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

[CatKiwi]

Honest opinion wanted - I am a latecomer to DRK but just bought 90 DRK at 0.0229. Will the coin go up or down from here?

[1715688937]

1715688937

[1715688937]

1715688937

[1715688937]

1715688937

[coins101]

Honest opinion wanted - I am a latecomer to DRK but just bought 90 DRK at 0.0229. Will the coin go up or down from here?

My honest view:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579976.msg6335710#msg6335710

[oblox]

Honest opinion wanted - I am a latecomer to DRK but just bought 90 DRK at 0.0229. Will the coin go up or down from here?

Really?

[darkproton]

Honest opinion wanted - I am a latecomer to DRK but just bought 90 DRK at 0.0229. Will the coin go up or down from here?

honest....and I hold a lot of dark. Unsure. I think it's a good sign we held the .02 mark. It's been a fast run-up. I wouldn't mind if we stayed at this level for a bit to normalize. That said, if masternodes get peeps by the short and curlies, could see a magnificent spike. I believe if we do drop, it will be a little. I do see room for growth, much more than we've seen

[CatKiwi]

Honest opinion wanted - I am a latecomer to DRK but just bought 90 DRK at 0.0229. Will the coin go up or down from here?

honest....and I hold a lot of dark. Unsure. I think it's a good sign we held the .02 mark. It's been a fast run-up. I wouldn't mind if we stayed at this level for a bit to normalize. That said, if masternodes get peeps by the short and curlies, could see a magnificent spike. I believe if we do drop, it will be a little. I do see room for growth, much more than we've seen

Thanks very much for your input

[Ozziecoin]

Honest opinion wanted - I am a latecomer to DRK but just bought 90 DRK at 0.0229. Will the coin go up or down from here?

To appreciate Darkcoin, you need to understand the difference between DECENTRALISED privacy using masternodes versus stealth addresses plus coinjoin. If people think Darkcoin's privacy implementation is technically superior, then darkcoin should at least surpass litecoin, if not bitcoin eventually.

[stealth923]

Dark will definitely pass LTC - its not a matter of if....its a matter of when.

It has been proven that this is not a pump & dump - people have tried to dump this coin for the past 2 weeks and the fundamentals have kept the core value of the coin strong.

[eltortugaloco]

Price of DarkCoin rallies, now has the 3rd highest cryptocurrency market cap http://www.usacryptocoins.com/thecryptocurrencytimes/uncategorized/price-of-darkcoin-rallies-now-has-the-3rd-highest-cryptocurrency-market-cap/

[Ozziecoin]

Well, I believe Darkcoin's privacy implementation is technically superior to Litecoin's, which is zero! LOL

But I also think Darkcoin's protocol is technically superior to bitcoin's from a purely privacy perspective.

So yeah, I think Darkcoin should most definitely overtake litecoin (and eventually bitcoin if the bitcoin devs don't roll out a proper privacy implementation).

[thelonecrouton]

Who is going to be the first to have their 1000drk stolen from their masternode?
Once they find a way to get into the amazon servers then its a free for all
Anyone recommend a good dedicated server?

Airgap your ssh key and use a strong wallet password. Your DRK will be safe.

(I hope.  )

edit: and multiple wallet backups, obviously.

2-fa also on the amazon account itself.

Good call, was meaning to get around to this, just have.

[TsuyokuNaritai]

Can someone please rebut this, or at least parts of it? It keeps getting mentioned in IRC and trollboxes, apparently smart people are believing it and I can't find any counterproof to point to.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Application_Built_on_top_Of_Cryptocurrency

Bitcoin is a lot like HTTP. It is an application layer protocol and tools can be built on it (like websites can be built on HTTP). There is a class of cryptocurrencies that promise features like casino websites and exchanges and anonymity protocols to be built on top of them.

When creating a new website, one doesn't make a new protocol unless it is necessary. For example, HTTPS is an encrypted version of HTTP, therefore it is useful and necessary. When creating an app such as "DarkSend", one doesn't need to make a new protocol such as "Darkcoin". This is synonymous to making an HTTPS alternative (eg. HTTPSX) for your new website for encrypted chat and not adding any new security or functionality to HTTPSX.

Because Darkcoin is by far the most popular cryptocurrency of this class, the Darkcoin example will be covered in this section.

The Darkcoin devs created a tool called DarkSend. DarkSend is an implementation of coinjoin (an anonymity feature originally implemented in Bitcoin[4]) which utilizes the Darkcoin network to organize the coinjoins. If DarkSend becomes open source and is useful, it will be ported to Bitcoin with a few small modifications. Currently DarkSend masternodes are paid 10% of the block reward after they hold 1000DRK in order to become a masternode.[5] This is flawed because while purchasing 1000DRK is trustlessly verifiable, a user running a DarkSend masternode isn't trustlessly verifiable. It is also costs bandwidth to run a masternode, therefore there is an incentive to buy 1000DRK and get a chance at the 10% block reward masternodes are being paid, but not actually act as a masternode. For this reason, DarkSend would work better if the masternodes were paid by those they were helping coinjoin, or if there wasn't a masternode at all and everyone collaborated in a decentralized fashion. The better implementation not vulnerable to the attack described is compatible with Bitcoin, therefore, the Darksend protocol serves no purpose.

[AlexGR]

UPDATE YOUR WALLETS.

IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE ALREADY UPDATED, CHECK YOUR VERSION.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE

Stable version (v0.9.4.6)

OR

RC2 (v0.10.8.6)

....UPDATE NOW. HARD FORK SUNDAY 25 MAY.


Source code:
https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin

Stable version (v0.9.4.6):
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/darkcoind
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/darkcoin-qt.exe

RC2 (v0.10.8.6):
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc/darkcoind
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc/darkcoin-qt.exe

[thelonecrouton]

Can someone please rebut this, or at least parts of it? It keeps getting mentioned in IRC and trollboxes, apparently smart people are believing it and I can't find any counterproof to point to.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Application_Built_on_top_Of_Cryptocurrency

Bitcoin is a lot like HTTP. It is an application layer protocol and tools can be built on it (like websites can be built on HTTP). There is a class of cryptocurrencies that promise features like casino websites and exchanges and anonymity protocols to be built on top of them.

When creating a new website, one doesn't make a new protocol unless it is necessary. For example, HTTPS is an encrypted version of HTTP, therefore it is useful and necessary. When creating an app such as "DarkSend", one doesn't need to make a new protocol such as "Darkcoin". This is synonymous to making an HTTPS alternative (eg. HTTPSX) for your new website for encrypted chat and not adding any new security or functionality to HTTPSX.

Because Darkcoin is by far the most popular cryptocurrency of this class, the Darkcoin example will be covered in this section.

The Darkcoin devs created a tool called DarkSend. DarkSend is an implementation of coinjoin (an anonymity feature originally implemented in Bitcoin[4]) which utilizes the Darkcoin network to organize the coinjoins. If DarkSend becomes open source and is useful, it will be ported to Bitcoin with a few small modifications. Currently DarkSend masternodes are paid 10% of the block reward after they hold 1000DRK in order to become a masternode.[5] This is flawed because while purchasing 1000DRK is trustlessly verifiable, a user running a DarkSend masternode isn't trustlessly verifiable. It is also costs bandwidth to run a masternode, therefore there is an incentive to buy 1000DRK and get a chance at the 10% block reward masternodes are being paid, but not actually act as a masternode. For this reason, DarkSend would work better if the masternodes were paid by those they were helping coinjoin, or if there wasn't a masternode at all and everyone collaborated in a decentralized fashion. The better implementation not vulnerable to the attack described is compatible with Bitcoin, therefore, the Darksend protocol serves no purpose.

This part (especially) makes no sense.

Plus, when the Bitcoin geriatrics get around to doing any of this, I might start to worry. But they never will, due to apathy, inertia, regulatory concerns, fear of change, etc.

edit: the more I reread it the less sense it makes. "This is flawed because while purchasing 1000DRK is trustlessly verifiable, a user running a DarkSend masternode isn't trustlessly verifiable." What? Are they implying that masternode ops are going to modify their particular instance of darkcoind to mess with the network? If that's even possible, a simple crc/checksum on startup would solve the 'problem.'

[AlexGR]

Can someone please rebut this, or at least parts of it? It keeps getting mentioned in IRC and trollboxes, apparently smart people are believing it and I can't find any counterproof to point to.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Application_Built_on_top_Of_Cryptocurrency

Ok

=>

Bitcoin is a lot like HTTP. It is an application layer protocol and tools can be built on it (like websites can be built on HTTP). There is a class of cryptocurrencies that promise features like casino websites and exchanges and anonymity protocols to be built on top of them.

When creating a new website, one doesn't make a new protocol unless it is necessary. For example, HTTPS is an encrypted version of HTTP, therefore it is useful and necessary. When creating an app such as "DarkSend", one doesn't need to make a new protocol such as "Darkcoin". This is synonymous to making an HTTPS alternative (eg. HTTPSX) for your new website for encrypted chat and not adding any new security or functionality to HTTPSX.

Because Darkcoin is by far the most popular cryptocurrency of this class, the Darkcoin example will be covered in this section.

The Darkcoin devs created a tool called DarkSend. DarkSend is an implementation of coinjoin (an anonymity feature originally implemented in Bitcoin[4]) which utilizes the Darkcoin network to organize the coinjoins. If DarkSend becomes open source and is useful, it will be ported to Bitcoin with a few small modifications.

It won't. It requires a hard fork and Bitcoin will not hard fork for DarkSend, nor jeopardize regulation issues.

Currently DarkSend masternodes are paid 10% of the block reward after they hold 1000DRK in order to become a masternode.[5] This is flawed because while purchasing 1000DRK is trustlessly verifiable, a user running a DarkSend masternode isn't trustlessly verifiable.

True, but the risk of having a "bad actor" controlling the nodes is reduced.

Also doesn't factor in anonymity enhancements (RC3+)

It is also costs bandwidth to run a masternode, therefore there is an incentive to buy 1000DRK and get a chance at the 10% block reward masternodes are being paid, but not actually act as a masternode.

Misbehaving nodes don't get payment. So false.

For this reason, DarkSend would work better if the masternodes were paid by those they were helping coinjoin, or if there wasn't a masternode at all and everyone collaborated in a decentralized fashion.

That's the plan, not paying bad-behaving masternodes.

The better implementation not vulnerable to the attack described is compatible with Bitcoin, therefore, the Darksend protocol serves no purpose.

Argument based on bullshit => Bullshit.

[techsolution]

Well, I believe Darkcoin's privacy implementation is technically superior to Litecoin's, which is zero! LOL

But I also think Darkcoin's protocol is technically superior to bitcoin's from a purely privacy perspective.

So yeah, I think Darkcoin should most definitely overtake litecoin (and eventually bitcoin if the bitcoin devs don't roll out a proper privacy implementation).

do u think bitcoin will try to be anonymous? i can tell u now it will not be, any coin with anonymous transactions goverment will ban asap, using it in stores will be illegal, black market will grow and u think any goverment will let it go?

[fearcoka]

Well, I believe Darkcoin's privacy implementation is technically superior to Litecoin's, which is zero! LOL

But I also think Darkcoin's protocol is technically superior to bitcoin's from a purely privacy perspective.

So yeah, I think Darkcoin should most definitely overtake litecoin (and eventually bitcoin if the bitcoin devs don't roll out a proper privacy implementation).

do u think bitcoin will try to be anonymous? i can tell u now it will not be, any coin with anonymous transactions goverment will ban asap, using it in stores will be illegal, black market will grow and u think any goverment will let it go?

Cash is anonymous, have they banned cash transactions?

[Ozziecoin]

Can someone please rebut this, or at least parts of it? It keeps getting mentioned in IRC and trollboxes, apparently smart people are believing it and I can't find any counterproof to point to.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Application_Built_on_top_Of_Cryptocurrency

Bitcoin is a lot like HTTP. It is an application layer protocol and tools can be built on it (like websites can be built on HTTP). There is a class of cryptocurrencies that promise features like casino websites and exchanges and anonymity protocols to be built on top of them.

When creating a new website, one doesn't make a new protocol unless it is necessary. For example, HTTPS is an encrypted version of HTTP, therefore it is useful and necessary. When creating an app such as "DarkSend", one doesn't need to make a new protocol such as "Darkcoin". This is synonymous to making an HTTPS alternative (eg. HTTPSX) for your new website for encrypted chat and not adding any new security or functionality to HTTPSX.

Because Darkcoin is by far the most popular cryptocurrency of this class, the Darkcoin example will be covered in this section.

The Darkcoin devs created a tool called DarkSend. DarkSend is an implementation of coinjoin (an anonymity feature originally implemented in Bitcoin[4]) which utilizes the Darkcoin network to organize the coinjoins. If DarkSend becomes open source and is useful, it will be ported to Bitcoin with a few small modifications. Currently DarkSend masternodes are paid 10% of the block reward after they hold 1000DRK in order to become a masternode.[5] This is flawed because while purchasing 1000DRK is trustlessly verifiable, a user running a DarkSend masternode isn't trustlessly verifiable. It is also costs bandwidth to run a masternode, therefore there is an incentive to buy 1000DRK and get a chance at the 10% block reward masternodes are being paid, but not actually act as a masternode. For this reason, DarkSend would work better if the masternodes were paid by those they were helping coinjoin, or if there wasn't a masternode at all and everyone collaborated in a decentralized fashion. The better implementation not vulnerable to the attack described is compatible with Bitcoin, therefore, the Darksend protocol serves no purpose.

We agree that DarkSend is useful and necessary because bitcoin, in its current implementation does not provide adequate privacy.  It is however not easy to "port" DarkSend to bitcoin with a few small modifications as it requires a significant re-engineering of how the protocol works.

One must question whether existing bitcoin miners are willing to make that leap and also question whether the bitcoin development team are prepared to work on such a project under the eye of the government.  Recent history would suggest not.

To be paid the 10% block reward, one has to act as a masternode.  There is no in-between stage.  If everyone acted in a collaborated decentralised fashion it would be too easy for government to infiltrate the protocol and setup monitoring masternodes.

Darkcoin's decentralised privacy implementation is a technically superior implementation of bitcoin.  Darkcoin is https.  And http will never be https.

There are more people everyday switching to https.

[Kai Proctor]

Can someone please rebut this, or at least parts of it? It keeps getting mentioned in IRC and trollboxes, apparently smart people are believing it and I can't find any counterproof to point to.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Altcoin#Application_Built_on_top_Of_Cryptocurrency

Bitcoin is a lot like HTTP. It is an application layer protocol and tools can be built on it (like websites can be built on HTTP). There is a class of cryptocurrencies that promise features like casino websites and exchanges and anonymity protocols to be built on top of them.

When creating a new website, one doesn't make a new protocol unless it is necessary. For example, HTTPS is an encrypted version of HTTP, therefore it is useful and necessary. When creating an app such as "DarkSend", one doesn't need to make a new protocol such as "Darkcoin". This is synonymous to making an HTTPS alternative (eg. HTTPSX) for your new website for encrypted chat and not adding any new security or functionality to HTTPSX.

Because Darkcoin is by far the most popular cryptocurrency of this class, the Darkcoin example will be covered in this section.

The Darkcoin devs created a tool called DarkSend. DarkSend is an implementation of coinjoin (an anonymity feature originally implemented in Bitcoin[4]) which utilizes the Darkcoin network to organize the coinjoins. If DarkSend becomes open source and is useful, it will be ported to Bitcoin with a few small modifications. Currently DarkSend masternodes are paid 10% of the block reward after they hold 1000DRK in order to become a masternode.[5] This is flawed because while purchasing 1000DRK is trustlessly verifiable, a user running a DarkSend masternode isn't trustlessly verifiable. It is also costs bandwidth to run a masternode, therefore there is an incentive to buy 1000DRK and get a chance at the 10% block reward masternodes are being paid, but not actually act as a masternode. For this reason, DarkSend would work better if the masternodes were paid by those they were helping coinjoin, or if there wasn't a masternode at all and everyone collaborated in a decentralized fashion. The better implementation not vulnerable to the attack described is compatible with Bitcoin, therefore, the Darksend protocol serves no purpose.

This is flawed because while purchasing 1000DRK is trustlessly verifiable, a user running a DarkSend masternode isn't trustlessly verifiable.

For this reason, DarkSend would work better [...] if there wasn't a masternode at all and everyone collaborated in a decentralized fashion.

If a user running a masternode isn't trustlessly verifiable, I don't see how involving all the network is better. In the contrary it's easier and cheaper to setup a lot of nodes to trace the transactions.

[Nthelight]

snapshot #IRC chat.freenode.net

#bitcoin : 1384 users
#dogecoin : 826 users
#litecoin : 442 users
#darkcoin : 251 users <--- feel free to join us
#namecoin : 102 users

[thelonecrouton]

Well, I believe Darkcoin's privacy implementation is technically superior to Litecoin's, which is zero! LOL

But I also think Darkcoin's protocol is technically superior to bitcoin's from a purely privacy perspective.

So yeah, I think Darkcoin should most definitely overtake litecoin (and eventually bitcoin if the bitcoin devs don't roll out a proper privacy implementation).

do u think bitcoin will try to be anonymous? i can tell u now it will not be, any coin with anonymous transactions goverment will ban asap, using it in stores will be illegal, black market will grow and u think any goverment will let it go?

The rich and powerful will welcome anonymous transactions the most, they don't give a damn what the little people do with their crumbs.

And Darkcoin is perfect for businesses because it lets them keep their business private, unlike bitcoin, which is why, after years, so few businesses will touch bitcoin.