[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[TanteStefana]

You can always see when TanteStefana wakes up from the dead. Post after post

I know, I've got to stop doing that.  It must annoy everyone!  LOL

[1715588293]

1715588293

[TanteStefana]

Interesting article in Wired about Bitcoin's place as a hybrid payments system: http://www.wired.com/2014/03/bitcoin-currency_martin/

What I found most interesting as a DRK holder were these final paras!

"The existing, bank-based payments system is expensive and antediluvian — but also profitable and therefore jealously guarded by its powerful owners. Other technologies co-exist — such as cash payment face-to-face, or the developing world staple of hawala for international transfers — but they cannot seriously compete with banks. If Bitcoin’s technology is as cheap, as scalable, and as secure as its advocates claim, it may be different.

That last point, of course, is crucial. One reason that cash, that most archaic of payments technologies, still exists, is because it really is anonymous. Anonymity in transactions can be abused, of course. But it remains a basic civil liberty. Payments systems that use ledgers rarely offer the same assurance. Efficiency and economy are nice to have: but not at the cost of our right to privacy."

+1 nice article

it's always nice when someone brings into focus in a slightly new way, what currency really is and always has been.  We're not reinventing the wheel, just adding the wings so we can take off and land and drive in the air

[TanteStefana]

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin.

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users.

If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete.

Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node.

Best of luck with it.

Thanks AnonyMint!
You are the real deal in anonymityland

James

What he suggests is unlikely, but even if some nodes are run by the NSA, which is likely, why not?, then they might get info for one transaction.  Big deal, they can't always be the master node, there are too many other nodes running.  And to "fix" such a minute problem, or possible issue, one would have to complicate the system to such a degree, I am certain you'd create more holes than you can cover up.

sounds good, in practice it's a disaster.  KISS, Is the way I think it should go.  That Anonymint will never understand, as he keeps going on and on about the same half dozen issues.  It's like conspiracy theories.  yah, they could have happened, but how  likely is it?  With other  more reasonable explanations and the fact that the government is so dang inept.  It's just silly.

[TanteStefana]

The issue Anonymint raises is not about losing anonymity, but of Darksends being blocked
good thing he also proposed a divide and conquer workaround
getting that added to Darksend will make it 10 times better!!

Blocking darksends?  Why would the NSA want to do that?  It would be detected, they don't want to be detected, they want to gather information.

[eduffield]

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin.

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users.

If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete.

Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node.

Best of luck with it.

Thanks AnonyMint!
You are the real deal in anonymityland

James

What he suggests is unlikely, but even if some nodes are run by the NSA, which is likely, why not?, then they might get info for one transaction.  Big deal, they can't always be the master node, there are too many other nodes running.  And to "fix" such a minute problem, or possible issue, one would have to complicate the system to such a degree, I am certain you'd create more holes than you can cover up.

sounds good, in practice it's a disaster.  KISS, Is the way I think it should go.  That Anonymint will never understand, as he keeps going on and on about the same half dozen issues.  It's like conspiracy theories.  yah, they could have happened, but how  likely is it?  With other  more reasonable explanations and the fact that the government is so dang inept.  It's just silly.

It's even more unlikely if we require the master nodes have 1000DRK and it would elect them from the whole network. That way if there's 5000 capable master nodes, it would cost 5000*1000DRK to de-anonymize 50% of the transactions. Seems like a good compromise.

PS. If one user doesn't sign, the whole process needs to restart. Which really just means the master node will ask all users to resubmit their inputs/outputs/signatures and will charge the user.

[P2PHash]

Updated to the new wallet and network! Now with Cryptsy price displayed
Address: drk.p2phash.com

P2Pool benefits:
* No registration required
* Distributed hashrate
* Immediate payouts after a block is found
* Higher payouts with transaction fees paid to miners
* No account hack possible

Fee: only 0.5%
Start mining within seconds! Just point your miner to p2phash.com:7903 and use the Darkcoin address from your wallet for username, the password doesn't matter.

You can now follow us on twitter: https://twitter.com/P2PHash

[coins101]

[louiseth1]

For all of those that are mining on Dark.SuchPool.pw, this is a brief statement concernings our statistics issue.

Basically, our stratum inserted shares at a very low diff (because of the required stratum settings). We modified some stuff and got the stratum to insert shares at a more accurate difficulty in the DB.

The stats you are now seeing on our pools are far more accurate. However, the Block statistics page will be innacurate for a while because we can't modify the informations on the blocks already solved.

If you have any question, feel free to contact us at admin@suchpool.pw or simply join our irc channel #SuchPool on Freenode.

Thanks again for mining with us!

[coins101]

The Litecoin devs have posted a response to Scrypt ASICs.

They also talk about Darkcoin and X11, which I guess means that lots of people have pointed it out over there as an option to Scrypt PoW.

https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=18166.0

Warren is an excellent developer. Can we get a bounty for him to join?

[coins101]

Wow...900 difficulty.

[stealth923]

Wow...900 difficulty.

Insane 15gh network speed....so little coins now 

[blajde]

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin.

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users.

If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete.

Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node.

Best of luck with it.

Thanks AnonyMint!
You are the real deal in anonymityland

James

What he suggests is unlikely, but even if some nodes are run by the NSA, which is likely, why not?, then they might get info for one transaction.  Big deal, they can't always be the master node, there are too many other nodes running.  And to "fix" such a minute problem, or possible issue, one would have to complicate the system to such a degree, I am certain you'd create more holes than you can cover up.

sounds good, in practice it's a disaster.  KISS, Is the way I think it should go.  That Anonymint will never understand, as he keeps going on and on about the same half dozen issues.  It's like conspiracy theories.  yah, they could have happened, but how  likely is it?  With other  more reasonable explanations and the fact that the government is so dang inept.  It's just silly.

It's even more unlikely if we require the master nodes have 1000DRK and it would elect them from the whole network. That way if there's 5000 capable master nodes, it would cost 5000*1000DRK to de-anonymize 50% of the transactions. Seems like a good compromise.

PS. If one user doesn't sign, the whole process needs to restart. Which really just means the master node will ask all users to resubmit their inputs/outputs/signatures and will charge the user.

I think this is really good. It addresses the key points of anonymity in its essence even if it doesn't.

All you really have to do is to make the process more expensive than what they can afford to spend on it.

Say they were after the heavy criminals that would be 0.01% of the people using Darksend. Which give the rest of the users 99.999 % anonymity (in its essence)

Why would they want to spend this much on your information when you are not flagged for anything or something that will result in a 50 fine ticket - or just get info, period.

So one approach is to make it as expensive as possible, in whatever way.

Thoughts?

[stealth923]

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin.

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users.

If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete.

Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node.

Best of luck with it.

Thanks AnonyMint!
You are the real deal in anonymityland

James

What he suggests is unlikely, but even if some nodes are run by the NSA, which is likely, why not?, then they might get info for one transaction.  Big deal, they can't always be the master node, there are too many other nodes running.  And to "fix" such a minute problem, or possible issue, one would have to complicate the system to such a degree, I am certain you'd create more holes than you can cover up.

sounds good, in practice it's a disaster.  KISS, Is the way I think it should go.  That Anonymint will never understand, as he keeps going on and on about the same half dozen issues.  It's like conspiracy theories.  yah, they could have happened, but how  likely is it?  With other  more reasonable explanations and the fact that the government is so dang inept.  It's just silly.

It's even more unlikely if we require the master nodes have 1000DRK and it would elect them from the whole network. That way if there's 5000 capable master nodes, it would cost 5000*1000DRK to de-anonymize 50% of the transactions. Seems like a good compromise.

PS. If one user doesn't sign, the whole process needs to restart. Which really just means the master node will ask all users to resubmit their inputs/outputs/signatures and will charge the user.

I think this is really good. It addresses the key points of anonymity in its essence even if it doesn't.

All you really have to do is to make the process more expensive than what they can afford to spend on it.

Say they were after the heavy criminals that would be 0.01% of the people using Darksend. Which give the rest of the users 99.999 % anonymity (in its essence)

Why would they want to spend this much on your information when you are not flagged for anything or something that will result in a 50 fine ticket - or just get info, period.

So one approach is to make it as expensive as possible, in whatever way.

Thoughts?

This is genius - especially when the price rises, so does the cost to obtain any information albeit with a very high chance of it being worthless. Love it!

[jl777]

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin.

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users.

If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete.

Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node.

Best of luck with it.

Thanks AnonyMint!
You are the real deal in anonymityland

James

What he suggests is unlikely, but even if some nodes are run by the NSA, which is likely, why not?, then they might get info for one transaction.  Big deal, they can't always be the master node, there are too many other nodes running.  And to "fix" such a minute problem, or possible issue, one would have to complicate the system to such a degree, I am certain you'd create more holes than you can cover up.

sounds good, in practice it's a disaster.  KISS, Is the way I think it should go.  That Anonymint will never understand, as he keeps going on and on about the same half dozen issues.  It's like conspiracy theories.  yah, they could have happened, but how  likely is it?  With other  more reasonable explanations and the fact that the government is so dang inept.  It's just silly.

It's even more unlikely if we require the master nodes have 1000DRK and it would elect them from the whole network. That way if there's 5000 capable master nodes, it would cost 5000*1000DRK to de-anonymize 50% of the transactions. Seems like a good compromise.

PS. If one user doesn't sign, the whole process needs to restart. Which really just means the master node will ask all users to resubmit their inputs/outputs/signatures and will charge the user.

Not sure this approach wont be counterproductive. After all, cost wouldnt be a deterrent to attacker and unless 1000 DRK is something most of the users will have, it will limit the pool of possible master nodes.  Thus increasing the chances that it is a compromised node.
Also, even if "only" 10% of the transactions are de-anonymized, over time a fairly complete path analysis will become available.

All of this is not a concern for the mass market, but we need to be careful what sort of expectations DRK is setting
I think as is for initial release is fine and if you can implement the divide and conquer approach down the line, so much the better

James

[tungfa]

DRK just got ad to
Coin Ticker
https://itunes.apple.com/hk/app/coin-ticker-bitcoin-litecoin/id636476147?mt=8

this is a good one …>>>

[tifozi]

Alright I was pretty jaded with the whole Hirocoin approach when it came to their launch and how they were marketing x11(while putting down Darkcoin). In retrospect they have clearly given so much air to it, to augment what some already knew mining Darkcoin, that x11 is now talk of the crypto world. So thank you Hirocoin.

Lots of press with the whole Litecoin rejecting proposed x11 hardfork and some FUD agents actually hyping it even more in the process.

I have a feeling that Dogecoin are considering it too. If they do it, they will get humongous support from GPU miners. Much respect.

[TanteStefana]

In a way, this might be a good thing.  If the asic developers can't make money because coins simply change their algorithms this time around-and probably in the future, it's possible we won't even have a future threat!  Game over, we won!

[falsealarm_bf]

In a way, this might be a good thing.  If the asic developers can't make money because coins simply change their algorithms this time around-and probably in the future, it's possible we won't even have a future threat!  Game over, we won!

What if all of that is followed by a Bitcoin hard fork for the same? Can you imagine, for a brief moment, the insanity that would ensue?

[JPGagnon]

Hey Guys, I just wanted to mention that I've launched my coin - Québecoin - It's a currency for the province (and nation) of Québec, Canada. It features both X11 and DarkGravityWave. I'm very thankful towards Evan (as you can see in my thread) for both those creations and I think they are cutting edge. Here's a picture we made for Dark Gravity Wave, maybe you can use it for Darkcoin as well.



Here's the link to Québecoin - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552561.0

And our webpage www.qbc.io

P.S. : We have no intention of implementing Darksend - that is yours to have and keep and we know that.

[smns]

Hey Guys, I just wanted to mention that I've launched my coin - Québecoin - It's a currency for the province (and nation) of Québec, Canada. It features both X11 and DarkGravityWave. I'm very thankful towards Evan (as you can see in my thread) for both those creations and I think they are cutting edge. Here's a picture we made for Dark Gravity Wave, maybe you can use it for Darkcoin as well.

https://i.imgur.com/yacvlHA.png

Here's the link to Québecoin - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552561.0

P.S. : We have no intention of implementing Darksend - that is yours to have and keep and we know that.

Stop making shitcoins please