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

[thelonecrouton]

I might be overwhelmingly naive and optimistic, but perhaps its an exchange (BTC-e???) that is accumulating drk in order to introduce it and have the liquidity to support it...

NOW THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING!!!

If an exchange needs liquidity, it's doing it wrong or up to no good. They're not banks, they exist to swap money between customers and take a small cut of each trade, that's all, they shouldn't need stockpiles of whatever they list.

I beg the differ.
If BTC-e suddenly introduces drk trading, they have loads of demand, but no supply.
Furthermore, no-one here in their right mind would transfer drk to btc-e in order to sell unless price skyrockets bcs we all understand the potential of such a move.
SO, if i were them, i'd stack a pile of drk to introduce liquidity right from the start.
But - it's all hypothetical...

If BTC-e introduces DRK, sellers as well as buyers will come and the market will dictate the price.

[Joshuar]

Darkcoin is the only coin I'm interested in besides Bitcoin.

[thelonecrouton]

So I PMed Evan about this, but I figured I'd throw this out to the community to see if you guys could come up with a solution.

I've been thinking about the denomination of coins in darksend and I think I've ran into a problem.

If I want to darksend 954 coins from Address A to Address B, how will this be denominated?  The most obvious way to do it is:

9 entries into the 100 coin pool
5 entries into the 10 coin pool
4 entries into the 1 coin pool

The problem is - it will be clear that Address A sent 954 coins to address B by looking at the block chain - it doesn't matter how much mixing occurs, 954 coins leave address A, then sometime later 954 coins accumulate at address B.

The only way I can think of keep it anonymous is if the coins are sent to multiple receiving addresses. I suggested a while ago in the thread that maybe multiple addresses could be concatenated together and used as a "DarkRecieve" address - this would allow multiple coins to be received in denominated fashion.

Another potential solution is to require that in order to send 954 coins you must have a total of 1000 coins, but this would be a really bad solution because if you just wanted to send 101 coins you would need an addtional 899 coins in your wallet to enter into the 1000 coin pool to ensure anonymity.

Let me know if you guys can think of any great solutions.

Need more brainstorming!!111

To use a cash analogy, if I give you £954 and nobody sees the money changing hands, and neither of us keep any record of it except mentally, then we have an anonymous transaction.

If we are seen/photographed passing cash from one hand to the other, we're busted, or if records are later found, we're possibly incriminated.

However you mix the transaction, currently there are partial records, at least on the sending end. DarkSend by itself does not provide perfect anonymity, no one tool can accomplish that. Other steps need to be taken.

Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.

[fernando]

To be fair, I also predict some gnashing of teeth from myself, because I could pick up a lot more DRK, it's just that the wife would certainly kill me if it all went wrong.

Wives love fiat 

Mine has stopped asking and I have stopped telling 

[chompyZ]

Need more brainstorming!!111

Suppose we look at a wallet just as we look at a desktop-client mail software.
The Receiver can receive his coins ONLY when he opens his wallet and it connects to the internet.
(just as a mail client connects to the mail-server and downloads its awaiting mail).
By doing so, it can provide various receiving addresses, and hence the denomination occurs.

The question then arises where these coins reside in the meantime (between sending and the receiver opening his wallet and claiming these coins?

The answer imho - create a side-blockchain, run by the supernodes, of coins waiting for being claimed by receivers. once receiver claims the coins that await him, the transaction is closed.

[hyeoam]

Charts here: http://crypto-prices.com/DRK

[GhostPlayer]

Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.

I never understood why this is not standard.

[thelonecrouton]

Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.

I never understood why this is not standard.

I've been going on about this since page 600 and you're the only person who's noticed. 

[AlexGR]

Can't you use an encrypted folder?

[Simcom]

Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.

I never understood why this is not standard.

I've been going on about this since page 600 and you're the only person who's noticed. 

I'm not even sure what this means to be honest.  Are you saying you shouldn't need to manually encrypt wallet and add password, it should prompt for a new password as soon as the wallet launches for the first time?

[Simcom]

Need more brainstorming!!111

Suppose we look at a wallet just as we look at a desktop-client mail software.
The Receiver can receive his coins ONLY when he opens his wallet and it connects to the internet.
(just as a mail client connects to the mail-server and downloads its awaiting mail).
By doing so, it can provide various receiving addresses, and hence the denomination occurs.

The question then arises where these coins reside in the meantime (between sending and the receiver opening his wallet and claiming these coins?

The answer imho - create a side-blockchain, run by the supernodes, of coins waiting for being claimed by receivers. once receiver claims the coins that await him, the transaction is closed.

I think there are too many drawbacks.  1) all supernodes would now have a list (via side blockchain) of who is sending who what coins, which is definitely not ideal. 2) you should be able to verify that a transaction was made without having the wallet present - if it works as you suggest you wouldn't be able to set up a true cold wallet and verify that coins have been sent to the wallet via block explorer.

[thelonecrouton]

Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.

I never understood why this is not standard.

I've been going on about this since page 600 and you're the only person who's noticed.  

I'm not even sure what this means to be honest.  Are you saying you shouldn't need to manually encrypt wallet and add password, it should prompt for a new password as soon as the wallet launches for the first time?

Not the first time, because you haven't set a password yet, but if you've encrypted your wallet, it should ask you for a password subsequently, before opening up and allowing everyone and anyone to see full records of your transactions. Or copying your .dat and viewing everything you've done later.

You expect to have to enter a password to see your banking online, right? And your email, and your exchange accounts, and just about everything else, for good reason. For an "anonymous" coin, it's a baffling omission.

[chompyZ]

Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.

I never understood why this is not standard.

I've been going on about this since page 600 and you're the only person who's noticed.  

I'm not even sure what this means to be honest.  Are you saying you shouldn't need to manually encrypt wallet and add password, it should prompt for a new password as soon as the wallet launches for the first time?

Not the first time, because you haven't set a password yet, but if you've encrypted your wallet, it should ask you for a password subsequently, before opening up and allowing everyone and anyone to see full records of your transactions. Or copying your .dat and viewing everything you've done later.

You expect to have to enter a password to see your banking online, right? And your email, and your exchange accounts, and just about everything else, for good reason. For an "anonymous" coin, it's a baffling omission.

It's a nuisance... but i agree it is in place, especially if it comes as a checkbox "require password on start-up" that i can un-check if i want to avoid this every time.

[Simcom]

Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.

I never understood why this is not standard.

I've been going on about this since page 600 and you're the only person who's noticed.  

I'm not even sure what this means to be honest.  Are you saying you shouldn't need to manually encrypt wallet and add password, it should prompt for a new password as soon as the wallet launches for the first time?

Not the first time, because you haven't set a password yet, but if you've encrypted your wallet, it should ask you for a password subsequently, before opening up and allowing everyone and anyone to see full records of your transactions. Or copying your .dat and viewing everything you've done later.

You expect to have to enter a password to see your banking online, right? And your email, and your exchange accounts, and just about everything else, for good reason. For an "anonymous" coin, it's a baffling omission.

Hmm, yes that is a good point. I agree a password should be required to see history of transactions.  The problem I see is that the more times you input your password the more chances a malicious key-logger has to get your coins. :/ It guess it is a tradeoff.

[Honest Tim]

Password protecting the goddamn wallet on startup would alleviate the sender-record problem at least.

I never understood why this is not standard.

I've been going on about this since page 600 and you're the only person who's noticed.  

I'm not even sure what this means to be honest.  Are you saying you shouldn't need to manually encrypt wallet and add password, it should prompt for a new password as soon as the wallet launches for the first time?

Not the first time, because you haven't set a password yet, but if you've encrypted your wallet, it should ask you for a password subsequently, before opening up and allowing everyone and anyone to see full records of your transactions. Or copying your .dat and viewing everything you've done later.

You expect to have to enter a password to see your banking online, right? And your email, and your exchange accounts, and just about everything else, for good reason. For an "anonymous" coin, it's a baffling omission.

Hmm, yes that is a good point. I agree a password should be required to see history of transactions.  The problem I see is that the more times you input your password the more chances a malicious key-logger has to get your coins. :/ It guess it is a tradeoff.

Then maybe the same anti-keylogging measures that are taken with internet banking then?

[coins101]

Is it really a good thing to have one guy owning 5% of the coin? Seems worrying. Hope it's an exchange or pooled investment address.

There are bigger whales -- at least one person with 300k and another with 200k and likely a few others. This one just happens to hold it in a single public key (which is generally bad practice).

Honestly I wouldn't worry about these large holdings. DRK doesn't have the liquidity to handle such large amounts so they'll be holding for a long time.

I might be overwhelmingly naive and optimistic, but perhaps its an exchange (BTC-e???) that is accumulating drk in order to introduce it and have the liquidity to support it...

NOW THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING!!!

Its Argentina....they are going to make DRK the national currency.

[Queeq]

Is it really a good thing to have one guy owning 5% of the coin? Seems worrying. Hope it's an exchange or pooled investment address.

There are bigger whales -- at least one person with 300k and another with 200k and likely a few others. This one just happens to hold it in a single public key (which is generally bad practice).

Honestly I wouldn't worry about these large holdings. DRK doesn't have the liquidity to handle such large amounts so they'll be holding for a long time.

I might be overwhelmingly naive and optimistic, but perhaps its an exchange (BTC-e???) that is accumulating drk in order to introduce it and have the liquidity to support it...

NOW THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING!!!

Its Argentina....they are going to make DRK the national currency.

Source?

[AlexGR]

Is it really a good thing to have one guy owning 5% of the coin? Seems worrying. Hope it's an exchange or pooled investment address.

There are bigger whales -- at least one person with 300k and another with 200k and likely a few others. This one just happens to hold it in a single public key (which is generally bad practice).

Honestly I wouldn't worry about these large holdings. DRK doesn't have the liquidity to handle such large amounts so they'll be holding for a long time.

I might be overwhelmingly naive and optimistic, but perhaps its an exchange (BTC-e???) that is accumulating drk in order to introduce it and have the liquidity to support it...

NOW THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING!!!

Its Argentina....they are going to make DRK the national currency.

Source?

He's joking...

[coins101]

Is it really a good thing to have one guy owning 5% of the coin? Seems worrying. Hope it's an exchange or pooled investment address.

There are bigger whales -- at least one person with 300k and another with 200k and likely a few others. This one just happens to hold it in a single public key (which is generally bad practice).

Honestly I wouldn't worry about these large holdings. DRK doesn't have the liquidity to handle such large amounts so they'll be holding for a long time.

I might be overwhelmingly naive and optimistic, but perhaps its an exchange (BTC-e???) that is accumulating drk in order to introduce it and have the liquidity to support it...

NOW THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING!!!

Its Argentina....they are going to make DRK the national currency.

Source?

He's joking...

Sorry to get you all excited.

[thelonecrouton]

Is it really a good thing to have one guy owning 5% of the coin? Seems worrying. Hope it's an exchange or pooled investment address.

There are bigger whales -- at least one person with 300k and another with 200k and likely a few others. This one just happens to hold it in a single public key (which is generally bad practice).

Honestly I wouldn't worry about these large holdings. DRK doesn't have the liquidity to handle such large amounts so they'll be holding for a long time.

I might be overwhelmingly naive and optimistic, but perhaps its an exchange (BTC-e???) that is accumulating drk in order to introduce it and have the liquidity to support it...

NOW THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING!!!

Its Argentina....they are going to make DRK the national currency.

Source?

He's joking...

Sorry to get you all excited.

Obviously not Argentina.

Columbia.