in case of steam don't count on this!
in germany (where i live) tos doesnt count too (any text presented AFTER i paid is nothing), but if steam sees someone selling his account they just ban him regardless.

they argue that you did NOT buy the game: you just lend it.

i've not yet seen someone buying a dvd, register it through steam and tries to sell it. if he goes to court he might win (but ONLY if he did buy it in a shop - NEVER for games bought in steams online shop page, because they clearly state they only lend them out)

comparing murder/rape (there is a clear victim) to selling accounts is hilarious.
anybody doing business here should always use escrow. there where also cases where people used hacked accounts to scam.

if you make a rule (selling forbidden) that you cant enforce nobody will take your other rules seriously.

i have no problems with account selling (i did it once with a hero account) because if i trade/talk to someone here i dont trust his trust/activity or post history.

i'd love to see that, but i am fraid that if "our" exchange has the same problems as the early btc ones (eg gox, bitcoinica) that it would turn people not yet in crypto away.

i stopped buying btc because of that (and yes i know that it is my fault to leave btc/fiat on exchanges)

is it possible to use one of the existing and established ones? maybe bfx, kraken, coinbase?

i had 100btc one... but then:
 - bitcoinica
 - pirateat
 - moonco.in

now i dont have any btc left.. the little i still had got converted to monero.

a while back i promised myself not to put money on exchanges again, but i am rethinking this atm.

i have definitely learned my lesson

edit: oh i forgot mybitcoin.com

the problem is that the hole altcoin-land is so used to scam-/shitcoins that they dont even know how to rate a coin anymore (eg proof of honor award? WTF!).

thats not science. just scammy groups deceiving people.
monero is a real coin, with real devs and real cyptographers: a real cryptocurrency.

but... we need people to buy xmr when it raises... so i'll just wait until the majority realizes their mistake

to me this doesnt sound bad at all.

what i'd love to see is that the additional "lost" fees are somehow distributed to the nodes transmitting the transaction (i dont have an idea how this could be accomplished without cheating though)

i know lost bitcoins are not a real problem, but i still have a bad "feeling" about it.

EDIT:
what about this:
i craft a new transaction with 1btc mining fee
 - some node receives this transaction and signs it.
 - it now relays the following data
     # tx/txouts
     # his own ip/port
     # one of his own addresses
     all signed by his key (not the key of the original txin's)
 - a miner receives multiple versions of this transaction signed by different "first" relay nodes
 - he now contact one of this nodes and ask for the original one
 - same magic needs to be done to make sure the miner is forced to send some fee to the first relay if the block size exceeds 1mb.

yes, i dont answer questions of people insulting me

you insult me (called me muthers) and now you expect me to answer your questions?
gtfo

at least he tries to explain things - instead of you just throwing buzzwords around and expecting others to explain it for you.

when you dont like their explanation you start crying....


at first: thank you for your answer. i really appreciate it.
obviously we have a different opinion, let me explain myself:


when i look at the premine i am note sure that its existance is motivated by your claim.


you are right: it doesnt matter if i like them or not.
let me explain why i dont like them:
 - they get a huge portion of the mining reward by doing nothing (compared to a miner) imho this will lead to a full pos system or something very insecure.
 - there are not enough of them to really make sure they dont get hijacked
 - i dont understand what masternodes have to do with bitcoin-api compatibility


true, thats the reason why darkcoin can not change their system (same is true for monero) without loosing much confidence.


lol?
that doesnt even make sense.. let me rephrase it:
"because we didnt integrate anon in the blockchain we have made huge advances [..]" (btw you had many hardforks in the way - you just call them different; so i dont see anything which could have been a problem because of anon in the chain)

still: there is nothing darkwallet cant adopt.

this is one of the main reasons i use monero: anon inside blockchain, automatically without any intervention (mn in case of drk). tested and approved by multiple cryptographers.

if i want something like drk i would use btc with mixers or darkwallet.

an anoncoin requires huge trust in his developer/s.
i cant trust eduffield with it, because as far as i know he never worked in cryptograhic before. the same is true for any of your team members: https://www.darkcoin.io/about/team-contact/

so HOW should i trust them?

i think so too, but i'd like to here from them what they think (drk).

all i found is this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg6119570#msg6119570 (by eduffield)


1) could be archieved by darkwallet (though i dont know if they plan to do that)
2) thats a good one; but it depends how much their system is used at all.
3) i dont like masternodes, so i am biased on this one.
4) i think(!) he talks about the 1000drk colleteral which is needed to run a masternode.

ok so point 4 is (in my eyes) the only real difference regarding anon.
he is assuming how they implemented it and use that to come to an conclusion? seems strange.

oh come on... you know what i meant!
to be more specific: is there any anon-specific tech that darkwallet could not adopt?

Well as we are all back to topic: is there anything DarkWallet can not adopt from DRK?

I think they can adopt the Masternode concept, maybe except the 80% blockreward they will get in the future.

sorry i am german and my english is not that good. what does muther mean?
i found a MUTHERS institut for strategic chance management - but i am quit sure you didnt refer to that (its german anyway)

most people here know drk, xmr and sdc (at least heard the name).
if they want a comparison there is a search function (right top in case you wonder).

if they want to educate themselves about drk they will find this thread. what will they find when they search for sdc? i hope you - would be the best advertising ever

then make your own thread - this thread is about XMR and DRK.

one thing i'd really like to know about drk is a good comparison with darkwallet and if darkwallet is able to adopt all(!) of drk anon features (if that means MN needs to be ported so be it).

i think darkwallet can do it - but i always like to learn something new...

i see two problems here.


as you stated a miner does not know which transactions are known by other nodes. so he does not have a choice: he must publish all transactions in his block.
and if i understand you correctly he must do this fast (a priori?) otherwise he risks an orphan (because other miners cant build upon his block).

^ if that is true all is fine: but thats definitely not O(1).


if - because of bandwith - not all transactions reach a node the node cant decide which one to take. maybe an upstream proxy could be developed but that sounds a little strange to me.

it gets worse, because different parts of the network will see and keep different transactions.

did i misunderstand you?

good luck and best wishes!

edit: ehhh welcome back... i hope you made it

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/?id=156072
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/socialalgs/bitcoin-red-balloons.aspx

ok, add an incentive for nodes to broadcast transactions is nice, and solves the problem partly.

IMHO the other part is, that if miners are not punished for bigger blocks it means that they will put all transactions with fees in any block which leads to the problem that is not possible to build a fee-market.

its just rational to take them all: they have already received and validated them, putting them in a block does not add additional costs.

i know this sounds ridiculous, but let me explain why i think it may be useful.

i am nearly convinced now that a big block size together with 1BLT is a threat for bitcoin as miners dont have any incentive to make smaller blocks.

so i am thinking about ways to incentive them.

an easy solution could be that a block needs to be transmitted in full to be accepted - the question is, if this is enforceable between miners (sadly i think it isnt).


btw... not heard much about headers first. is the following scenario possible?

miner A mines a block with a few transactions he has crafted himself.
he published a double-spent-attempting transactions shortly before he found the block.

miner B receives the second transaction from miner A
miner B receives the new block header and starts mining
 - as he does not have the first transaction he tries to include the second one

^ this should raise miner-B's orphan rate.

an easy way to mitigate this would be to mine empty blocks until you have all transactions from the previous block. but this would lead to more empty blocks - raising the blocksize-scarcity even more

i am a little lost right now...