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

[megges]

wget --max-redirect 0 http://www.x11coin.com
--2014-05-29 00:51:03--  http://www.x11coin.com/
Resolving www.x11coin.com... 192.31.186.3
Connecting to www.x11coin.com|192.31.186.3|:80... connected.
HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 301 Moved Permanently
Location: http://www.darkcoin.io [following]

 

i like this one, too:

Domain Name:X11COIN.ORG
Domain ID: D172570524-LROR
Creation Date: 2014-05-09T21:24:42Z
Updated Date: 2014-05-28T15:21:51Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2015-05-09T21:24:42Z
Sponsoring Registrar:Network Solutions, LLC (R63-LROR)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 2
WHOIS Server:
Referral URL:
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited
Registrant ID:u03r8jmi40bp1a99
Registrant Name:ATC SECURE
Registrant Organization:ATC Corp
Registrant Street: ATC SECURE RD.
Registrant City:Boston
Registrant State/Province:MA
Registrant Postal Code:02191
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.7815000192
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax:
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email:dmetcalf@atcsecure.com
Admin ID:kfcurbqd9lah4edb
Admin Name:ATC SECURE
Admin Organization:ATC Corp
Admin Street: ATC SECURE RD.
Admin City:Marshfield
Admin State/Province:MA
Admin Postal Code:02050
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.7815000192
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax:
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email:dmetcalf@atcsecure.com
Tech ID:kfcurbqd9lah4edb
Tech Name:ATC SECURE
Tech Organization:ATC Corp
Tech Street: ATC SECURE RD.
Tech City:Marshfield
Tech State/Province:MA
Tech Postal Code:02050
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.7815000192
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax:
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email:dmetcalf@atcsecure.com
Name Server:NS1.WIX.COM
Name Server:NS2.WIX.COM
DNSSEC:Unsigned

i'm wondering how long the domain will last with that fake info ! (but hey this dev is such well known guy, he has even a linked profil - perhaps he has a street named after his multi million dollar corp., too

[1714327834]

1714327834

[1714327834]

1714327834

[1714327834]

1714327834

[1714327834]

1714327834

[1714327834]

1714327834

[1714327834]

1714327834

[Artoodeetoo]

Have to say the way XC is going up.... I think there could be some cash coming back to DRK soon as it is not a sustainable rise at the moment!

[humanitee]

...

True but then rainbow tables are much, much more effective. Instead of looking for one value, you could potentially be looking for very many that you know produce the same output due to a collision attack. MD5 is a joke these days, look at that as an example.

[coinzcoinzcoinz]

Funny how these trolls are trying everything they can to discredit darkcoin. I cant believe there attacking the x11 algorhythm now, which is by far the best algorhythm out there. What's next? Attack on DGW?

[camosoul]

this coin is broken?

Completely and utterly. Abandon ship! I'm such a nice guy that I'll buy your worthless DRKs for $0.01 so that you can at least get SOMETHING...

[phzi]

Your example falls apart if the algorithm ordering is crc32(sha256(input)).

Not quite. A collision found part way thru the stack still allows you to generate collisions across the entire stack, because you can skip the inner-most steps.

e.g. if we have
crc32(sha256(y)) = crc32(someValue)

if crc32(someValue) collides with crc32(anotherValue), then there is essentially a full stack collision, because you can literally ignore the innermost sha256() function when generating your X11() collisions.

This is partly related to the nature of using a hashing algorithm for PoW - it's unnecessary to have a collision attack at the inputs, only somewhere along the hashing chain before the output.

Of course, this is all mainly about future-proofing - but in the long-term, I think this may end up being highly significant.

this coin is broken?

Completely and utterly. Abandon ship! I'm such a nice guy that I'll buy your worthless DRKs for $0.01 so that you can at least get SOMETHING...

Heh, I'll up the ante and bid $0.02.

[camosoul]

Funny how these trolls are trying everything they can to discredit darkcoin. I cant believe there attacking the x11 algorhythm now, which is by far the best algorhythm out there. What's next? Attack on DGW?

Instant denial man? It's one thing to attack trolls, but to blind yourself when there is a fact buried in it is foolish.

[CatKiwi]

Hey guys I have a great idea! WHy don't I sell all my Darkcoin at their lowest point in this leg of the overall upward trend and then buy into XC while its at its All time high? Herp derp!

Take your XC advertising (and monero advertising wtf...) and keep it in the XC and Monero thread.

When the trolls like mr_random start posting shit here you know its time to sell what ever scam they are promoting and get back onboard the coin you sold.

Fuck the manipulators of Darkcoin - It's just a whale battle at the moment. It will rise just as fast as it has fallen - Its in their vested interest for it to do so!

[humanitee]

Your example falls apart if the algorithm ordering is crc32(sha256(input)).

Not quite. A collision found part way thru the stack still allows you to generate collisions across the entire stack, because you can skip the inner-most steps.

e.g. if we have
crc32(sha256(y)) = crc32(someValue)

if crc32(someValue) collides with crc32(anotherValue), then there is essentially a full stack collision, because you can literally ignore the innermost sha256() function when generating your X11() collisions.

This is partly related to the nature of using a hashing algorithm for PoW - it's unnecessary to have a collision attack at the inputs, only somewhere along the hashing chain before the output.

Of course, this is all mainly about future-proofing - but in the long-term, I think this may end up being highly significant.

this coin is broken?

Completely and utterly. Abandon ship! I'm such a nice guy that I'll buy your worthless DRKs for $0.01 so that you can at least get SOMETHING...

Heh, I'll up the ante and bid $0.02.

Can you expand on the ignoring of sha256? Wouldn't you still need to run the hash on the network for it to verify? I'm talking about the full hash chain. You would need to have one of the correct outputs that produced the collision in crc, right?

[LiteMine]

this coin is broken?

No, Darksend works, next phase in progress. Whales decided to play with XC instead

People are apparently getting paid to FUD Darkcoin, hilarity ensues

[camosoul]

Your example falls apart if the algorithm ordering is crc32(sha256(input)).

Not quite. A collision found part way thru the stack still allows you to generate collisions across the entire stack, because you can skip the inner-most steps.

e.g. if we have
crc32(sha256(y)) = crc32(someValue)

if crc32(someValue) collides with crc32(anotherValue), then there is essentially a full stack collision, because you can literally ignore the innermost sha256() function when generating your X11() collisions.

This is partly related to the nature of using a hashing algorithm for PoW - it's unnecessary to have a collision attack at the inputs, only somewhere along the hashing chain before the output.

Of course, this is all mainly about future-proofing - but in the long-term, I think this may end up being highly significant.

this coin is broken?

Completely and utterly. Abandon ship! I'm such a nice guy that I'll buy your worthless DRKs for $0.01 so that you can at least get SOMETHING...

Heh, I'll up the ante and bid $0.02.

I fail to see how this discussion could generate fear or the notion that X11/DRK is broken... Any hash could have collisions, which one are you afraid of?

The real question is, soemtimes science WANTS collisions to prove a point... How long is the string that the hash is applied to, rests at the bottom of the collision argument tree. If you apply it to a 1chr string, derp, lotsa collisions there no matter what hash you're using... This is what essentially makes rainbow tables possible, passwords that are typed are relatively short. Moore's Law is rapidly causing the typed password to become questionable because it shrinks the entry string...

It would seem that the algos chosen are chosen for a reason...

[chunkyjunkie]

I might be wrong but isn't the dev of xc a cloner?  Didn't he do some other coins that were the same thing? Just copy and paste coins that go away?

Just correct me if I am wrong I am asking a question.

You need a dev that knows what he is doing to have any chance in this phase of clone coins IMO.

[camosoul]

Your example falls apart if the algorithm ordering is crc32(sha256(input)).

Not quite. A collision found part way thru the stack still allows you to generate collisions across the entire stack, because you can skip the inner-most steps.

e.g. if we have
crc32(sha256(y)) = crc32(someValue)

if crc32(someValue) collides with crc32(anotherValue), then there is essentially a full stack collision, because you can literally ignore the innermost sha256() function when generating your X11() collisions.

This is partly related to the nature of using a hashing algorithm for PoW - it's unnecessary to have a collision attack at the inputs, only somewhere along the hashing chain before the output.

Of course, this is all mainly about future-proofing - but in the long-term, I think this may end up being highly significant.

this coin is broken?

Completely and utterly. Abandon ship! I'm such a nice guy that I'll buy your worthless DRKs for $0.01 so that you can at least get SOMETHING...

Heh, I'll up the ante and bid $0.02.

Can you expand on the ignoring of sha256? Wouldn't you still need to run the hash on the network for it to verify? I'm talking about the full hash chain. You would need to have one of the correct outputs that produced the collision in crc, right?

I think he's saying that because the outcome of hasha() is known, the outcome of hashb(hasha()) can also become known. But I echo your inquiry. It still looks top-down to me.

[coins101]

[23:38] <sidnot> what are you talking about? the money is just chasing the pump on xc. those that want more drk will be buying back in getting more drk in the process
[23:39] <[-krypto-]> sidnot: watch the buy and sell orders you will see how they are lowering the price
[23:39] <plambe> how?
[23:39] <plambe> I honestly don't know
[23:40] <tm_> xc is causing the drk price drop.  i agree that they will be back on dark once they cash out. the issue here is when.  this is brutal.

There comes a point where chasing profits on xc will hurt Darkcoin.

Expectations and confidence are tricky things to get right.

XC is clearly milking it without having to do any technical work to get the profits out.

like I said, there comes a point where chasing profits on xc will hurt Darkcoin. It will make it a harder challenge than it needs to be to recover the confidence.

[oblox]

100% tapped out on buys... spent 100 btc today all the way from 160 downward.

[chunkyjunkie]

[23:38] <sidnot> what are you talking about? the money is just chasing the pump on xc. those that want more drk will be buying back in getting more drk in the process
[23:39] <[-krypto-]> sidnot: watch the buy and sell orders you will see how they are lowering the price
[23:39] <plambe> how?
[23:39] <plambe> I honestly don't know
[23:40] <tm_> xc is causing the drk price drop.  i agree that they will be back on dark once they cash out. the issue here is when.  this is brutal.

There comes a point where chasing profits on xc will hurt Darkcoin.

Expectations and confidence are tricky things to get right.

XC is clearly milking it without having to do any technical work to get the profits out.

like I said, there comes a point where chasing profits on xc will hurt Darkcoin. It will make it a harder challenge than it needs to be to recover the confidence.

It is not a question if DRK stays low and if xc continues to climb.  It is when does everyone stop chasing and xc drops and all that money flows back into DRK.  Again, not if, but when.  Just too risky to be buying xc at the top and ignoring DRK at a low...

[camosoul]

[23:38] <sidnot> what are you talking about? the money is just chasing the pump on xc. those that want more drk will be buying back in getting more drk in the process
[23:39] <[-krypto-]> sidnot: watch the buy and sell orders you will see how they are lowering the price
[23:39] <plambe> how?
[23:39] <plambe> I honestly don't know
[23:40] <tm_> xc is causing the drk price drop.  i agree that they will be back on dark once they cash out. the issue here is when.  this is brutal.

There comes a point where chasing profits on xc will hurt Darkcoin.

Expectations and confidence are tricky things to get right.

XC is clearly milking it without having to do any technical work to get the profits out.

like I said, there comes a point where chasing profits on xc will hurt Darkcoin. It will make it a harder challenge than it needs to be to recover the confidence.

It is not a question if DRK stays low and if xc continues to climb.  It is when does everyone stop chasing and xc drops and all that money flows back into DRK.  Again, not if, but when.  Just too risky to be buying xc at the top and ignoring DRK at a low...

This makes sense, but crypto traders don't make sense...

[baddw]

Your example falls apart if the algorithm ordering is crc32(sha256(input)).

Not quite. A collision found part way thru the stack still allows you to generate collisions across the entire stack, because you can skip the inner-most steps.

e.g. if we have
crc32(sha256(y)) = crc32(someValue)

if crc32(someValue) collides with crc32(anotherValue), then there is essentially a full stack collision, because you can literally ignore the innermost sha256() function when generating your X11() collisions.

This is partly related to the nature of using a hashing algorithm for PoW - it's unnecessary to have a collision attack at the inputs, only somewhere along the hashing chain before the output.

Of course, this is all mainly about future-proofing - but in the long-term, I think this may end up being highly significant.

But in PoW, the hash is the proof of the block, and the block is the proof of the hash.  You can publish collided hashes all you want, but if there is not a valid input block which produces that hash, you will not be able to attack the network.  You can't "skip the inner-most steps" if you want to do anything meaningful.

In your sha256(crc32()) example, you used "plumless" and "buckaroo" for inputs.  Say these are blocks, and say that the specification of the coin requires that all blocks start with "p".  Therefore "plumless" meets the qualifications for a block but "buckaroo" does not. Then your collision is meaningless for attacking the coin unless you can find another collision with an input starting with "p".

Given that raw coin blocks have many bytes of plaintext in them, which MUST be formatted correctly; and that they contain many transactions within them, which are themselves self-proving with hashes and signatures; (therefore changing 1 byte in the transaction will result in the transaction hash not being valid, so changing the 1 byte in the transaction will result in an entirely new transaction hash, and the output would have to include both in your collision); even with a pretty well busted algorithm, the likelihood of finding another valid block which matches the hash must be vanishingly small.

[richy]

WTF its 0.012 ??

[droptable]

i can understand that it is tempting to try to ride the x-coin thing for immediate profit.
but i will not tolerate whining about coming to late to the darkcoinparty when the tables turn again.

seriously I m glad all my DRKs are on paperwallet so i dont have to think about trying to play the game myself.
its just too risky.