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

[stealth923]

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

If your money is already on multiple anonymous addresses... It's pre-privatised. Essentially it's dark sent before darksending it.

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

After every transaction though money will be darksend+ed. So same amount of mixing goes on. But your transaction speed doesn't suffer. Every wallet premixing. There will be plenty to go round.

I think the holy grail solution has just been announced.

[coins101]

After every transaction though money will be darksend+ed.

Man, you just invented a new verb  

[HinnomTX]

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy and uniform as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

Would it be possible if the client asked the MN if there are "enough" darksend transactions in the pool waiting to be mixed, and if there are, send normal transaction without darksend, and if there aren't, use darksend?

That could be a good workaround. It's 'Darksend on demand' as needed by the network, essentially, but that would eliminate the appeal of instant anonymous transactions.

Upon further reflection, it might be good enough to have two types of e-cash on hand in the wallet. 1. A Pre-anomymized balance (ready for instant anonymous transactions) and 2. A regular balance for Darksend+. Then you have a checkbox that selects "Use Darksend+" vs. "Send instantly".  

[shojayxt]

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.
Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

I appreciate that your reply to my post was made in a thoughtful and intelligent manner.   But I still do not believe that Darkcoin is the best solution for anonymity.  In fact, I question the logic in investing in a coin that could potentially be shut down by various governments because of the anonymity and potential for money laundering and financing terrorists, etc...  One of the reasons that Bitcoin has avoided those issues is because it isn't anonymous.

I am also somewhat confused regarding your statement about Darkcoin going mainstream.  No anonymous cryptocurrency will ever become mainstream where you will be able to use it as a form of payment for anything of significance.  How do you become mainstream when the concept of mainstream conflicts with the anonymity feature?  Mainstream would be like Bitcoin about to be listed as an ETF on NASDAQ.  That will never happen with an anonymous coin.

The vast majority of retailers, vendors, and businesses will never conduct financial transactions anonymously.  So if RC4 is a success like you say it will be where do I spend Darkcoins?  I can buy merchandise with Bitcoin already.  One of the reasons that Bitcoin is accepted by retailers like overstock.com is because it has an infrastructure that allows it to be accepted and processed in a way similar to a credit card transaction.  No entity is going to process payments for an anonymous coin where they are unable to track the transaction.  So that means you would need to send Darkcoin without anonymity.  I might just as well use Bitcoin.  It's already established as a form of payment.
  
I didn't just lose faith in your project, I have lost faith in the entire anonymous coin frenzy.  I think it's been more hype than anything.  Darkcoin, Monero, All the Darkcoin clones, Cryptonote clones.  Mostly just a fad.    

What people need is a coin with things like fast transactions and confirmations, clearing houses to process transactions and convert to fiat, mobile clients, and most importantly places that accept it.  Bitcoin is the only cryptocurrency that does all of these things, some better than others.

I wouldn't have cluttered up your thread with many of my posts if it wasn't for the personal attacks levied at anyone by a few pathetic members of the Darkcoin community that I'm sure you wish would tone down their rhetoric.  

One last thing.  It was the decision to tax the miners 20% to pay the masternode operators that changed my faith in Darkcoin.  That is unfair and blatantly favors those that have more than others.  Some individuals have posted they are running numerous masternodes.  Because they have thousands of coins they get to take 20% from someone that is likely not even breaking even mining Darkcoin.   You have people on here playing Tax man and going after pool operators as if they are criminals for not making masternode payments.  Some people even suggested DDOSing non-compliant pools.  You have all these anti-government types embracing Darkcoin while at the same time supporting the same kind of taxation that they are supposedly opposed to.      

[thelonecrouton]

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy and uniform as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

Would it be possible if the client asked the MN if there are "enough" darksend transactions in the pool waiting to be mixed, and if there are, send normal transaction without darksend, and if there aren't, use darksend?

That could be a good workaround. It's 'Darksend on demand' as needed by the network, essentially, but that would eliminate the appeal of instant anonymous transactions.

Upon further reflection, it might be good enough to have two types of e-cash on hand in the wallet. 1. A Pre-anomymized balance (ready for instant anonymous transactions) and 2. A regular balance for Darksend+. Then you have a checkbox that selects "Use Darksend+" vs. "Send instantly".  

You wont need to worry about it, everything you send will be pre-anonymised.

[luigi1111]

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

If your money is already on multiple anonymous addresses... It's pre-privatised. Essentially it's dark sent before darksending it.

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

I think the point is that you don't need to 'use darksend' - the masternodes will be kept busy anonymising everyone's coin as an ongoing process, so you'll only ever be sending already untraceable coin.

He still has valid points, and I return to my earlier statement: anonymity has caveats. What we basically have here is the graphic that went up a few days ago, but Evan said, "Wait a minute! The funds are already anonymous after step one! Why do we need step two??"

There are still things that need addressed:
1. The client is going to attempt to re-denominate incoming funds; what flag is needed to stop my masternode from doing that to itself?
2. What if I need to send an amount larger than average? This can get messy.
3. What size and how many participants need to be involved in the anonymizing transaction to make it "good enough"? (again, it's the large holders that potentially want to spend a larger amount at once that causes the risk)
4. What about exchange wallets? Will they become a hot steaming mess of addresses due to their holding potentially huge amounts of coins? Is this acceptable? Something we want? Not relevant?

All I got for now.

[salmion]

I think the holy grail solution has just been announced.

It gets better actually.. this means you can send drk to an exchange without pieces arriving at different times.

Aaaand here I get a bit fuzzy but doesn't that mean you can still refer to a transaction if there is some sort of payment dispute. Two clean addresses on either side. The block chain is preserved but we have privacy.

Aaaand separate point but I figured out what was bugging me about POS in wallet anonymity solutions. You could open thousands of wallets that are staking and analyse the traffic. With dark you need access to a huge amount of the nodes. So the wallet is mixing but uses different nodes every time. It's frikkin' genius.

[HinnomTX]

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

After every transaction though money will be darksend+ed. So same amount of mixing goes on. But your transaction speed doesn't suffer. Every wallet premixing. There will be plenty to go round.

Ok, agreed. We're just splitting up the masternode steps in time, which will make traceability that much harder (temporally speaking). We can do step 1 of Darksend+ to redenominate as soon I receive DRK. Then I'm prepared for step 2, which is the 'instant anonymous' transaction. Yep, I'm on board now.

[coins101]

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.
Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

Use of privacy tools is only illegal if you do not keep records of transactions. Invoices, receipts. Why is that such a difficult concept?

Listen to the person responsible for enforcing these things talking specifically about regulating crypto currency designed to be anonymous

Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, United States Department of the Treasury, confirms that financial privacy is a real and important aspect of all financial transactions.

The view on regulation is currently being considered in a similar light to Bitcoin. The Bank Secrecy Act and existing AML policies towards digital currency will still apply. In general, moving in and out of fiat requires the use of regulated entities.

Non disclosure of financial transactions on a blockchain ledger is not a reason to stop anonymity tools such as Darkcoin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7bbDpwlTws&feature=youtu.be&t=11m48s

~12mins

If you don't believe us, listen to the most paranoid or paranoids - the US government

[eltito]

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

After every transaction though money will be darksend+ed. So same amount of mixing goes on. But your transaction speed doesn't suffer. Every wallet premixing. There will be plenty to go round.

Ok, agreed. We're just splitting up the masternode steps in time, which will make traceability that much harder (temporally speaking). We can do step 1 of Darksend+ to redenominate as soon I receive DRK. Then I'm prepared for step 2, which is the 'instant anonymous' transaction. Yep, I'm on board now.

Right.

Also, like I pointed out earlier, this means that Masternodes now have no direct involvement in the actual person to person transaction, so if someone decides to use Darkcoin to so something illegal, there is no reasonable grounds for Masternode owners to be held liable.

[darianc]

Also, like I pointed out earlier, this means that Masternodes now have no direct involvement in the actual person to person transaction, so if someone decides to use Darkcoin to so something illegal, there is no reasonable grounds for Masternode owners to be held liable.

Plausible deniability ftw!

[HinnomTX]

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

After every transaction though money will be darksend+ed. So same amount of mixing goes on. But your transaction speed doesn't suffer. Every wallet premixing. There will be plenty to go round.

Ok, agreed. We're just splitting up the masternode steps in time, which will make traceability that much harder (temporally speaking). We can do step 1 of Darksend+ to redenominate as soon I receive DRK. Then I'm prepared for step 2, which is the 'instant anonymous' transaction. Yep, I'm on board now.

Right.

Also, like I pointed out earlier, this means that Masternodes now have no direct involvement in the actual person to person transaction, so if someone decides to use Darkcoin to so something illegal, there is no reasonable grounds for Masternode owners to be held liable.

As always, consult your attorney etc. etc. because they can make a law for anything. But your logic does seem reasonable.

Another question though. I would be concerned about real time data analysis during step 2 of Darksend+. Can the re-denominated addresses be de-anonymized since their outputs would be spent at the same time? By that I mean not only would my addresses appear in the same block, but the broadcast of the transaction would group my addresses together in time. Is there a countermeasure that can be deployed for this?

Put another way, my group of re-denominated addresses appear at one time on the blockchain. A subset of them appear again as spent at a later time in the blockchain. Is that inconsequential?
 

[illodin]

The vast majority of retailers, vendors, and businesses will never conduct financial transactions anonymously.

What do you mean by "conduct financial transactions anonymously"?

Retailer has your name and address etc what it needs to send the goods to you, and generates a one time drk address where you will send the payment. Was this the kind of "anonymous financial transaction" you were talking about that they'll never conduct?

No entity is going to process payments for an anonymous coin where they are unable to track the transaction.

Did you read his post? They will be able to track the transaction just fine. They will see the address(es) where it's coming from, and they will see the address where it's going to. What more do they need? And why would they even need to originating address(es) anyway?

One last thing.  It was the decision to tax the miners 20% to pay the masternode operators that changed my faith in Darkcoin.  That is unfair and blatantly favors those that have more than others.  Some individuals have posted they are running numerous masternodes.  Because they have thousands of coins they get to take 20% from someone that is likely not even breaking even mining Darkcoin.   You have people on here playing Tax man and going after pool operators as if they are criminals for not making masternode payments.  Some people even suggested DDOSing non-compliant pools.  You have all these anti-government types embracing Darkcoin while at the same time supporting the same kind of taxation that they are supposedly opposed to.

If there was no incentive to run masternodes, the block reward the miner gets would be worth a lot less than it is now. Give some away to get more back. I can't understand you're not seeing it.

[TanteStefana2]

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

That's my boy!  (er... Ok, technically not, but if I were his Mum, I'd be so proud!)  I'm sure she is too!  Good Job Evan!

[luigi1111]

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

After every transaction though money will be darksend+ed. So same amount of mixing goes on. But your transaction speed doesn't suffer. Every wallet premixing. There will be plenty to go round.

Ok, agreed. We're just splitting up the masternode steps in time, which will make traceability that much harder (temporally speaking). We can do step 1 of Darksend+ to redenominate as soon I receive DRK. Then I'm prepared for step 2, which is the 'instant anonymous' transaction. Yep, I'm on board now.

Right.

Also, like I pointed out earlier, this means that Masternodes now have no direct involvement in the actual person to person transaction, so if someone decides to use Darkcoin to so something illegal, there is no reasonable grounds for Masternode owners to be held liable.

As always, consult your attorney etc. etc. because they can make a law for anything. But your logic does seem reasonable.

Another question though. I would be concerned about real time data analysis during step 2 of Darksend+. Can the re-denominated addresses be de-anonymized since their outputs would be spent at the same time? By that I mean not only would my addresses appear in the same block, but the broadcast of the transaction would group my addresses together in time. Is there a countermeasure that can be deployed for this?

Put another way, my group of re-denominated addresses appear at one time on the blockchain. A subset of them appear again as spent at a later time in the blockchain. Is that inconsequential?

I think you're just talking about expected behavior? Of course combining inputs from your denominated addresses will link said addresses together. The point is, it *doesn't* matter. (** with caveats that I've talked about above: this is why I'm interested to hear more about it going forward)

[shojayxt]

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

See?

 Bitcoin is one thing, LTC is another.

 If you're a BTC merchant, you're a brave warrior, plowing new territory.
 If you're also an LTC merchant, you're 2 steps ahead of the previous , tech wise.
 Merchant regulation SUCKS, but has societal purpose.
 DRK solves BTC's prime problem for merchants.
 DRK solves BTC's prime problem for merchant's clients
 DRK solves BTC's prime problem for immense immovable scrutinised private capital.

  No need to have a cryptography degree to solve this equation.  

Darkcoin is brilliant both for micro and macro transactions

How does DRK solve any problem for merchants and clients?  I have bought items from reputable merchants using Bitcoin. I didn't notice any problems.  In fact, every purchase I have made from overstock.com was flawless and immediate.  There isn't any problem that needs to be solved.    
 and as long as you pay taxes when you convert to fiat they
DRK does indeed solve BTC's traceability when it comes to money laundering and other nefarious purposes.  

The beauty of BTC not being anonymous is that it will be adopted by the mainstream and used for actual financial transaction.  I still have not heard where you will be able to spend DRK or even any reputable vendor embracing DRK as a payment method.  It likely won't happen because businesses are not going to put themselves in a position where they could potentially run into trouble with FinCEN.  In case you don't know, FinCEN "Financial Crimes Enforcement Network http://www.fincen.gov/ " mission is:
 
"FinCEN’s mission is to safeguard the financial system from illicit use and combat money laundering and promote national security through the collection, analysis, and dissemination of financial intelligence and strategic use of financial authorities."

I would hate to have my fortune tied up in an anonymous cryptocurrency that could be shut down at anytime by the United States Government using the Patriot Act and National Security as justification.  They find a Darkcoin wallet on a seized terrorist laptop and it's lights out for Darkcoin.  Any company hosting masternodes in the United States will comply with any order to shut down Darkcoin network traffic.  European governments would follow suit, most South American countries will do whatever the US tells them to do and the Chinese don't want any crytptocurrency.

What many fail to see is that the main selling point of Darkcoin could actually cause it's demise.  Do you actually think that the United States government is just going to allow people to send whatever they want to whoever they want?  Potentially funding terrorists or laundering money to avoid paying taxes?  Not gonna happen.  Congress would find bipartisan support to enact laws to prevent just that from happening.  

[illodin]

How does DRK solve any problem for merchants and clients?  I have bought items from reputable merchants using Bitcoin. I didn't notice any problems.  In fact, every purchase I have made from overstock.com was flawless and immediate.  There isn't any problem that needs to be solved.

Please read this:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/06/bitcoin-retail

[darlidada]

Isn't this MACD bad news generally ? NB: im terrible at TA.

[eltito]

Also, like I pointed out earlier, this means that Masternodes now have no direct involvement in the actual person to person transaction, so if someone decides to use Darkcoin to so something illegal, there is no reasonable grounds for Masternode owners to be held liable.

Plausible deniability ftw!

As someone pointed out above, of course, aways consult your attorney.

That said, I'm not sure it's just plausible deniability.  Once this is implemented, Masternodes will simply be denominating funds.  They will no longer be facilitating the actual transfer of funds for purchases between a buyer and a seller.  They are completely bypassed in that regard.

[HinnomTX]

For the reader's safety, FinCEN paranoia and money laundering FUD have been redacted.

The powers that be cannot shut down cryptocurrencies any faster than they can win the war on drugs. They will have to learn to play nice with cryptos, which is exactly why Bitcoin is being co-opted as we speak. Which is exactly why marijuana is being co-opted as we speak...