[ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - PROOF OF STAKE - ZEROCOIN

[BitcoinFX]

Such are the trials of trying to be originators. It's just a proposal, we are still researching a means to accomplish what we want to do in a trust-less fashion. It's just that it hasn't been done before, so it will require more research and work.

None of the present systems that I am aware of are truly untraceable if given the proper amount of time and money. We would like to change that.

Indeed. To this regard I recently made the following post in the CBX thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=951753.1640

..."All of the crypto-currency obfuscation systems in existence, to date, still cannot fully prevent the two main factors that can be used by a strong adversary to identify or to track an individual. These factors remain (1) acquisition (i.e. the trail of where your coins came from or how you originally acquired them) and (2) storage (i.e. your actual balance on a specific address and how it changed over time with regards to transactions, regardless of any obfuscation efforts). At best, users might gain only some plausible deniability.

As satoshi stated, Bitcoin can provide reasonable anonymity and privacy if it's used correctly i.e. you might mine PoW coins to a fresh wallet address, over Tor, at a .onion enabled pool (such as eligius or mmpool, for example), only ever connecting the wallet via Tor, making transactions that don't identify you personally (which is practically impossible in reality, being the you are most likely the recipient of any goods or services etc.,) and then abandoning said wallet / address entirely.

It could also be argued that using 3rd party mixing services is actually bad for your anonymity!"...

and from : https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_modular_redundancy

- There is an old adage to this effect, stating: "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three." Meaning, if two chronometers contradict, how do you know which one is correct?   

- http://www.onion-router.net/History.html
- http://freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/tor-design.pdf

Still much great reading to be found here: http://www.freehaven.net/papers.html

 

[4x13]

Such are the trials of trying to be originators. It's just a proposal, we are still researching a means to accomplish what we want to do in a trust-less fashion. It's just that it hasn't been done before, so it will require more research and work.

None of the present systems that I am aware of are truly untraceable if given the proper amount of time and money. We would like to change that.

Indeed. To this regard I recently made the following post in the CBX thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=951753.1640

..."All of the crypto-currency obfuscation systems in existence, to date, still cannot fully prevent the two main factors that can be used by a strong adversary to identify or to track an individual. These factors remain (1) acquisition (i.e. the trail of where your coins came from or how you originally acquired them) and (2) storage (i.e. your actual balance on a specific address and how it changed over time with regards to transactions, regardless of any obfuscation efforts). At best, users might gain only some plausible deniability.

As satoshi stated, Bitcoin can provide reasonable anonymity and privacy if it's used correctly i.e. you might mine PoW coins to a fresh wallet address, over Tor, at a .onion enabled pool (such as eligius or mmpool, for example), only ever connecting the wallet via Tor, making transactions that don't identify you personally (which is practically impossible in reality, being the you are most likely the recipient of any goods or services etc.,) and then abandoning said wallet / address entirely.

It could also be argued that using 3rd party mixing services is actually bad for your anonymity!"...

and from : https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_modular_redundancy

- There is an old adage to this effect, stating: "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three." Meaning, if two chronometers contradict, how do you know which one is correct?   

- http://www.onion-router.net/History.html
- http://freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/tor-design.pdf

Still much great reading to be found here: http://www.freehaven.net/papers.html

 

I agree completely, and this is one of the reasons I wanted to Dev a coin. The means exist to make this coin truly untraceable, it is just making it trust-less at the same time that is difficult. More research is needed..

[q327K091]

8th MN has been setup, charging towards 9th possibly > if made possible by the network difficulty

will vote later with all 9, I like the idea of SMN, dont like idea of any closed source or centralization but will review before taking part in vote

technology is working great thus far, will do later some inter TOR transactions with small amounts between nodes (to self basically) wanted to do this with dash but way too expensive, here sky is the limit (yet) (TOR and anon provide 100% anonymity, only backdoor or TOR exit nodes if compromised can break)

and no, selling nothing, in this way I provide backbone for future operations and roadmap , and it is my strong believe this is aint going anywhere

be good if you could figure out how to get multiple nodes on same computer using tor

People always trying to game the system. We will be removing any possibility of running Masternodes from the same system. It is bad for Tor and the Network as a whole

doing a closed (sealed) server system per node, over the weekend I will engage TOR, there is is this system that boots fresh every time, forgot name of the OS a Unix hybrid of course

idea of having embedded devices with master nodes on such an embedded system is a very attractive one, imagine portable 100% secure and anonymous devices/wallets!

quick update, should have 9th node up and running probably in 2 days or so, one can do virtualization... and might try that as well, all in all it is fascinating as we are all thinking and doing what dash devs are thinking and doing, and they are very good!

we even have some crypto experts onboard which is cool. one does not have same algebraic crypto problems as they were found in shadowcash  though

right now I am collecting DNET as fast as I can to erect more MN's , selling nothing as said many times by far it is more important to propagate this coin as 100% secure/anonymous , money will come next that is not as important now

this!

https://tails.boum.org/

only physical theft compromise can break it, commits to tails repo are reviewed by several top notch Unix experts and are kept purposefully few and between

Tails and DNET together and TOR and no one on earth will know (minus TOR exit nodes compromise, but that is illegal at least in this country , to prevent someone setting up private TOR exit node, in Russia probably different)

will setup tails and DNET MN and TOR , will let you know how it goes, after all isnt (part of financial aspect) privacy why we are doing all this ?

[bathrobehero]

I think decentralization is much more important than anonimity for several reasons.

Please feel free to share your reasons..

Because it's easy to disrupt a single central node which means it's easy to disrupt the service. It also introduces having to rely on trust which is unacceptable (regardless of how trustworthy the owners are).

Having to trust a central entity with obfuscation of all things I feel would kind of defeat the purpose.

And central obfuscation is relatively easy to make but it requires taking steps back and giving up centralization and trustlessness which I think would turn this coin into a joke.

I understand this would be just an option and not mandatory to use but that option would still represent the whole coin which is why I'm against it.

[4x13]

I think decentralization is much more important than anonimity for several reasons.

Please feel free to share your reasons..

Because it's easy to disrupt a single central node which means it's easy to disrupt the service. It also introduces having to rely on trust which is unacceptable (regardless of how trustworthy the owners are).

Having to trust a central entity with obfuscation of all things I feel would kind of defeat the purpose.

And central obfuscation is relatively easy to make but it requires taking steps back and giving up centralization and trustlessness which I think would turn this coin into a joke.

I understand this would be just an option and not mandatory to use but that option would still represent the whole coin which is why I'm against it.

Your points are valid, which is why there is no set release date on this specific update as we hope to find a means to keep everything trust-less. Thank you for voicing your opinion and not just FUD'ing everything. We are not all knowing and thus rely on everyones knowledge and experience to steer this coin in the right direction.

[Darkoth89]

Quick query about masternodes.  I take it you can withdraw the 10k funds once you stop the node? I have a VPS that isn't doing anything currrently, and DNET looks like it could be a good investment.

[kondiomir]

[borris123]

Quick query about masternodes.  I take it you can withdraw the 10k funds once you stop the node? I have a VPS that isn't doing anything currrently, and DNET looks like it could be a good investment.

ye you can withdraw it if masternode disabled. but if its enabled there is a lock on the 10000 to stop you from spending them by accident

[Vaxa]

I guess this is going below 1k satoshis?

That's why we need supply reduction. I like this proposal.

I am a miner and masternodes owner. I think constant supply during POW phase is bad for cryptocurrency. It leads to constant inflation and therefore fading of interest of investors.

My proposal is for supply reduction during POW phase. It will decrease inflation, leaving enough coins for fair distribution. We will have total of 45 360 000 coins at the end of the POW phase instead of 64 800 000 coins (-19 440 000 coins).

Blocks 1 - 86 400 (56 days)
POW reward: 250 DNET
Total supply: 21 600 000

Blocks 86 401 - 172 800 (56 days)
POW reward: 175 DNET
Total supply: 36 720 000

Blocks 172 801 - 259 200 (56 days)
POW reward: 100 DNET
Total supply: 45 360 000

Blocks 259 200 +
POS

To vote in favor = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c yes"
To vote against = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c no"
(use 'vote-many' instead of 'vote' to vote using all your MN at once via controller wallet).

[Darkoth89]

Quick query about masternodes.  I take it you can withdraw the 10k funds once you stop the node? I have a VPS that isn't doing anything currrently, and DNET looks like it could be a good investment.

ye you can withdraw it if masternode disabled. but if its enabled there is a lock on the 10000 to stop you from spending them by accident

Excellent, thought so.  Thanks for the info!

[kokokoin]

I guess this is going below 1k satoshis?

That's why we need supply reduction. I like this proposal.

I am a miner and masternodes owner. I think constant supply during POS phase is bad for cryptocurrency. It leads to constant inflation and therefore fading of interest of investors.

My proposal is for supply reduction during POW phase. It will decrease inflation, leaving enough coins for fair distribution. We will have total of 45 360 000 coins at the end of the POW phase instead of 64 800 000 coins (-19 440 000 coins).

Blocks 1 - 86 400 (56 days)
POW reward: 250 DNET
Total supply: 21 600 000

Blocks 86 401 - 172 800 (56 days)
POW reward: 175 DNET
Total supply: 36 720 000

Blocks 172 801 - 259 200 (56 days)
POW reward: 100 DNET
Total supply: 45 360 000

Blocks 259 200 +
POS

To vote in favor = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c yes"
To vote against = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c no"
(use 'vote-many' instead of 'vote' to vote using all your MN at once via controller wallet).

Sorry, i named my proposal POSRewardReduction but it is really for POW reward reduction. Is there any way to change the name?

[BitcoinFX]

Such are the trials of trying to be originators. It's just a proposal, we are still researching a means to accomplish what we want to do in a trust-less fashion. It's just that it hasn't been done before, so it will require more research and work.

None of the present systems that I am aware of are truly untraceable if given the proper amount of time and money. We would like to change that.

Indeed. To this regard I recently made the following post in the CBX thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=951753.1640

..."All of the crypto-currency obfuscation systems in existence, to date, still cannot fully prevent the two main factors that can be used by a strong adversary to identify or to track an individual. These factors remain (1) acquisition (i.e. the trail of where your coins came from or how you originally acquired them) and (2) storage (i.e. your actual balance on a specific address and how it changed over time with regards to transactions, regardless of any obfuscation efforts). At best, users might gain only some plausible deniability.

As satoshi stated, Bitcoin can provide reasonable anonymity and privacy if it's used correctly i.e. you might mine PoW coins to a fresh wallet address, over Tor, at a .onion enabled pool (such as eligius or mmpool, for example), only ever connecting the wallet via Tor, making transactions that don't identify you personally (which is practically impossible in reality, being the you are most likely the recipient of any goods or services etc.,) and then abandoning said wallet / address entirely.

It could also be argued that using 3rd party mixing services is actually bad for your anonymity!"...

and from : https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_modular_redundancy

- There is an old adage to this effect, stating: "Never go to sea with two chronometers; take one or three." Meaning, if two chronometers contradict, how do you know which one is correct?   

- http://www.onion-router.net/History.html
- http://freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/tor-design.pdf

Still much great reading to be found here: http://www.freehaven.net/papers.html

 

I agree completely, and this is one of the reasons I wanted to Dev a coin. The means exist to make this coin truly untraceable, it is just making it trust-less at the same time that is difficult. More research is needed..

I've made a basic review of the existing design and thought on how it might be possible to try and improve it, considering what we know works in existing anonymity systems.

Firstly, being based on CoinJoin - https://wikipedia.org/wiki/CoinJoin - the inputs/outputs method only partly solves privacy, but is still somewhat open to traceability, by a strong adversary.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash_(cryptocurrency):

"...Darksend is a coin-mixing service originally based on CoinJoin. Later iterations used a more advanced method of pre-mixing denominations built into the user's wallet.

In its current implementation it adds privacy to transactions by combining identical inputs from multiple users into a single transaction with several outputs. Due to the identical inputs, transactions usually cannot be directly traced, obfuscating the flow of funds. A heuristic (based on inputs/outputs order) was suggested for partial tracing the transactions, but neither formal proof nor counter-proof was presented..."

As s3v3nh4cks mentioned in an earlier post the best potential alternative to this method is likely utilizing an Air-Gapped solution.

In other words, the outgoing transaction is sent to node A where the funds never directly leave to their destination address and instead node B sends the funds to the destination address.

Looking at building onto the existing system it should be possible to create say Authority based servers, perhaps routed through several masternodes, for anonymity, similar to the Tor network design in principal.

So, the transaction is sent from an already obfuscated balance, whereby the MN1 forwards the transaction (via 2 separate circuits) to Authority A and Authority B destinations (perhaps being larger, ephemeral pools of combined MN's!), that are able to combine identical inputs readily (without the need to match input/output).

Example;

The client sends to MN1 (which chooses the a and b (Middle Node Paths):

- MN1 (Entry) - knows only the client and MN2a and MN2b (Middle), but does not know MN3a or MN3b respectfully or Authority A or Authority B.

- MN2a and MN2b (Middle) - knows only MN1 and MN3a or MN3b respectfully (Exits), but does not know the client or Authority A or Authority B.

- MN3a and MN3b (Exits) - knows only MN2a and MN2b (Middle) respectfully and Authority A or Authority B respectfully, they do not know MN1 (Entry) or the client.

- Authority A retains the transaction amount (only knows MN3a). Authority B pays the destination (only knowing the recipient and MN3b) and confirms the transaction chain.


Transactions overtime would likely average out the starting balances of Authority A or Authority B, although round-robin checks and balances could also be used. Furthermore, if Authority A and Authority B are actually comprised of random and ephemeral mix-clusters of existing Masternodes, then 'risk' is split between nodes, as well as outgoing payments to destinations i.e. their is no actual Authority A or Authority B.

The above is highly theoretical, although is probably a near perfect anonymity system in terms of transaction privacy and masking traceability.

One flaw still remains, which is the change in the balance on the clients wallet address, although partly obfuscated ofc, the coins remain 'spent'.

It is of course very difficult to spend 'money', without actually spending it though!

[avitas]

Great discussions guys.  this proposal thing is pretty neat as I got a mn to play with.  though it'd be interesting to see the implementation of the said system.  looks like still a long ways to go, tho the feedback from dev is promising. 

one questions tho, does the wallet have any coin control features to spend coins not tied to the masternodes?  or does it automatically does that?
and is there way to delete or update proposals like the typo problem we had earlier?

[4x13]

Great discussions guys.  this proposal thing is pretty neat as I got a mn to play with.  though it'd be interesting to see the implementation of the said system.  looks like still a long ways to go, tho the feedback from dev is promising.  

one questions tho, does the wallet have any coin control features to spend coins not tied to the masternodes?  or does it automatically does that?
and is there way to delete or update proposals like the typo problem we had earlier?

Absolutely it does, turn on coin control in the Preferences section. But, it is not needed if you are concerned about spending the 10k from your masternode as that is locked and the wallet will not let you send it without first shutting down the masternode

[4x13]

I guess this is going below 1k satoshis?

That's why we need supply reduction. I like this proposal.

I am a miner and masternodes owner. I think constant supply during POS phase is bad for cryptocurrency. It leads to constant inflation and therefore fading of interest of investors.

My proposal is for supply reduction during POS phase. It will decrease inflation, leaving enough coins for fair distribution. We will have total of 45 360 000 coins at the end of the POS phase instead of 64 800 000 coins (-19 440 000 coins).

Blocks 1 - 86 400 (56 days)
POW reward: 250 DNET
Total supply: 21 600 000

Blocks 86 401 - 172 800 (56 days)
POW reward: 175 DNET
Total supply: 36 720 000

Blocks 172 801 - 259 200 (56 days)
POW reward: 100 DNET
Total supply: 45 360 000

Blocks 259 200 +
POS

To vote in favor = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c yes"
To vote against = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c no"
(use 'vote-many' instead of 'vote' to vote using all your MN at once via controller wallet).

Sorry, i named my proposal POSRewardReduction but it is really for POW reward reduction. Is there any way to change the name?

Sorry, there is no way to fix that once it has been submitted

[avitas]

Great discussions guys.  this proposal thing is pretty neat as I got a mn to play with.  though it'd be interesting to see the implementation of the said system.  looks like still a long ways to go, tho the feedback from dev is promising.  

one questions tho, does the wallet have any coin control features to spend coins not tied to the masternodes?  or does it automatically does that?
and is there way to delete or update proposals like the typo problem we had earlier?

Absolutely it does, turn on coin control in the Preferences section. But, it is not needed if you are concerned about spending the 10k from your masternode as that is locked and the wallet will not let you send it without first shutting down the masternode

Cool thanks! got it.

also, probably minor bug i notice https://www.transifex.com/projects/p/darknet/ in the language translate section doesn't work. 

[djselery]

Such are the trials of trying to be originators. It's just a proposal, we are still researching a means to accomplish what we want to do in a trust-less fashion. It's just that it hasn't been done before, so it will require more research and work.

None of the present systems that I am aware of are truly untraceable if given the proper amount of time and money. We would like to change that.

I am fairly sure NAV coin has done the whole anon transactions option. i believe they have been working on it for a couple years(supposedly to be fully decentralized and implemented "soon"). just a heads up.

[4x13]

Great discussions guys.  this proposal thing is pretty neat as I got a mn to play with.  though it'd be interesting to see the implementation of the said system.  looks like still a long ways to go, tho the feedback from dev is promising.  

one questions tho, does the wallet have any coin control features to spend coins not tied to the masternodes?  or does it automatically does that?
and is there way to delete or update proposals like the typo problem we had earlier?

Absolutely it does, turn on coin control in the Preferences section. But, it is not needed if you are concerned about spending the 10k from your masternode as that is locked and the wallet will not let you send it without first shutting down the masternode

Cool thanks! got it.

also, probably minor bug i notice https://www.transifex.com/projects/p/darknet/ in the language translate section doesn't work.  

We are looking into that, good catch.

[EQUINOXdev]

I sold my DNET part and brought down the price a bit:)
I'm out
CRBIT looks way better for pumping and dumping now
Good luck guys

[Vaxa]

I guess this is going below 1k satoshis?

That's why we need supply reduction. I like this proposal.

I am a miner and masternodes owner. I think constant supply during POW phase is bad for cryptocurrency. It leads to constant inflation and therefore fading of interest of investors.

My proposal is for supply reduction during POW phase. It will decrease inflation, leaving enough coins for fair distribution. We will have total of 45 360 000 coins at the end of the POW phase instead of 64 800 000 coins (-19 440 000 coins).

Blocks 1 - 86 400 (56 days)
POW reward: 250 DNET
Total supply: 21 600 000

Blocks 86 401 - 172 800 (56 days)
POW reward: 175 DNET
Total supply: 36 720 000

Blocks 172 801 - 259 200 (56 days)
POW reward: 100 DNET
Total supply: 45 360 000

Blocks 259 200 +
POS

To vote in favor = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c yes"
To vote against = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c no"
(use 'vote-many' instead of 'vote' to vote using all your MN at once via controller wallet).

Sorry, i named my proposal POSRewardReduction but it is really for POW reward reduction. Is there any way to change the name?

Sorry, there is no way to fix that once it has been submitted

BTW, how you managed to remove other proposals?