I've taken in suggestions about images, colours, etc. What do we think of this? http://darkcoinsample.hostoi.com/It would be nice to get a new website up before that wired articles comes out. People will be looking up DRK.  I think it looks great, even better than the last version you posted. I'm not sure I like the background picture with the crowd of asians (not that I have anything against asians LOL). Just seems kind of chaotic, makes me think of a crowded chaotic street, something more calming would be better imo. Maybe some skyscrapers at night all blurred out, some thing like that. I also was thinking of a good tagline - came up with: "Darkcoin... Instantly send money anywhere in the world... anonymously. Fast, Secure, Untraceable." "Darkcoin... Leave no trace" just thinking out loud  |
|
|
|
Will this be a 10% donation pool? |
|
|
|
Well we need article comparison between darkwallet and darksend. Everyone here knows that darkwallet is a joke but the majority of people stick to btc .
You can't force BTC holders to use altcoins. The majority will still retain their BTCs. DRK's potential is in the 1-10% market cap of BTC / BTC holders that'll opt for private coins. Which is... around 60-600mn USD. I more or less agree with this assessment, but I want to add two things. First, I think BTC still has a long way to go. It has barely even touched its potential as a global currency. I wouldn't be surprised in 20 years if the BTC market cap was >1T USD, this would put it at only 1/8th the total marketcap of gold. If DRK reached 1-10% market share as you suggest this would put DRK at 10-100B USD market cap. Second, there are unforseen circumstances that I suspect will drive people towards increased anonymity in the next decade. Things like government regulation, taxation, outright bans by some governments etc. The need for anonymous crypto will only grow in the future imo, if DRK can prove itself as a leader in anonymous digital cash, it will have an extraordinarily bright future IMO. |
|
|
|
Remember this article about Dark Wallet? http://www.wired.com/2014/04/dark-wallet/
Andy Greenberg kept seeing "Darkcoin" mentioned over and over again in all of the comments, so he gave me a ring yesterday to see what all of the fuss was about. He's writing up another article about Dark Wallet and he's going to include some info about us as well. Should go out tonight! Awesome!!! finally some EXPOSURE!! |
|
|
|
how secure is the 1000DRK that is sent to the daemon to become a masternode? Is it based on the encryption/password placed on your DRK wallet? If so, would DDOS protection even mitigate the risk of losing the 1000DRK, or does it just prevent downtime?
Apparently there is a way to not keep the coins on the node itself, so they could actually be in cold storage after you set the node up initially. |
|
|
|
Good news on the development front, yet a small dip on the charts. Are folks not happy with the open source release of DarkSend?
Well we've just had a huge pump and recovered just amazingly well. We're still close to 3x the value we had before this pump with a peak around 4.2x the value before the pump. DarkSend hasn't been open sourced yet though. Here's a little graph to help you understand how Darkcoin price works for people who follow development versus people who only notice darkcoin when they are done with their pump and dump shitcoins.  Post to reddit.com/r/drkcoin you deserve some karma |
|
|
|
Im wanting to create a master node, i have experience in linux and work in IT, so should be pretty straightforward.
What i want to know is how many DRK do i expect per day with a master node at present?
From what i understand, the more masternodes that are running, the smaller the payout?
Masternode payments haven't gone into effect yet, they go into effect with RC2 which is not yet live - probably in the next week or so RC2 will be live. Masternodes will get 10% of mining output, this equals about 900-950 coins per day, divided by the current number of masternodes. Currently there are only 41 masternodes on the network ( http://drk.poolhash.org/darksend.html), but I expect this number will climb rapidly once masternode payments go into effect. So at the current level of 41 masternodes each node would be pulling in 23 coins per day. Pretty damn good money actually. My guess is that in 2-3 weeks there will be 100-200 masternodes, so payments would be ~5 coins per day about. Hope that helps.  I was under the impression that only the masternode chosen received the 10% reward, not all of them. Yep, but mathematically it is the exact same if you are calculating profitability, plus or minus a little luck from day to day. |
|
|
|
Im wanting to create a master node, i have experience in linux and work in IT, so should be pretty straightforward.
What i want to know is how many DRK do i expect per day with a master node at present?
From what i understand, the more masternodes that are running, the smaller the payout?
Masternode payments haven't gone into effect yet, they go into effect with RC2 which is not yet live - probably in the next week or so RC2 will be live. Masternodes will get 10% of mining output, this equals about 900-950 coins per day, divided by the current number of masternodes. Currently there are only 41 masternodes on the network ( http://drk.poolhash.org/darksend.html), but I expect this number will climb rapidly once masternode payments go into effect. So at the current level of 41 masternodes each node would be pulling in 23 coins per day. Pretty damn good money actually. My guess is that in 2-3 weeks there will be 100-200 masternodes, so payments would be ~5 coins per day about. Hope that helps. |
|
|
|
Great work dude! I think this website is so much better than the current one that it should be changed as soon as all the content makes sense, even if its improved upon later. +1 This is such a huge improvement over the current design. |
|
|
|
It's actually not on the master node any more (if you're smart enough to configure it that way).
does the second server has to run all the time or can i quit darkcoind after activating the masternode? You can quit, like I said, I store my wallet offline and only had it online for maybe two minutes. Wow this is awesome. So you really don't have to worry about the coins at all then, just need to worry about getting knocked offline by ddos or something like that. |
|
|
|
Personally, I'd open source it when we were done with release candidates.
Hmm, yes I guess I agree with you, I'd prefer open source when the final product is released, not earlier. |
|
|
|
Great but Opensource so soon? I thought it would be closed source for at least a while, with respect to copycats etc?
Yeah that is super quick. How about a month before open source? Time for the media to catch on to DarkSend. I like Evan's idea of going open source as soon as it is ready. My only concern is security. It would be terrible if there was some bug that caused coins to be lost. If Evan is certain the code is rock solid I don't see any harm in going open source right away. Nobody is going to adopt it as a payment method until it is open source. The Armory (a darknet arms dealer) made an announcement a few weeks ago that they would begin accepting DRK, but quickly went back on their word when they found out it was not yet open source. If we don't open source right away, every press release will say "HEY DARKSEND IS OUT" (*...but it is closed source). Closed source (even for a month) will hurt more than it will help IMO. The Armory is a big scam Really? I don't really follow darknet news. Can you link me to something? Edit: nevermind just read about it on reddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/21qhwn/it_is_high_time_to_come_clean_on_the_armory/ |
|
|
|
Great but Opensource so soon? I thought it would be closed source for at least a while, with respect to copycats etc?
Yeah that is super quick. How about a month before open source? Time for the media to catch on to DarkSend. I like Evan's idea of going open source as soon as it is ready. My only concern is security. It would be terrible if there was some bug that caused coins to be lost. If Evan is certain the code is rock solid I don't see any harm in going open source right away. Nobody is going to adopt it as a payment method until it is open source. The Armory (a darknet arms dealer) made an announcement a few weeks ago that they would begin accepting DRK, but quickly went back on their word when they found out it was not yet open source. If we don't open source right away, every press release will say HEY DARKSEND IS OUT * ( *...but it is closed source). Closed source (even for a month) will hurt more than it will help IMO. |
|
|
|
Question:
Who runs Dark-Bot on #darkcoin?
Sombody told me a long time ago that it just appeared one day and nobody has taken credit. Is the poor thing sick? BTW HI CHAOSiTEC!!! Miss you not being around so much!!! im good, but pretty busy with project "dark ice" im hoping to be done soon (tm) ish :-p lol I'm calling it now - Dark-ice is either a darkcoin-ebay or a multipool that pays out in DRK. |
|
|
|
why x11 is good than other ?
save power ?
It is as good as other algorithms as they are not brokenable for the time being using existing technology. X11 can be implemented with ASCII as well. The reason that there is no ASCII for X11 is that this market is too small to be profitable for ASCII manufacturers. Power saving just means the GPU is not optimised enough to make full use of the processors. Yes, the developer has always expected ASICs will come along eventually, but the idea was that the coin needed to grow a network first, so first there was cpu, then gpu and eventually asics and beyond?? That way, the hash power could grow more naturally. What we really need is someone who will look into the GPU miner coding and see if there are optimizations that are possible. Because it would not be good if others have an optimized miner, while everyone else doesn't. It makes the network unstable (easier to do a 51% attack) so I really wish someone could look at the code! I know Even wants to but he's too busy. I bet a lot of people are trying to optimize the miner behind the scenes, because there is such a huge profit motive. If they were successful they could try to contact big farms and license out the improved miner. |
|
|
|
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  Question - When A sends 100 drk to B, does B get it into 10 different addresses, each containing 10 DRK? Question 2 - If the above TRUE, how will a user ever manage to accumulate 1,000 DRK (e.g. for creating a supernode) into one single address? The 10 coin cap is temporary, eventually you will be able to darksend larger amounts. Currently you can just send the 1000 coins without darksend enabled, I think this will always be an option if someone doesn't want to use darksend they don't have to. |
|
|
|
omg ! check this article, i really hope they will not implement the X11 to their ASIC miners Today, Flower Tech is thrilled to announce several significant accomplishments in our Scrypt ASIC development. Our customers will receive the absolute best in performance, power and value when it comes to Scrypt mining solutions. Our engineering team at Ensilica has made substantial progress on our ASIC, and continue to progress steadily with development as we work towards tape-out. We once again are able to provide the highest performance Scrypt ASIC with the lowest power consumption on the market. First and foremost, in order to provide our customers with the best value in performance mining hardware, we will be upgrading the Orchid and all customers’ Orchid orders, present and future, to 60 MH/s and will remain at our highly competitive price of $1,900 USD. Our brand new, high-performance miner, the Lilac, will hash at a rate of 300MH/s with the market-best pricing of only $7900.00 USD, hailing in at a market-topping cost per kH of $0.0263 / (kH/s). This ensures the Lilac is the absolute best in performance per dollar on the Scrypt mining market. Lilac pre-orders will be first come first served and will ship according to priority in qeueu. Any existing Orchid customers who wish to upgrade to the Lilac will be given the option to do so and are asked to send an email to info@flowertechnology.com with an upgrade request. We are pleased to announce our updated power specifications for the Flower Tech 28nm ASIC. Our skilled engineers have managed to achieve incredibly low power usage for each Flower Technology chip, with numbers tested and confirmed at slightly under 1.8 watts per mega-hash. This milestone is achieved through M.A.S.T. (Massive Array of Scrypt Threads) technology, aimed to minimize consumer power usage and necessary cooling, keeping monthly power bills low and allowing you to mine at a highly efficient rate with maximum performance. Finally, we are thrilled to announce a huge milestone in both ASIC development and the Scrypt mining community. The Flower Technology ASIC is now capable of mining Scrypt-N in addition to Scrypt proof-of-work coins. This will future-proof your purchase for expanded mining options and increased versatility. Examples of Scrypt-based coins you can mine with our machines includes Litecoin, Dogecoin, Mastercoin, Darkcoin, Isracoin, Auroracoin, Feathercoin, while examples of Scrypt-N coins you can mine with our machines includes Vertcoin, execoin, GPUcoin, CaiShen and PANDA.
Here at Flower Tech we will continue to set the bar in performance, power-saving and versatility. We appreciate the support we have gathered from the community, and will continue to work to improve our units as we work progress towards tape-out.
[30/04/2014 06:56:56] Atef DRIRA: ALSO: WE HAVE SECRETLY BEEN WORKING TO IMPLEMENT SUPPORT FOR SCRYPT-N SUPPORT UP TO N=16384!!! We have been successful and now our ASIC is capable of mining any Scrypt-N coins such as VertcoinBut Darkcoin is not a scrypt-based. I highly doubt their asic would work with x11. If asics did come it would definitely drive to block reward down to 5 and probably help the price that way... so it probably wouldnt be that bad tbh. Even though I love mining x11  |
|
|
|
My head hurts..... Your next task is to update the chart with the plans Evan has for RC3 Denomitated change addresses! |
|
|
|
I spent a fair amount of time thinking about the discussion with dime, humanitee, luigi1111, camosoul and others yesterday about the anonymity of Darksend. I suspected that the logic behind darksend as currently implemented was not sound, and I thought it would be best to determine how exactly darksend was working, and do an in-depth analysis of a mixing cycle and the transactions that follow mixing.
...
Best,
Sim
Wow! This is great. About 400+ pages ago I talked about having a different kind of pool for change outputs only. Put in all of your change outputs and you'll get new fresh clean inputs of 10DRK. The client could automatically do this after each darksend, which would also get you new inputs for the next round. I'm currently embedded in patching stratum and p2pool to support the masternode payments, which is why I haven't been around. It takes a lot of work to make something so different from anything else out there, dare I say, revolutionary? On second thought, I'm not sure this solves the problem. My understanding is that you want to accumulate the dirty change in the wallet until it breaches a certain amount (say 10 for example), then it is washed in a "change only" wash with a bunch of "10" transactions. The problem I see is that even the clean coins could be linked to the original transaction. Just to explain: John darksends 2 coins from A to C, gets 8 back as change on address X a few days later.. John darksends 8 coins from B to D, gets 2 back as change on address Y Y+X are submitted to the change mixing pool (10 coins), and come out "clean" at address Z. The problem is that the coins at address Z are not clean really, they are "suspect", they could have possibly participated in any darksends that generated the dirty coins that composed the "change washing" pool. Now when Johns wants to spend coins from A, B, and Z in the same transaction. So if John wants to send coins from A+B+Z in one transaction, the fact that Z participated in a pool that contained X and Y is enough to expose A and B as the original participants in the darksend transaction. Really it leaves us at the same position that we were at previously after the original darksends. I hope that made sense. I came up with a way better solution to this issue than my previous idea. Plus it's already supported by DarkSend, I'll just enforce it in RC3 John darksends 2.5 coins from A to C, gets 7.5 back as change on address X, Y, V, Z (X = 5DRK, Y = 1DRK, V = 1DRK, Z=0.5DRK ) Joe darksends 3 coins from E to G, gets 7 back as change on address W, K, J (W = 5DRK, K = 1DRK, J = 1DRK) Suzie darksends 3.5 coins from K to Q, gets 6.5 back as change on address F, G, H (F = 5DRK, G = 1DRK, H = 0.5DRK) Change is denominated into units of 5, 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 DRK. I'll introduce the precision limitation back again of 0.01DRK. So if you get 7.5 DRK of change back, you'll end up with 5DRK+1DRK+1DRK+0.5DRK. You could still possible do taint analysis on denominations only used once, but this would be solved with multiple rounds in DarkSend. 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 I was in the middle of going through this very logic myself, when I refreshed and saw your post. I agree with the basic analysis: this proposed method seems to me to be flawless unless and until the largest change holder sends from all his change addresses associated with a particular DarkSend simultaneously with balance from his "main" address. I'm still going to have to think about it more, because what if we DON'T consider the last sentence in your 3rd paragraph? Aren't we still *potentially* impacting anonymity?I'm falling asleep right now, but I can't think of how you could actually secure this if the largest change holder did what you describe above. Even additional mixing wouldn't help as you could just track inputs and outputs all the way back once John did the bad deed. I guess my point is: there's probably a large chance of additional "noise" being created that would make our potential analysis of John's coins impossible, but what if in a particular case this noise doesn't exist? Or I'm just tired. Yes if it we knew for sure that each 10 coins came from a separate wallet, there would be a big problem with the logic. But because multiple inputs can come from the same wallet and hopefully the denominization will be semi-random, so the logic is sound. If X+Y+V+Z+A shows up in a darksend, A is not necessarily outed because even though X+Y+V+Z adds up to 7.5 and there was a 2.5 output, it is possible that the Joe&Suzie transactions came from the same wallet and we are actually looking at W+K+G+H+A not X+Y+V+Z+A. It would be impossible to differentiate between X+Y+V+Z+A and A+W+K+G+H because both of these possible "change" combinations add up to 7.5 It is quite an eloquent solution actually. There is still the problem evan mentions: if only one instance of a denomination is present it will be easy to out that person, but this seems like it would be an unlikely event once there are more than 4-5 people participating in the pool. Evan could even completely ablate this problem by coding it so that the darksend mixing won't start until there are at least 2 of every denomination represented. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
