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

[CHAOSiTEC]

I think Camo's scenario is only an issue if everyone is using the exact same mixing depth.  Differences in user-selected mixing depth create more or less randomized exit points, no?

Not really...

I'm demonstrating that mixing depth is irrelevant. If you see X go in and X come out, then the fog is irrelevant no matter how foggy it is or how long X stays in said fog...

Why? Because the mix is not actually mixing anything. We can tell the difference between TX and SIG. I'm trying to understand how MNs actually do any anon in their current form...

The beauty of the system is, the signing process, since each step after mn1 will be signed by a different key, that is not in your wallet, and thereby it will not be possible to track it back to a given private key.

[1715196066]

1715196066

[1715196066]

1715196066

[1715196066]

1715196066

[splawik21]

I dont think I 've ever mentioned this, but my favourite fruit is the banana.

Both the taste, texture and the sound... banana! Its lovely!! banana banana banana... try it!!

(no funny sexual jokes please)

I prefer to pronounce it "Banaynay." It makes people look at me funny. I like it when people look at me funny.

It's the only fruit I like...

Bananas aint got shit on apples, and apples aint got shit on Mangos. Although Mango skin contains the same compound that's in poison ivy, which is not so fun.

Apples are okay, but I'm always getting pieces of the skin caught in my teeth. I'm partial to Kiwifruit and pears.

Drkberries

DRKberries ROCKS indeed but in summer hot one cold watermelons are the best!;)

btw. DEV TEAM the fruits of you work are the best anyway!

[luigi1111]

the amounts being laundered are mixed with 10, 50 maybe 100 or even 1000 wallets, now if all goes through 8 mn, i would say i are going to have a real challenge to figure out what goes where. the beauty of private key vs public key is, you cannot figure out the private key by looking at the public key, and therefor you cannot point a given address to a specific person.

So, it boils down to denomination method coupled with volume, if there ever is that much...

I think I saw mempool get up to 12 once...

Even if a pubkey can't be used to make a privkey (the foundation of keypair encryption, so we presume it hasn't exploded yet), the sigs can still be verified as being related to the same privkey, even if we don't know the privkey.

Isn't that the whole point of signing? So that the action or message can be certified as coming from the correct source? This, all pubkeys and signatures can be correlated tot he same privkey, even if we don't know what it is.

We can still say "The same key did all this." I think PGP would be in a very sad state if that were not true... Not to mention all cryptocurrencies would be completely fucked... Thus, denominated sends still correlate to their aggregate value even if there are 1000 denomianted TXes all on the same block. We just wait for the same thing to happen on the exit end... A sent X to B.

The MNs aren't actually mixing TXes, they're just signing.. Which makes me wonder; why even bother? So it's a fog... It's a fog that we can easilly identify that which goes in and out of said fog... So, uh, it's functionally like there is no fog. Say I walk into the fog, then I come out. Did I become a different person? Even if I change my short while in the fog, you can still tell by other traits that it's me...

As far as I can tell, your whole case revolves around this:

You've latched onto a trivialized case of Darksend+. The laundered amount and the transaction amount do not normally match! The only way they would match is if you laundered your wallet of 27 DRK and then emptied all the denominated addresses totally to a new address to pay for something costing 27 DRK. That's not how it will work in practical terms. You'll launder 27 coins and then send 12 of them to pay for something that costs 12 DRK. Now there's no suggestive link between laundering and transaction amount. These events also occur at different points in time (and for the laundering part, you can mix your coins 2 to 8 times over).

And what I had to say about it + others (take them at their own words):

Just one point about this: sending your *full* balance anonymously has always been a problem (unless your full balance happens to be a denomination size (good luck)). It's not a problem that is easy to fix in a transparent blockchain model. I'm not sure it even can be fixed, but would love to read a solution to it.

I have a solution. Don't do that.
The QT client can warn the user that to send the full balance, the transaction should be broken into multiple transactions. It may even be able to space out transactions for you over multiple blocks. That would be a nice feature actually!

It's not a problem anyway. Say you send your entire balance, and it's the only transaction in that block. An observer sees some randomly denominated amounts pass between multiple random addresses. What meaningful information can be gleaned from that? Bugger all, I contend.

[luigi1111]

I think Camo's scenario is only an issue if everyone is using the exact same mixing depth.  Differences in user-selected mixing depth create more or less randomized exit points, no?  With volume, I'm not sure how you can provably link a sum entering the anon phase with a sum exiting.

Even he agrees there's no mathematical proof to it, but that's not really the point.

[camosoul]

I think Camo's scenario is only an issue if everyone is using the exact same mixing depth.  Differences in user-selected mixing depth create more or less randomized exit points, no?

Not really...

I'm demonstrating that mixing depth is irrelevant. If you see X go in and X come out, then the fog is irrelevant no matter how foggy it is or how long X stays in said fog...

Why? Because the mix is not actually mixing anything. We can tell the difference between TX and SIG. I'm trying to understand how MNs actually do any anon in their current form...

The beauty of the system is, the signing process, since each step after mn1 will be signed by a different key, that is not in your wallet, and thereby it will not be possible to track it back to a given private key.

Almost there...

Are you saying that there is actually only one TX involved?

A sig MN1 sig MN2 sig MN3 tx B?
or
A tx MN2 sig MN2 sig MN3 sig B?

That is certainly foggier, but it still seems an aggregate correlation can occur... I just have to mix metrics in the middle. Use sig aggregation at the sig entry or exit to find aggregate total, look at the total tx... Hmm... I like where this is going...

Once the process is finished, the blockain is essentially static for that TX. If you use one metric to find the sig aggregate, and another metric to find the tx aggregate, you still have an aggregate that matches.

I think Camo's scenario is only an issue if everyone is using the exact same mixing depth.  Differences in user-selected mixing depth create more or less randomized exit points, no?  With volume, I'm not sure how you can provably link a sum entering the anon phase with a sum exiting.

Even he agrees there's no mathematical proof to it, but that's not really the point.

I do agree that it's not absolute proof that A sent X to B. But it's damn close enough for government work... If they find that much, they'll find a way to take that money you're not giving them when they change the laws to give themselves more of what's your's again...

It may not be a crime to save money today, but as we see from the EU, it's on the menu...

It doesn't matter if you look at it from the font end or back end. It doesn't matter if you DON'T use the same metric on both ends... If the aggregate aggregates, close enough; flashbang through your bedroom window at 3am.

[novaboy2k]

Anyone got Kristov's drk address for donations?

I'm also looking...

[alz]

Camo, would the aggregate correlation method you have detailed rely on a single transaction per block scenario?
Ie if there are multiple individual transactions all mixed in each block in blockchain how would any meaningful correlation from TX to RX be possible?

[novaboy2k]

I think Camo's scenario is only an issue if everyone is using the exact same mixing depth.  Differences in user-selected mixing depth create more or less randomized exit points, no?  With volume, I'm not sure how you can provably link a sum entering the anon phase with a sum exiting.

Even he agrees there's no mathematical proof to it, but that's not really the point.

I do agree that it's not absolute proof that A sent X to B. But it's damn close enough for government work... If they find that much, they'll find a way to take that money you're not giving them when they change the laws to give themselves more of what's your's again...

It may not be a crime to save money today, but as we see from the EU, it's on the menu...

I think your missing the point with the EU thing.

Currency like the Euro are going to collapse. Bitcoin Darkcoin will replace these relics once the reset comes. Governments will have to beg us for money, as they can't just take it anymore. (Optimistic) maybe, but perfectly plausible

[camosoul]

Camo, would the aggregate correlation method you have detailed rely on a single transaction per block scenario?
Ie if there are multiple individual transactions all mixed in each block in blockchain how would any meaningful correlation from TX to RX be possible?

It isn't, initially.

You have to de-focus from the process and look at it as a historical recording; which the blockchain is.

It breaks the single-metric method of forming the aggregate. You have to use one method to find the number on the sigs, then another in the txes... But the aggregate still matches up close enough for a no-knock warrant.

And, it's also not guaranteed to be accurate. But, "close enough" for those applying the scrutiny... You paid for the flashbang they'll use on you... No concern of theirs... If they take your kids and force you to reveal your private keys under threat of killing them, then the anon isn't good enough, is it? Anon has to be good enough to keep it from coming to that. I have no wish to troll on DRK. I know of only a handful of people who are hodling more of it than I am. I want it to be the best it can be, and when I see what I think is a hole, I want to talk about it...

The fuckers get desperate enough, you're a fool to think they won't go that far. Building Code is already designed to make the home into a weapon against it's occupants; especially those too stupid to realize it's the opposite of keeping you safe... Much better houses can be built literally from dirt for almost free... Notice your Home Owners' Insurance says that you house is a Class 4 Fire Hazard... I know that's a bit off topic, but it speaks to the mentality of the people in government, they're fucking evil beyond mortal description. They're already using your loved ones to extort you. What's one more step?

[Hueristic]

I think Camo's scenario is only an issue if everyone is using the exact same mixing depth.  Differences in user-selected mixing depth create more or less randomized exit points, no?  With volume, I'm not sure how you can provably link a sum entering the anon phase with a sum exiting.

Even he agrees there's no mathematical proof to it, but that's not really the point.

I do agree that it's not absolute proof that A sent X to B. But it's damn close enough for government work... If they find that much, they'll find a way to take that money you're not giving them when they change the laws to give themselves more of what's your's again...

It may not be a crime to save money today, but as we see from the EU, it's on the menu...

I think your missing the point with the EU thing.

Currency like the Euro are going to collapse. Bitcoin Darkcoin will replace these relics once the reset comes. Governments will have to beg us for money, as they can't just take it anymore. (Optimistic) maybe, but perfectly plausible

Can I have some of what your taking?

[coins101]

I think Camo's scenario is only an issue if everyone is using the exact same mixing depth.  Differences in user-selected mixing depth create more or less randomized exit points, no?  With volume, I'm not sure how you can provably link a sum entering the anon phase with a sum exiting.

Even he agrees there's no mathematical proof to it, but that's not really the point.

I do agree that it's not absolute proof that A sent X to B. But it's damn close enough for government work... If they find that much, they'll find a way to take that money you're not giving them when they change the laws to give themselves more of what's your's again...

It may not be a crime to save money today, but as we see from the EU, it's on the menu...

I think your missing the point with the EU thing.

Currency like the Euro are going to collapse. Bitcoin Darkcoin will replace these relics once the reset comes. Governments will have to beg us for money, as they can't just take it anymore. (Optimistic) maybe, but perfectly plausible

$500/drk, no begging necessary.

[eltito]

I think Camo's scenario is only an issue if everyone is using the exact same mixing depth.  Differences in user-selected mixing depth create more or less randomized exit points, no?

Not really...

I'm demonstrating that mixing depth is irrelevant. If you see X go in and X come out, then the fog is irrelevant no matter how foggy it is or how long X stays in said fog...

Why? Because the mix is not actually mixing anything. We can tell the difference between TX and SIG. I'm trying to understand how MNs actually do any anon in their current form...

What I'm saying is that if 150 DRK from different sources goes in at hop 1, unless the exact same amount goes back out at hop 3/4/5/6/7, I'm not sure I understand how they can be associated.  You'd have non-associated inputs at hop 2, 3, 4, 5 and outputs which may or may not be associated at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.  Actually, even if 150 DRK did go back out at hop 7, given the other inputs at different mixing depths input at 2/3/4/5, how could you prove that it wasn't a coincidental permutation of some combination of inputs from hops 1,2,3,4 and 5?

[thelonecrouton]

When the thugs kick you door down and put a gun to your head, whatever cryptography you've employed is irrelevant, you're screwed unless you have dirt on someone important.

Darkcoin/Darksend is just one tool in the box, no one tool is going to save you.

'They' don't need any proof to stick you in a hole forever. They just declare you an enemy of the state and disappear you, then the pliers come out and you'll give them everything they want to know in seconds.

So tool up, with lots of different tools...  

[camosoul]

When the thugs kick you door down and put a gun to your head

The last one who did that to me learned not a damn thing from it; the dead don't learn.

[naxin]

Camo, would the aggregate correlation method you have detailed rely on a single transaction per block scenario?
Ie if there are multiple individual transactions all mixed in each block in blockchain how would any meaningful correlation from TX to RX be possible?

It isn't, initially.

You have to de-focus from the process and look at it as a historical recording; which the blockchain is.

It breaks the single-metric method of forming the aggregate. You have to use one method to find the number on the sigs, then another in the txes... But the aggregate still matches up close enough for a no-knock warrant.

And, it's also not guaranteed to be accurate. But, "close enough" for those applying the scrutiny... You paid for the flashbang they'll use on you... No concern of theirs...

Back.

Alright camo, you're missing the point.  Let me illustrate it:

Person A: 100 DRK balance wants to send 32 DRK to Person B.

For example, Person A has a wallet made up of one single transaction, a 100 DRK output. This single output will be denominated into multiple outputs, each with their own pub/priv address. It is still possible to link transactions at this point.

Next, each of these denominated outputs are put into the MN cycle. You do not get the same input back, someone else does. Now, you get 100 DRK back which has no relationship to your previous balance, in denominated form and a bunch of pub/priv keys. The wallet takes care of all that for you, you still see the balance of 100 DRK, the wallet abstracts the fact that this may be made up of hundreds of different addresses and pub/priv keys.

Ideally, this process happens over time, not the moment you want to send the money. And based on mix depth, it may cycles through many times.

So now I want to send the money. I send 32 DRK to person B. In constructing the transaction, my wallet will put together a mix of the now numerous outputs which makes up my wallet and creates a transaction with those outputs acting as the inputs, which is sent to the network, and now those coins are attributed to person B as one single output.

At this point, a and b cannot be linked. If, however, you had a balance of 37.5456 coins, anonymized them to a bunch of addresses, and then sent the whole lot of them to a new address, a causal link could then be made.

[toknormal]

however, you had a balance of 37.5456 coins, anonymized them to a bunch of addresses, and then sent the whole lot of them to a new address, a causal link could then be made.

I think I'll live with that one thanks (just before people start suggesting that the receiver gets "a different number of coins" than was sent in order to obfuscate the transaction completely     )

[camosoul]

What I'm saying is that if 150 DRK from different sources goes in at hop 1, unless the exact same amount goes back out at hop 3/4/5/6/7, I'm not sure I understand how they can be associated.  You'd have non-associated inputs at hop 2, 3, 4, 5 and outputs which may or may not be associated at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.  Actually, even if 150 DRK did go back out at hop 7, given the other inputs at different mixing depths input at 2/3/4/5, how could you prove that it wasn't a coincidental permutation of some combination of inputs from hops 1,2,3,4 and 5?

Each of those units from which the 150 aggregate is made looks like this:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+10+10+10+10+10+10... You get the idea. It adds up to the 150.

But, each one was either signed or TXed, wasn't it?

So, I can pick out, using that metric, where those individual chunks came from:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+10+10+10+10+10+10...

So, it's not a blind 150 input! They had to prove to the network that they had a claim to those chunks they sent in, right? Otherwise anyone could just spend all the coin they wanted! They sign it. I can sign every message I post on this forum with my PGP key. Every sig will look different, but PGP will tell YOU that they match my pubkey, which I gave you. It's a pubkey...

We can tell that ever red chunk belongs to the same sender. Aggregate the red chunks, we have the total value.

We wait for X blocks, ignoring the mix altogether.

There will be a future TX in which we can aggregate this value again, and it'll also be going to a common pubkey/address which we can find the same way! The address has to be put in the blockchain, doesn't it? It doesn't stay unknown to the network AFTER it gets used, that'd unravel the whole game...

Currently, we know it will be 8 cycles or less, so that makes it way easier to find than if we had no idea.

I'm suggesting a way to blur that. Whether my idea for blurring that be a good one or not, I don't know. I just know it needs to be blurred.

[Brilliantrocket]

If, however, you had a balance of 37.5456 coins, anonymized them to a bunch of addresses, and then sent the whole lot of them to a new address, a causal link could then be made.

I think that this will be an issue with any currency that uses a blockchain. You'll always be able to scan addresses at different points in time and try to make a match.

[thelonecrouton]

Camo, would the aggregate correlation method you have detailed rely on a single transaction per block scenario?
Ie if there are multiple individual transactions all mixed in each block in blockchain how would any meaningful correlation from TX to RX be possible?

It isn't, initially.

You have to de-focus from the process and look at it as a historical recording; which the blockchain is.

It breaks the single-metric method of forming the aggregate. You have to use one method to find the number on the sigs, then another in the txes... But the aggregate still matches up close enough for a no-knock warrant.

And, it's also not guaranteed to be accurate. But, "close enough" for those applying the scrutiny... You paid for the flashbang they'll use on you... No concern of theirs...

Back.

Alright camo, you're missing the point.  Let me illustrate it:

Person A: 100 DRK balance wants to send 32 DRK to Person B.

For example, Person A has a wallet made up of one single transaction, a 100 DRK output. This single output will be denominated into multiple outputs, each with their own pub/priv address. It is still possible to link transactions at this point.

Next, each of these denominated outputs are put into the MN cycle. You do not get the same input back, someone else does. Now, you get 100 DRK back which has no relationship to your previous balance, in denominated form and a bunch of pub/priv keys. The wallet takes care of all that for you, you still see the balance of 100 DRK, the wallet abstracts the fact that this may be made up of hundreds of different addresses and pub/priv keys.

Ideally, this process happens over time, not the moment you want to send the money. And based on mix depth, it may cycles through many times.

So now I want to send the money. I send 32 DRK to person B. In constructing the transaction, my wallet will put together a mix of the now numerous outputs which makes up my wallet and creates a transaction with those outputs acting as the inputs, which is sent to the network, and now those coins are attributed to person B as one single output.

At this point, a and b cannot be linked. If, however, you had a balance of 37.5456 coins, anonymized them to a bunch of addresses, and then sent the whole lot of them to a new address, a causal link could then be made.

When they arrive at their destination, they get automagically laundered into zero-history addresses there too, is my possibly erroneous understanding. At least, they do before they get sent onwards. Fractions are denominated down to 0.001 I think eltito said and the dust is fed to miners.

As long as nobody has access to your wallet.dat (and hopefully it will be password/PIN protected anyway in RC4) you're good, excepting the dark hole and rusty pliers scenario.

No causal link is provable except by your own admission, either voluntary or coerced.

[camosoul]

Camo, would the aggregate correlation method you have detailed rely on a single transaction per block scenario?
Ie if there are multiple individual transactions all mixed in each block in blockchain how would any meaningful correlation from TX to RX be possible?

It isn't, initially.

You have to de-focus from the process and look at it as a historical recording; which the blockchain is.

It breaks the single-metric method of forming the aggregate. You have to use one method to find the number on the sigs, then another in the txes... But the aggregate still matches up close enough for a no-knock warrant.

And, it's also not guaranteed to be accurate. But, "close enough" for those applying the scrutiny... You paid for the flashbang they'll use on you... No concern of theirs...

Back.

Alright camo, you're missing the point.  Let me illustrate it:

Person A: 100 DRK balance wants to send 32 DRK to Person B.

For example, Person A has a wallet made up of one single transaction, a 100 DRK output. This single output will be denominated into multiple outputs, each with their own pub/priv address. It is still possible to link transactions at this point.

Next, each of these denominated outputs are put into the MN cycle. You do not get the same input back, someone else does. Now, you get 100 DRK back which has no relationship to your previous balance, in denominated form and a bunch of pub/priv keys. The wallet takes care of all that for you, you still see the balance of 100 DRK, the wallet abstracts the fact that this may be made up of hundreds of different addresses and pub/priv keys.

Ideally, this process happens over time, not the moment you want to send the money. And based on mix depth, it may cycles through many times.

So now I want to send the money. I send 32 DRK to person B. In constructing the transaction, my wallet will put together a mix of the now numerous outputs which makes up my wallet and creates a transaction with those outputs acting as the inputs, which is sent to the network, and now those coins are attributed to person B as one single output.

At this point, a and b cannot be linked. If, however, you had a balance of 37.5456 coins, anonymized them to a bunch of addresses, and then sent the whole lot of them to a new address, a causal link could then be made.

I still think that my red chunks example still applies... Since I can differentiate between an MN and a Client by noting that one doesn't ever perform a TX and one does, there really is no mixing... Thus, I can aggregate the signatures that match each other to find the total value of the TX.

Then, I wait for it to come out the other end. Even if I have to use a different metric to find the aggregate value, I can still do it... Even if it's not a certainty, I can still use it as a plausible excuse to kill people and get away with it if I'm wearing a Badge and Uniform. Sure, it's Plausible Deniability. But it's also Plausible Cause, which used to be called Probable Cause. If they know you're into cryptocurrency, they want you dead anyway, so it's just the excuse they need... Say it was another crazy with child pron "barricaded in the residence." Once you're dead, they can make up any story they want...

Even outside of this, we're only faux-mixing to 0.001... That's a unique quantity of 1xxxxx Duffs that hangs around like a fingerprint forever... I realize you can't mix every Duff, but it needs to be a less unique number...