|
alincoln
|
 |
August 26, 2014, 02:43:03 PM |
|
Wait what? ZC can't be transferred?  Here is how it will (probably) work: 1. Zerocoin Mint Transaction In your wallet, you will convert a part (or all) of your ANC into zerocoins, with 1 ANC = 1 Zerocoin. The Zerocoins will be denominated in factors of 10, so you will need to choose how to do this. Your wallet will store some information for each zerocoin you generate (like the coin serial number, an associated random number used to generate the coin, and the denomination). The blockchain will record information saying that "your public ANC address sent X ANC to the zerocoin pool." 2. Zerocoin Spend TransactionYou tell your wallet to redeem some zerocoins to a specified ANC address. This part is done using zero-knowledge proofs and the private info in your wallet so that you don't disclose who you are. This ANC address could be yours (if you want to "wash" your coins) or someone elses (if you want to do an anonymous transaction). 1 ANC will be credited to this ANC address for each Zerocoin that is redeemed. The end result is the following: The person who receives the ANC from the Zerocoin spend transaction won't know who they came from. All they will know is that they come from 1 of the people who ever owned zerocoins up to that date. As the number of people owning zerocoins will likely be VERY large, it will be impossible to guess who that person is. This differs from most other mixing services where the number of people you are mixed with is small, allowing you to play guessing games to eventually figure out who sent the coins. The only thing you will need to worry about is the following: If the number of people who contributed to the zerocoin pool for denomination X is small, you are in danger of being found out. The wallet should thus tell you how many coins are in the escrow pool for each denomination. Even if this number is large, there is a possibility that all these coins belong to the same person! Thus it would also be a good idea for the wallet to tell you how many unique ANC addresses were used in the zerocoin mint transactions. Why would anyone use other denominations than 1 ZC? |
|
|
|
|
|
lunokhod2
|
|
August 26, 2014, 03:07:52 PM |
|
Wait what? ZC can't be transferred? Here is how it will (probably) work: 1. Zerocoin Mint Transaction In your wallet, you will convert a part (or all) of your ANC into zerocoins, with 1 ANC = 1 Zerocoin. The Zerocoins will be denominated in factors of 10, so you will need to choose how to do this. Your wallet will store some information for each zerocoin you generate (like the coin serial number, an associated random number used to generate the coin, and the denomination). The blockchain will record information saying that "your public ANC address sent X ANC to the zerocoin pool." 2. Zerocoin Spend TransactionYou tell your wallet to redeem some zerocoins to a specified ANC address. This part is done using zero-knowledge proofs and the private info in your wallet so that you don't disclose who you are. This ANC address could be yours (if you want to "wash" your coins) or someone elses (if you want to do an anonymous transaction). 1 ANC will be credited to this ANC address for each Zerocoin that is redeemed. The end result is the following: The person who receives the ANC from the Zerocoin spend transaction won't know who they came from. All they will know is that they come from 1 of the people who ever owned zerocoins up to that date. As the number of people owning zerocoins will likely be VERY large, it will be impossible to guess who that person is. This differs from most other mixing services where the number of people you are mixed with is small, allowing you to play guessing games to eventually figure out who sent the coins. The only thing you will need to worry about is the following: If the number of people who contributed to the zerocoin pool for denomination X is small, you are in danger of being found out. The wallet should thus tell you how many coins are in the escrow pool for each denomination. Even if this number is large, there is a possibility that all these coins belong to the same person! Thus it would also be a good idea for the wallet to tell you how many unique ANC addresses were used in the zerocoin mint transactions. Why would anyone use other denominations than 1 ZC? Because there is a transaction cost for each zerocoin proof. Miners need to verify each proof (which is considerably harder than just verifying a hash), and to incentivize them to do so, each zerocoin that is spent will have a small transaction fee. For a 1000 ANC transaction, you could either redeem 1000 zerocoins each with a 1 ANC denomination (with 1000 times the transaction fee), or just 1 zerocoin with a 1000 ANC denomination (with just 1 transaction fee). I think that darkcoin does something similar. I have no idea what the transaction fees will be, but I suspect it will probably be 10 times larger than the normal fee of 0.01, so lets say it is 0.1 ANC I think that there are two ways to deal with the fee. Lets say you want to send 1 ANC to someone. (1) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1.1 ANC. When you redeem the coin, the 0.1 fee goes to the miner and the 1 ANC goes to the recipient. (2) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1 ANC, and then a second one with the denomination of the fee, 0.1 ANC. To send 1 ANC to someone, you would need to send a 1 ANC zerocoin to them, plus send a 0.1 ANC zerocoin to the miner. Option 1 is faster, as only 1 proof needs to be verified, but if you change the transaction fee at a later date, that would really screw things up. For option 2, the miner would need to verify twice as many zerocoin proofs in order to get the fee. |
|
|
|
|
|
SmokingSkull
|
|
August 26, 2014, 03:23:37 PM |
|
Aaah. Now it's getting a little clearer. Thanks!
|
Most Coins are Shitcoins
|
|
|
|
|
n00n
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 32
Merit: 0
|
|
August 26, 2014, 05:06:23 PM |
|
just once more: it would make the search engines happy if all of us added clickable links to https://anoncoin.net and https://wiki.anoncoin.net in our message footer here on bitcointalk. the best is to make describing keywords like "anoncoin" or "anonymous currency" into clickable links, instead of a clickable URL " https://anoncoin.net", like this: [url=https://anoncoin.net]Anoncoin - Anonymous Currency[/url] looks like: Anoncoin - Anonymous Currencythere are some limits to the number of characters in the footer: - Activity: 0-29 = Newbie: No styling (including links) allowed. Max 50 characters. - Activity: 30-59 = Jr. Member: Links allowed. Max 150 characters. - Activity: 60-119 = Member: Unlimited length. - Activity: 120-239 = Full: Color allowed. - Activity: 240-479 = Sr. Member: Size allowed - Activity: 480+ = Hero: Background color allowed its also good to know that search engine crawlers get excited if DOMAIN A links to DOMAIN B that links to DOMAIN C that links back to DOMAIN A. this 3 (or more) domain link circle gives trust and high relevance to the domains as the search engine likes that the domains are existing in a bigger context. much better than "me and my friend" DOMAIN A to B to A. with this in mind its good to add links to domains that links to anoncoin.net. yes, i post this to get one step closer to Jr. Member  |
|
|
|
|
n00n
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 32
Merit: 0
|
|
August 26, 2014, 05:12:10 PM |
|
new site: http://image.bayimg.com/1ff07e5f6d9a029c0afbf6060611687f35949e66.jpgplease check it out and give us some serious input on the texts before its translated to hindi and so on. i would like to include some words/themes, i dont know how, or if? good for newbies: bitcoin global good for techies: open source good for activists: anti-authoritarian activist community powered non-corporative movement all proposals are welcome. Awesome, just awesome - News is under last "editor's review now"  I'll be back shortly with post. cool that you like it. do you think the text is good or are we missing some important info about anoncoin? like the Perro user a while ago, he wanted more focus on the anti-authoritarian, activist, community powered, non-corporative, movement kind of thing, and i think he has a point - but do you? after all you are the creator would be good to get your point of view on the subject. |
|
|
|
|
|
alincoln
|
|
August 26, 2014, 06:49:55 PM |
|
Wait what? ZC can't be transferred? Here is how it will (probably) work: 1. Zerocoin Mint Transaction In your wallet, you will convert a part (or all) of your ANC into zerocoins, with 1 ANC = 1 Zerocoin. The Zerocoins will be denominated in factors of 10, so you will need to choose how to do this. Your wallet will store some information for each zerocoin you generate (like the coin serial number, an associated random number used to generate the coin, and the denomination). The blockchain will record information saying that "your public ANC address sent X ANC to the zerocoin pool." 2. Zerocoin Spend TransactionYou tell your wallet to redeem some zerocoins to a specified ANC address. This part is done using zero-knowledge proofs and the private info in your wallet so that you don't disclose who you are. This ANC address could be yours (if you want to "wash" your coins) or someone elses (if you want to do an anonymous transaction). 1 ANC will be credited to this ANC address for each Zerocoin that is redeemed. The end result is the following: The person who receives the ANC from the Zerocoin spend transaction won't know who they came from. All they will know is that they come from 1 of the people who ever owned zerocoins up to that date. As the number of people owning zerocoins will likely be VERY large, it will be impossible to guess who that person is. This differs from most other mixing services where the number of people you are mixed with is small, allowing you to play guessing games to eventually figure out who sent the coins. The only thing you will need to worry about is the following: If the number of people who contributed to the zerocoin pool for denomination X is small, you are in danger of being found out. The wallet should thus tell you how many coins are in the escrow pool for each denomination. Even if this number is large, there is a possibility that all these coins belong to the same person! Thus it would also be a good idea for the wallet to tell you how many unique ANC addresses were used in the zerocoin mint transactions. Why would anyone use other denominations than 1 ZC? Because there is a transaction cost for each zerocoin proof. Miners need to verify each proof (which is considerably harder than just verifying a hash), and to incentivize them to do so, each zerocoin that is spent will have a small transaction fee. For a 1000 ANC transaction, you could either redeem 1000 zerocoins each with a 1 ANC denomination (with 1000 times the transaction fee), or just 1 zerocoin with a 1000 ANC denomination (with just 1 transaction fee). I think that darkcoin does something similar. I have no idea what the transaction fees will be, but I suspect it will probably be 10 times larger than the normal fee of 0.01, so lets say it is 0.1 ANC I think that there are two ways to deal with the fee. Lets say you want to send 1 ANC to someone. (1) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1.1 ANC. When you redeem the coin, the 0.1 fee goes to the miner and the 1 ANC goes to the recipient. (2) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1 ANC, and then a second one with the denomination of the fee, 0.1 ANC. To send 1 ANC to someone, you would need to send a 1 ANC zerocoin to them, plus send a 0.1 ANC zerocoin to the miner. Option 1 is faster, as only 1 proof needs to be verified, but if you change the transaction fee at a later date, that would really screw things up. For option 2, the miner would need to verify twice as many zerocoin proofs in order to get the fee. For the sake of simplicity (specially for casual users), the wallet software should have an "anonymous send" function which would both mint and spend ZC to a destination ANC address using the most appropriate denomination, so that the user doesn't have to know ZC or understand what is going on behind the scenes. ANC has to be simple in order to be popular, and advanced users will always be able to mint ZC manually. The only thing users would have to understand is that "normal" send is not quite anonymous, and "anonymous send" is a bit more expensive because of the intermediary ZC step. |
|
|
|
|
mullick
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1002
|
|
August 26, 2014, 07:37:05 PM |
|
It seems that Cryptsy still have problem for withdrawing ANC. To withdrawal 3000 ANC I had to do 10 successive withdrawals. Only 1921 ANC have arrived now, four of the ten transactions sent were not included in a block yet (but I see them as unconfirmed in my ANC-qt). It seems the transactions are alot of small inputs and this increase the fee tremendously! Here is an example of one of such transaction: http://ancblockchain.com/tx/7ede9c1d53fb78ba4e16140a1389eee22ea7afd2df2ed9d7fc93c8b663ae90d6I requested 547.27272638 ANC but got only 136.7956816 ANC from 375 inputs with a fee of 0.59 ANC (cryptsy paid the fee, I paid 0.03 ANC fee) In total I paid 0.3 ANC in fee (ten times 0.03 ANC) to withdraw the 3000 ANC, the process of withdrawing took hours because I had to do it ten times and right now 4 transactions are still not confirmed. Please Cryptsy can you do something to not have such a big number of < 1 anc inputs?? This become impossible to trade at you exchange if you do nothing about those hundreds of small inputs. Hello everyone, Im currently investigating an issue with our ANC wallet where the blockchain isnt picking up the majority of our send transactions. We apologize it took us so long to spot the issue. But we are working hard on correcting it and getting the unconfirmed transactions pushed to the blockchain Some of them get confirmed after a simple restart of the daemon but others do not/ Ill keep everyone informed when I find the solution Thank you for your patience UPDATE: I think it comes down to transaction sizes. Our daemon is sending transactions that are too large to be accpeted into the chain. Im basing this on the fact that all unconfirmed send transactions have unusually high fees paid. Our default Txfee is .01 ANC and the mean over the last 1000 transactions is 0.10169169169169 which is why our withdrawal fee is set to .1 ANC anoncoind listtransactions "" 1000 | grep -A 1 -B 4 '"confirmations" : 0,' | grep fee
"fee" : -0.82000000,
"fee" : -0.90000000,
"fee" : -0.98000000,
"fee" : -0.65000000,
"fee" : -0.69000000,
"fee" : -0.72000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.76000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.81000000,
"fee" : -1.00000000,
"fee" : -0.68000000,
"fee" : -0.72000000,
"fee" : -0.73000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.76000000,
"fee" : -0.76000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.78000000,
"fee" : -0.79000000,
"fee" : -0.85000000,
"fee" : -0.96000000,
"fee" : -0.64000000,
"fee" : -0.66000000,
"fee" : -0.67000000,
"fee" : -0.69000000,
"fee" : -0.71000000,
"fee" : -0.72000000,
"fee" : -0.73000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.77000000,
"fee" : -0.79000000,
"fee" : -0.84000000,
"fee" : -0.87000000,
"fee" : -0.92000000,
"fee" : -0.95000000,
"fee" : -0.98000000,
"fee" : -0.63000000,
"fee" : -0.64000000,
"fee" : -0.65000000,
"fee" : -0.66000000,
"fee" : -0.68000000,
"fee" : -0.68000000,
"fee" : -0.69000000,
"fee" : -0.70000000,
"fee" : -0.71000000,
"fee" : -0.71000000,
"fee" : -0.72000000,
"fee" : -0.73000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.74000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.75000000,
"fee" : -0.76000000,
"fee" : -0.78000000,
"fee" : -0.80000000,
"fee" : -0.83000000,
"fee" : -0.88000000,
"fee" : -0.92000000,
"fee" : -0.99000000,
"fee" : -0.98000000,
"fee" : -0.97000000,
"fee" : -0.87000000,
"fee" : -0.81000000,
"fee" : -0.86000000, Our daemon is up to date so ill be going over the source to see if I can find anything that would cause this Anyone else with the following problems with ANC? My multipool operator sent earned ANC to me on August 18 at 2:01AM CDT, was not received and posted to my wallet until August 21 at 13:58 CDT. The multipool operator states: "The transaction hasn't been included in a block yet. It should make it into a block eventually and be confirmed. I have no control over this. It's been an ongoing issue with the ANC network for a few weeks now." That would seem to be a very strong negative against this coin.
Yes I have the same problem with huge transaction from several small inputs from Cryptsy, the transactions refuse to be included in blocks. Meeh, K1773R, can this be solved ? Cryptsy, what is this dust? Thanks As an update, the stuck tx's will be "soon" mined. Once i find a block  Good luck I have been merging inputs in our wallet to keep transaction sizes down as it seems that is the culprit. We started with 200k inputs and am down to around 20k now |
|
|
|
|
|
lunokhod2
|
|
August 26, 2014, 08:51:14 PM |
|
Wait what? ZC can't be transferred? Here is how it will (probably) work: 1. Zerocoin Mint Transaction In your wallet, you will convert a part (or all) of your ANC into zerocoins, with 1 ANC = 1 Zerocoin. The Zerocoins will be denominated in factors of 10, so you will need to choose how to do this. Your wallet will store some information for each zerocoin you generate (like the coin serial number, an associated random number used to generate the coin, and the denomination). The blockchain will record information saying that "your public ANC address sent X ANC to the zerocoin pool." 2. Zerocoin Spend TransactionYou tell your wallet to redeem some zerocoins to a specified ANC address. This part is done using zero-knowledge proofs and the private info in your wallet so that you don't disclose who you are. This ANC address could be yours (if you want to "wash" your coins) or someone elses (if you want to do an anonymous transaction). 1 ANC will be credited to this ANC address for each Zerocoin that is redeemed. The end result is the following: The person who receives the ANC from the Zerocoin spend transaction won't know who they came from. All they will know is that they come from 1 of the people who ever owned zerocoins up to that date. As the number of people owning zerocoins will likely be VERY large, it will be impossible to guess who that person is. This differs from most other mixing services where the number of people you are mixed with is small, allowing you to play guessing games to eventually figure out who sent the coins. The only thing you will need to worry about is the following: If the number of people who contributed to the zerocoin pool for denomination X is small, you are in danger of being found out. The wallet should thus tell you how many coins are in the escrow pool for each denomination. Even if this number is large, there is a possibility that all these coins belong to the same person! Thus it would also be a good idea for the wallet to tell you how many unique ANC addresses were used in the zerocoin mint transactions. Why would anyone use other denominations than 1 ZC? Because there is a transaction cost for each zerocoin proof. Miners need to verify each proof (which is considerably harder than just verifying a hash), and to incentivize them to do so, each zerocoin that is spent will have a small transaction fee. For a 1000 ANC transaction, you could either redeem 1000 zerocoins each with a 1 ANC denomination (with 1000 times the transaction fee), or just 1 zerocoin with a 1000 ANC denomination (with just 1 transaction fee). I think that darkcoin does something similar. I have no idea what the transaction fees will be, but I suspect it will probably be 10 times larger than the normal fee of 0.01, so lets say it is 0.1 ANC I think that there are two ways to deal with the fee. Lets say you want to send 1 ANC to someone. (1) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1.1 ANC. When you redeem the coin, the 0.1 fee goes to the miner and the 1 ANC goes to the recipient. (2) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1 ANC, and then a second one with the denomination of the fee, 0.1 ANC. To send 1 ANC to someone, you would need to send a 1 ANC zerocoin to them, plus send a 0.1 ANC zerocoin to the miner. Option 1 is faster, as only 1 proof needs to be verified, but if you change the transaction fee at a later date, that would really screw things up. For option 2, the miner would need to verify twice as many zerocoin proofs in order to get the fee. For the sake of simplicity (specially for casual users), the wallet software should have an "anonymous send" function which would both mint and spend ZC to a destination ANC address using the most appropriate denomination, so that the user doesn't have to know ZC or understand what is going on behind the scenes. ANC has to be simple in order to be popular, and advanced users will always be able to mint ZC manually. The only thing users would have to understand is that "normal" send is not quite anonymous, and "anonymous send" is a bit more expensive because of the intermediary ZC step. One problem with doing this is that your transaction could be deanonymized by a timing analysis. If you buy X zerocoins, and then immediately spend the same amount, that would look really suspicious in the block chain. Another possible solution might be instead to have all coins in your wallet immediately converted to zerocoins. Perhaps the wallet could say "You just recieved X ANC. Would you like to convert them to Zercoins?" |
|
|
|
|
|
lunokhod2
|
|
August 26, 2014, 08:56:17 PM |
|
Say your opinion!
A hypothetical question that does not necessarily have any ulterior motive; If Anoncoin switched hashing algorithm, what type of hashing algorithm would you liked to see then?
a) The current hashing algorithms used by coins are becoming a variation of the way fiat is created. If you have money you can make money. Even cpu is basically like that. b) If coins were generated in a more novel way that provided some added value to the process they would catch on. Peercoin and primecoin added value to the process. There are many ways to make the coin generation process less useless. Anoncoin could develop an algo that is both fair, in that any person can generate a small amount of coins easily, and also useful, in that the process does something worthwhile besides only creating coins. Does anyone have an opinion on a 100% proof-of-stake system, similar to Peercoin? (actually, they use a mixed POW and POS system.) The benefit is that there is little energy used with POS compared to energy hungry POW algorithms. The downside is that there is built in monetary inflation (albeit, very low at 1% for peercoin, if I remember correctly). |
|
|
|
|
|
entertheabyss
|
|
August 27, 2014, 01:21:06 AM |
|
Is ANC under a blockchain spam attack like XMR was some days ago?
No blocks since five hours and Network Hashrate @ 12.47 GH/s
Last blocks are all with 29 tx of small amounts to AJqUPzbF6epPjkyoGhV1VKYJL68nYBaSQS
Now we can see the importance of the algo...
The transactions to AJqUPzbF6epPjkyoGhV1VKYJL68nYBaSQS are most likely cryptsy getting rid of dust. That doesnt seem to explain the hash rate spike and the block delays. |
|
|
|
|
matthewh3
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1003
|
|
August 27, 2014, 01:59:34 AM |
|
Does anyone have an opinion on a 100% proof-of-stake system, similar to Peercoin? (actually, they use a mixed POW and POS system.)
The benefit is that there is little energy used with POS compared to energy hungry POW algorithms.
The downside is that there is built in monetary inflation (albeit, very low at 1% for peercoin, if I remember correctly).
People are more attracted to 100% proof of stake in new coins now. Only miners don't like it. For the coin and the value of the coin 100% proof of stake is better than regular mining. regular mined coins / btc, ltc etc / 1 star proof of stake / nxt, cap, etc / 2 stars innovative productive / xpm, ric etc / 3 stars innovative productive variation of proof of stake / huc, etc / 4 stars Going to 100% regular proof of stake is like adding a piece of celery to a bowl of rice. Is it an improvement? Yes. a significant improvement? No. Nothing creative or new about it but yes, rice with celery is better than rice without celery. With a block reward of 2.5 ANC in some months, we will loose all small miners against big centralized miners that will control the network as they want. Then, in my opinion, PoS would be a good option. They could program the inflation rate to have same coins distribution as the actual PoW algo (4 million ANC at the same approximated date). Well if the volume and value of rewards are dropping faster than any increases in ANC price. Then that's where AuxPoW comes into play by merge-mining with much larger networked coins. PoS in it's current form doesn't really work. DPoS is interesting but isn't the ultimate solution to replace PoW as a fair distribution model. A myriad of AuxPoW with much larger networked coins will secure the ANC network a lot more than going to any pure PoS model or even DPoS. Peercoin is a very interesting attempt at the problem of avoiding sybil attacks. Although to copy their moves would mean to adopt a continuously inflationary model. I feel small coins grouping together into AuxPoW could help them build strong networks cheaply. While using a myriad of merge-mined netowrks could strengthen Anoncoin even more. |
|
|
|
|
alincoln
|
|
August 27, 2014, 02:20:45 AM |
|
Wait what? ZC can't be transferred? Here is how it will (probably) work: 1. Zerocoin Mint Transaction In your wallet, you will convert a part (or all) of your ANC into zerocoins, with 1 ANC = 1 Zerocoin. The Zerocoins will be denominated in factors of 10, so you will need to choose how to do this. Your wallet will store some information for each zerocoin you generate (like the coin serial number, an associated random number used to generate the coin, and the denomination). The blockchain will record information saying that "your public ANC address sent X ANC to the zerocoin pool." 2. Zerocoin Spend TransactionYou tell your wallet to redeem some zerocoins to a specified ANC address. This part is done using zero-knowledge proofs and the private info in your wallet so that you don't disclose who you are. This ANC address could be yours (if you want to "wash" your coins) or someone elses (if you want to do an anonymous transaction). 1 ANC will be credited to this ANC address for each Zerocoin that is redeemed. The end result is the following: The person who receives the ANC from the Zerocoin spend transaction won't know who they came from. All they will know is that they come from 1 of the people who ever owned zerocoins up to that date. As the number of people owning zerocoins will likely be VERY large, it will be impossible to guess who that person is. This differs from most other mixing services where the number of people you are mixed with is small, allowing you to play guessing games to eventually figure out who sent the coins. The only thing you will need to worry about is the following: If the number of people who contributed to the zerocoin pool for denomination X is small, you are in danger of being found out. The wallet should thus tell you how many coins are in the escrow pool for each denomination. Even if this number is large, there is a possibility that all these coins belong to the same person! Thus it would also be a good idea for the wallet to tell you how many unique ANC addresses were used in the zerocoin mint transactions. Why would anyone use other denominations than 1 ZC? Because there is a transaction cost for each zerocoin proof. Miners need to verify each proof (which is considerably harder than just verifying a hash), and to incentivize them to do so, each zerocoin that is spent will have a small transaction fee. For a 1000 ANC transaction, you could either redeem 1000 zerocoins each with a 1 ANC denomination (with 1000 times the transaction fee), or just 1 zerocoin with a 1000 ANC denomination (with just 1 transaction fee). I think that darkcoin does something similar. I have no idea what the transaction fees will be, but I suspect it will probably be 10 times larger than the normal fee of 0.01, so lets say it is 0.1 ANC I think that there are two ways to deal with the fee. Lets say you want to send 1 ANC to someone. (1) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1.1 ANC. When you redeem the coin, the 0.1 fee goes to the miner and the 1 ANC goes to the recipient. (2) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1 ANC, and then a second one with the denomination of the fee, 0.1 ANC. To send 1 ANC to someone, you would need to send a 1 ANC zerocoin to them, plus send a 0.1 ANC zerocoin to the miner. Option 1 is faster, as only 1 proof needs to be verified, but if you change the transaction fee at a later date, that would really screw things up. For option 2, the miner would need to verify twice as many zerocoin proofs in order to get the fee. For the sake of simplicity (specially for casual users), the wallet software should have an "anonymous send" function which would both mint and spend ZC to a destination ANC address using the most appropriate denomination, so that the user doesn't have to know ZC or understand what is going on behind the scenes. ANC has to be simple in order to be popular, and advanced users will always be able to mint ZC manually. The only thing users would have to understand is that "normal" send is not quite anonymous, and "anonymous send" is a bit more expensive because of the intermediary ZC step. One problem with doing this is that your transaction could be deanonymized by a timing analysis. If you buy X zerocoins, and then immediately spend the same amount, that would look really suspicious in the block chain. Another possible solution might be instead to have all coins in your wallet immediately converted to zerocoins. Perhaps the wallet could say "You just recieved X ANC. Would you like to convert them to Zercoins?" That would still be too complex for casual users, for they would necessarily need to "know" Zerocoins. The whole idea of having "anon coins" and "zero coins" somehow co-existing in the same wallet is counter-intuitive. The ANC team should "hide" ZC from casual users that just want to have their ANC transactions fully anonymous. That said, I understand the problem you are posing. What about keeping my original "anonymous send" concept, but warn the user that a fast/immediate "anonymization" of a transaction might look suspicious in the blockchain? The software could then ask the user how long he or she would be willing to wait for the whole transaction to complete, and then work in the backgroung, breaking the mint/spend in several steps within the specified time, allowing a random delay before the next spend. Also, ANC should really drop the "Zerocoin" terminology in the user interface. We don't need two "coins" as there is really just one coin, which is ANC. For UI purposes, how about simply calling zerocoins "vouchers", which can be redeemed for ANC at a later time? |
|
|
|
|
|
drAGon925
|
|
August 27, 2014, 06:35:44 AM |
|
Wait what? ZC can't be transferred? Here is how it will (probably) work: 1. Zerocoin Mint Transaction In your wallet, you will convert a part (or all) of your ANC into zerocoins, with 1 ANC = 1 Zerocoin. The Zerocoins will be denominated in factors of 10, so you will need to choose how to do this. Your wallet will store some information for each zerocoin you generate (like the coin serial number, an associated random number used to generate the coin, and the denomination). The blockchain will record information saying that "your public ANC address sent X ANC to the zerocoin pool." 2. Zerocoin Spend TransactionYou tell your wallet to redeem some zerocoins to a specified ANC address. This part is done using zero-knowledge proofs and the private info in your wallet so that you don't disclose who you are. This ANC address could be yours (if you want to "wash" your coins) or someone elses (if you want to do an anonymous transaction). 1 ANC will be credited to this ANC address for each Zerocoin that is redeemed. The end result is the following: The person who receives the ANC from the Zerocoin spend transaction won't know who they came from. All they will know is that they come from 1 of the people who ever owned zerocoins up to that date. As the number of people owning zerocoins will likely be VERY large, it will be impossible to guess who that person is. This differs from most other mixing services where the number of people you are mixed with is small, allowing you to play guessing games to eventually figure out who sent the coins. The only thing you will need to worry about is the following: If the number of people who contributed to the zerocoin pool for denomination X is small, you are in danger of being found out. The wallet should thus tell you how many coins are in the escrow pool for each denomination. Even if this number is large, there is a possibility that all these coins belong to the same person! Thus it would also be a good idea for the wallet to tell you how many unique ANC addresses were used in the zerocoin mint transactions. Why would anyone use other denominations than 1 ZC? Because there is a transaction cost for each zerocoin proof. Miners need to verify each proof (which is considerably harder than just verifying a hash), and to incentivize them to do so, each zerocoin that is spent will have a small transaction fee. For a 1000 ANC transaction, you could either redeem 1000 zerocoins each with a 1 ANC denomination (with 1000 times the transaction fee), or just 1 zerocoin with a 1000 ANC denomination (with just 1 transaction fee). I think that darkcoin does something similar. I have no idea what the transaction fees will be, but I suspect it will probably be 10 times larger than the normal fee of 0.01, so lets say it is 0.1 ANC I think that there are two ways to deal with the fee. Lets say you want to send 1 ANC to someone. (1) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1.1 ANC. When you redeem the coin, the 0.1 fee goes to the miner and the 1 ANC goes to the recipient. (2) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1 ANC, and then a second one with the denomination of the fee, 0.1 ANC. To send 1 ANC to someone, you would need to send a 1 ANC zerocoin to them, plus send a 0.1 ANC zerocoin to the miner. Option 1 is faster, as only 1 proof needs to be verified, but if you change the transaction fee at a later date, that would really screw things up. For option 2, the miner would need to verify twice as many zerocoin proofs in order to get the fee. For the sake of simplicity (specially for casual users), the wallet software should have an "anonymous send" function which would both mint and spend ZC to a destination ANC address using the most appropriate denomination, so that the user doesn't have to know ZC or understand what is going on behind the scenes. ANC has to be simple in order to be popular, and advanced users will always be able to mint ZC manually. The only thing users would have to understand is that "normal" send is not quite anonymous, and "anonymous send" is a bit more expensive because of the intermediary ZC step. One problem with doing this is that your transaction could be deanonymized by a timing analysis. If you buy X zerocoins, and then immediately spend the same amount, that would look really suspicious in the block chain. Another possible solution might be instead to have all coins in your wallet immediately converted to zerocoins. Perhaps the wallet could say "You just recieved X ANC. Would you like to convert them to Zercoins?" That would still be too complex for casual users, for they would necessarily need to "know" Zerocoins. The whole idea of having "anon coins" and "zero coins" somehow co-existing in the same wallet is counter-intuitive. The ANC team should "hide" ZC from casual users that just want to have their ANC transactions fully anonymous. That said, I understand the problem you are posing. What about keeping my original "anonymous send" concept, but warn the user that a fast/immediate "anonymization" of a transaction might look suspicious in the blockchain? The software could then ask the user how long he or she would be willing to wait for the whole transaction to complete, and then work in the backgroung, breaking the mint/spend in several steps within the specified time, allowing a random delay before the next spend. Also, ANC should really drop the "Zerocoin" terminology in the user interface. We don't need two "coins" as there is really just one coin, which is ANC. For UI purposes, how about simply calling zerocoins "vouchers", which can be redeemed for ANC at a later time? I'm a casual user and really do not have any problem with ANC with option to change them in ZC, if that will be easy like one or few clicks. Or if would be possible, it is ok to be like now just ANC, and all will know that ZC is inside, with anonymity. Who do not want to be anon, why use ANC anyway.. Hello to all ANC fans and watchers, I was on vacation  |
|
|
|
|
|
drAGon925
|
|
August 27, 2014, 06:42:06 AM
Last edit: August 27, 2014, 08:46:52 AM by drAGon925 |
|
Does anyone have an opinion on a 100% proof-of-stake system, similar to Peercoin? (actually, they use a mixed POW and POS system.)
The benefit is that there is little energy used with POS compared to energy hungry POW algorithms.
The downside is that there is built in monetary inflation (albeit, very low at 1% for peercoin, if I remember correctly).
People are more attracted to 100% proof of stake in new coins now. Only miners don't like it. For the coin and the value of the coin 100% proof of stake is better than regular mining. regular mined coins / btc, ltc etc / 1 star proof of stake / nxt, cap, etc / 2 stars innovative productive / xpm, ric etc / 3 stars innovative productive variation of proof of stake / huc, etc / 4 stars Going to 100% regular proof of stake is like adding a piece of celery to a bowl of rice. Is it an improvement? Yes. a significant improvement? No. Nothing creative or new about it but yes, rice with celery is better than rice without celery. With a block reward of 2.5 ANC in some months, we will loose all small miners against big centralized miners that will control the network as they want. Then, in my opinion, PoS would be a good option. They could program the inflation rate to have same coins distribution as the actual PoW algo (4 million ANC at the same approximated date). You really work on Android..?? This is great! Release in the same time as ZC? With a block reword halving you plan to quit mining? : ) Maybe you will because of difficulty, but price would be higher then now... But yea, I accept every change right now, we need moves! Keep working, and give us some progress, maybe every Monday?  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
drAGon925
|
|
August 27, 2014, 06:47:52 AM |
|
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls, somebody wants to make panic sale, selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..
|
|
|
|
|
|
SmokingSkull
|
|
August 27, 2014, 07:20:08 AM |
|
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls, somebody wants to make panic sale, selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..
No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me... For all this work that is being done ... nothing! I mean, even if ZC gets implemented will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable |
Most Coins are Shitcoins
|
|
|
sorrros
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 954
Merit: 104
ludenaprotocol.io
|
|
August 27, 2014, 07:43:35 AM |
|
Best for anonymity would be to automatically convert all ANC to ZC so that the total number of ZC coins and addresses is high.
I don't see why users should be given an option to send ANC without anonymity... the vision for ANC is anonymity, not a choice to send anonymously.
The user doesn't even have to know what's going on behind the scene with ZC, and the QT may even show amounts in ANC only.
This would 1) maximize anonymity and 2) make it simpler for users.
|
|
|
|
|
drAGon925
|
|
August 27, 2014, 07:45:02 AM |
|
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls, somebody wants to make panic sale, selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..
No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me... For all this work that is being done ... nothing! I mean, even if ZC gets implemented will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable Can we change name to AnoncoinDark or something , maybe will be more volume and success : ) Obviously there is some group of ppl who support few coins and go from one to another to pump. Maybe ANC is on they TODO list |
|
|
|
|
|
