopefully we can launch in the next 24 hours? |
|
|
|
trustless
This word confuses most people, they hear it and draw exactly the wrong conclusion. If it's going to be used it needs a few words of explanation along with it. +1 ## The problem is that "trustless" is the single most important aspect of what sets darkcoin apart from dark wallet, zerocoin, and all the other competitors. You only use the language "first anonymous coin" and people say "bullshit". Add another line: [link] What is trustless and why is this important? [/link] or something like that. Write up a short ELI5 article that it points to. What does trustless mean anyway? Sure were're not trusting the masternodes not to take all of our coins (which is awesome), but we ARE trusting them not to record who is paying who. Of course this concern is eased if we mix with multiple different master nodes, but I just wanted to point out that this word trustless is kind of prickly. |
|
|
|
Yea that looks awesome IMO. Edit: the link still has the old image though. |
|
|
|
It looks like you are not running the RC2 version of the wallet.
I am. I tried both the pre-compiled version and my own compiled version. Is there a new start command? As you can see, the command "start" isn't listed there. Another person from darkcointalk.org also has the same problem and nobody has confirmed that they've got theirs up and running that I've seen??? FYI, currently you CANT compile your own version. Its not opensourced yet. You MUST use the precompiled version, the correct one at: http://darkcoin.io/beta.phpWhat in the world is it that is linked here: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc2-hard-fork-on-may-14th.357/#post-2698  I think today's announcement has confused more people than just myself. Please look into it  Thanks Kyle! I have fixed the links they were not pointed to the RC2 executables. I will flog Evan tomorrow. Are you sure Evan didn't point to RC2 on purpose? I figured he was pointing to the non-RC wallets that were compatible with the RC2 fork. |
|
|
|
Thanks for picking up the errors, fellas. These images are great too. I picked one for the home page that seems fitting in implying anonymity. I think it's looking pretty sweet: http://darkcoinsample.hostoi.com/ The white text is still a little hard to read, maybe if you darkened the image a bit the text would stand out a bit more. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
.jpg){kind=link}
