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

[stealth923]

We need raze to put a DRK emblem on this thing :-)

Holy shit thats amazing raze haha!!

Attention to detail - even on the seats and fuel cap!!!...and is that a "D" in the middle of the front wheel lolol

[1715321901]

1715321901

[1715321901]

1715321901

[1715321901]

1715321901

[Ozziecoin]

PING - mmntEcd4owYubW39oG8VQpwVNKacUmQyHa

PONG - mzC2UqSvKcW6b5NN2iFzX9sNUn1R5Hysyd

sent

sent 808.xxxxxxxx

thnx
Now tell me how to get balance to be anonymized? just keeping the wallet online nothing else?

Yes. Or go to console and type: darksend auto

lol - that does not work

sure it does. . Worked for me. On send screen, u can see transmit.

[7vpo]

Masternodes can surely be used as anon chat aswell in the near future

Compared to the coding that went into darksend+, this would be like super easy for that Evan dude. Mate, thank you! hahaha.

the list of usage of MN's is unlimited.

p2p-pool connectors, decentralized exchange network, anon chat.

Basically everything the interwebz needs

Everything fine and correct. But P2pool still unlisted.

[Ozziecoin]

- Darksend limited to 5000DRK per wallet.dat. Client will warn about this the first time it's opened, then disable darksend from then on.

I hope this doesn't stick in final release, and is just a temporary troubleshooting crutch... Most of my wallet.dats are 5 digits... I most definitely want them anonified...

There might be an override. Ask Evan.

[Lauda]

Unless I have to register on the forums of DRK and ask there, I would like to get some input from Evan or some developer on this.

There are two things that concern me:

1. Outputs can still be linked to addresses. If you send 20 DRK and it sends all these other outputs along with it to obfuscate, the 20 DRK still ends up in someone's address. That this can be observed on the blockchain means that analysis is easy, and we all know how often people leak addresses associated with their wallet (eg. posting it up for giveaways etc. etc.) This is an immutable problem in any Bitcoin-forked cryptocurrency that exists, as the solution (stealth addresses computed w/random data) has to be enforced for every transaction from the genesis block. If you enforce it halfway through you're stuck with old outputs that don't use stealth addresses, which makes it exceedingly complex to ensure the anonymityset is not at-risk.

2. Masternodes are an Achilles' heel. Let us say that there are 10 000 masternodes on the network. Their IP addresses and the port they operate on is, by necessity, known to the network. Let's assume that an attacker controls 5 masternodes of the 10 000. Let's also assume that each of the masternodes on the network is on a dedicated server (none of them use a VPS, because a VPS could be trivially owned by the host operating system) and each of these servers is on a 1gbps unmetered, dedicated port (clearly not the case right now, but I'm talking about a future time). How hard would it be for an attacker to knock the other 9995 masternodes off the network, leaving theirs as the only accessible masternodes (and thus not only earning them all the fees, but giving them perfect insight into transactions moving within their controlled group)? Well, NTP amplification attacks have let attackers launch 400Gbps attacks against a single machine from a sole 2mbps connection. SNMP has a theoretical 650x amplification factor. All an attacker needs to do is max out the unmetered port in an obvious attack, and the datacenter will have to react. Even straight up LOIC-style / botnet SYN floods to the port that the masternode has open will lead to the the DC null-routing traffic to that box, typically for 6 hours whilst they wait for the attack to stop. Mitigating this is an extremely difficult and expensive operation for each masternode to individually undertake, and not all DCs will even be able to provide DDoS mitigation at this level. An unsophisticated attacker using extremely traditional tools can knock all of the masternodes off the network except those they control. This is a threat to anonymity.

Incidentally, the other problem with masternodes that nobody seems to have thought of is that the limited number of them will mean they're in direct competition with each other. It is in a masternode operator's financial interests to make life difficult for the rest of them - DDoS attacks, reporting the box to the datacenter, anything that can knock a single competitor off the masternode network means more fees for the remaining masternodes. This is different to PoW mining where, for instance, knocking the pools offline doesn't mean you'll get more transaction fees, as miners always have backup pools. I'm not sure how sustainable this is as a system if it unmistakably pitches operators against each other to fight for fees. Given the cost and capital required to own a masternode, it's appreciable that this will happen as a natural result of wanting to maximise masternode profits.

Anyone considering this FUD or something is an ignorant idiot. This is just objective input from another developer who obviously has high knowledge.

[thefrog]

Masternodes can surely be used as anon chat aswell in the near future

Compared to the coding that went into darksend+, this would be like super easy for that Evan dude. Mate, thank you! hahaha.

the list of usage of MN's is unlimited.

p2p-pool connectors, decentralized exchange network, anon chat.

Basically everything the interwebz needs

Everything fine and correct. But P2pool still unlisted.

p2pool unlisted ? p2pool is mining pool network, does not have anything to do with MNs.

[maese123]

To investors...please dont expect drk to rise more than 40-50% after rc4 release. Any high price predictions will only lead to dissapointment and greed may even cause you to dump. DRK is here for the long term, it will have slow steady growth because of new buy support forming after each rc version. 
So keep expections realistic, buy into a masternode or share a node and remain patient because best things come to those who wait.

I think so, people think rc4 to the moon, but there is no demand, great development but the price... more than 0.018 is difficult

[tungfa]

Regarding this repulsive article written in forexminute
about DRK, i could not help myself and just wrote an email to the editors.
(these A…holes), how unprofessional can you be publishing FUD like that as a
'professional online paper'
(FUXX THEM)

if you feel the same about this
and want to send them a mail,
use this address !!
(as the one of the writer does not work/ surprise)

support@forexminute.com

do not worry, i was very polite and honest,
but had to make my point !

[Ignition75]

Regarding this repulsive article written in forexminute
about DRK, i could not help myself and just wrote an email to the editors.
(these A…holes), how unprofessional can you be publishing FUD like that as a
'professional online paper'
(FUXX THEM)

if you feel the same about this
and want to send them a mail,
use this address !!
(as the one of the writer does not work/ surprise)

support@forexminute.com

do not worry, i was very polite and honest,
but had to make my point !

Expect Troll's and FUDSters to rise to new levels in the coming days.  Concern Trolls, The Long Troll (aka The Long Con), The Chinglish Troll (I'm being paid in LTC and English is not my first language Troll) & the good old fashioned every day Troll.

I'm sure as Dark reaches new heights there will be new classifications as well.  Nobody innovates like a the Dark Trolls...

I'm preparing my Troll defence strategy for the worse possible scenario... The Inception Troll... The Troll within the Troll within the Troll.... I might need Camo's help for that one...

[chaeplin]

Evan's comment on RC4.

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc4-testing.1830/page-74#post-15229

JGCMiner said: ↑
Quick question: Is then new masternode based enforcement switched "on" on testnet? If so, have there been any forking issues or is the new code thought to be bug free and ready for mainnet as well.

I'm going to skip enforcement of the payments for RC4. Perfecting Darksend+ has been a lot larger than originally intended and we're having 90%+ payments currently, so I don't want to make people wait a few more weeks for such a small benefit.

Although, once I start testing if there's no problems with the code I'll go ahead and turn it on. It just depends if I find anything.

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc4-testing.1830/page-69#post-15098

I've been working on setting a target amount for Darksend to denominate and it turns out to be a giant problem. What if the wallet just disables darksend by default for more than say 5000DRK, which you could override if you wanted to. It would also give a popup error saying "Darksend is not designed to run with more than 5000DRK in a wallet, to use darksend please make a new wallet with less than that amount" or something

[illodin]

Unless I have to register on the forums of DRK and ask there, I would like to get some input from Evan or some developer on this.

There are two things that concern me:

1. Outputs can still be linked to addresses. If you send 20 DRK and it sends all these other outputs along with it to obfuscate, the 20 DRK still ends up in someone's address. That this can be observed on the blockchain means that analysis is easy, and we all know how often people leak addresses associated with their wallet (eg. posting it up for giveaways etc. etc.) This is an immutable problem in any Bitcoin-forked cryptocurrency that exists, as the solution (stealth addresses computed w/random data) has to be enforced for every transaction from the genesis block. If you enforce it halfway through you're stuck with old outputs that don't use stealth addresses, which makes it exceedingly complex to ensure the anonymityset is not at-risk.

2. Masternodes are an Achilles' heel. Let us say that there are 10 000 masternodes on the network. Their IP addresses and the port they operate on is, by necessity, known to the network. Let's assume that an attacker controls 5 masternodes of the 10 000. Let's also assume that each of the masternodes on the network is on a dedicated server (none of them use a VPS, because a VPS could be trivially owned by the host operating system) and each of these servers is on a 1gbps unmetered, dedicated port (clearly not the case right now, but I'm talking about a future time). How hard would it be for an attacker to knock the other 9995 masternodes off the network, leaving theirs as the only accessible masternodes (and thus not only earning them all the fees, but giving them perfect insight into transactions moving within their controlled group)? Well, NTP amplification attacks have let attackers launch 400Gbps attacks against a single machine from a sole 2mbps connection. SNMP has a theoretical 650x amplification factor. All an attacker needs to do is max out the unmetered port in an obvious attack, and the datacenter will have to react. Even straight up LOIC-style / botnet SYN floods to the port that the masternode has open will lead to the the DC null-routing traffic to that box, typically for 6 hours whilst they wait for the attack to stop. Mitigating this is an extremely difficult and expensive operation for each masternode to individually undertake, and not all DCs will even be able to provide DDoS mitigation at this level. An unsophisticated attacker using extremely traditional tools can knock all of the masternodes off the network except those they control. This is a threat to anonymity.

Incidentally, the other problem with masternodes that nobody seems to have thought of is that the limited number of them will mean they're in direct competition with each other. It is in a masternode operator's financial interests to make life difficult for the rest of them - DDoS attacks, reporting the box to the datacenter, anything that can knock a single competitor off the masternode network means more fees for the remaining masternodes. This is different to PoW mining where, for instance, knocking the pools offline doesn't mean you'll get more transaction fees, as miners always have backup pools. I'm not sure how sustainable this is as a system if it unmistakably pitches operators against each other to fight for fees. Given the cost and capital required to own a masternode, it's appreciable that this will happen as a natural result of wanting to maximise masternode profits.

Anyone considering this FUD or something is an ignorant idiot. This is just objective input from another developer who obviously has high knowledge.

Im no Evan nor (cryptocoin) developer, but anyway...
Regardin MN dos:

What if the Darkcoin wallet was monitoring the state of the network, and if the running masternode count fell for example 50% in a short period of time, it would stop denominating funds (denomination is the anonymization process which runs in the background). This wouldn't affect people sending or receiving coins because they already have them denominated/anonymized. It would only prevent people from re-sending received funds during this ddos period.

And also, dos attack sounds highly inefficient because even if you'd get all the other nodes out, the data you're grabbing with your own nodes will mostly be uninteresting to you, and the trail will end very soon because the funds are constantly being anonymized. A script which monitors your node's status and launches a new node on a different service operator if needed could also be developed.

I don't know whether masternode owners turning against each other is plausible, as that kind of activity would affect the coin valuation negatively, so I doubt the incentive is there, but we'll see.


I don't really understand what's the problem with 1. is though. People use different addresses for different purposes. Those who don't, won't risk other users unless I'm misunderstanding something.

[chaeplin]

Unless I have to register on the forums of DRK and ask there, I would like to get some input from Evan or some developer on this.

~~

Anyone considering this FUD or something is an ignorant idiot. This is just objective input from another developer who obviously has high knowledge.

2. Known attack type : https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc4-testing.1830/page-47#post-14360

1. My thought : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg8088488#msg8088488
    Actually IP Obfuscation is first.

[JGCMiner]

- Darksend limited to 5000DRK per wallet.dat. Client will warn about this the first time it's opened, then disable darksend from then on.

I hope this doesn't stick in final release, and is just a temporary troubleshooting crutch... Most of my wallet.dats are 5 digits... I most definitely want them anonified...

The technical background of the 5000 DRK limitation is, that with current denomination scheme (0.1 ; 1 ; 10 ; 100 ; 500) the tx scripts for sending amounts > 5000 DRK get to large (20k+) and will not be relayed/mined by miners.
Possible solutions are to
a) extend the scheme by additional denomination units (e.g.  1000 & 5000)
b) switch to different scheme:
    - either binary scheme as proposed by Kristov Atlas  ( 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 + ...)
    - or  a optimized scheme as proposed by babygiraffe in https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-7th.1735/#post-11434

It might be worth considering one of those solutions.

While this will not effect 90%+ of the users, it will effect early adopters who likely have the most coin.  Furthermore, these same people are going to be DRK's most ardent supporters, the same people who will most likely to set up services for DRK, and so on.

If adding a 1000 or 5000 level for cases where you have more than 5000DRK will make the whole system provably less anonymous then I understand the hesitation, but if it would just delay RC4 (because more testing would be needed) then I say the code should be modified.

This is the response about this issue from one of the devs (flare) and my response.  

[Ozziecoin]

The 20 drks sent to an address, then gets denominated.

[ExpedientSlush]

Some bag of shit is trying to manipulate DRK down while manipulating CLOAK up. Hope this asshole gets punished and his wall gets dumped into.

https://i.imgur.com/yHA1JJt.jpg

[camosoul]

Some bag of shit is trying to manipulate DRK down while manipulating CLOAK up. Hope this asshole gets punished and his wall gets dumped into.

It's only possible due to low volume...

Once RC4 comes, and that 10DRK limit is lifted, volume should rise considerably as it will be useful for something more than hodl.

Even if you can read the crystal ball, the actual utility of the coin is all that really matters...

[Ozziecoin]

- Darksend limited to 5000DRK per wallet.dat. Client will warn about this the first time it's opened, then disable darksend from then on.

I hope this doesn't stick in final release, and is just a temporary troubleshooting crutch... Most of my wallet.dats are 5 digits... I most definitely want them anonified...

lol what a terribly wonderful problem you have there.

Yeah, it sucks... ;-)

But it is a valid concern I'd like to know more about... The 10DRK limit of Legacy DS was known to be a temporary thing... 5K DRK anon limit is, uh, weird. I'd like to think it's temporary because it's just so oddball... It feels like a lack of confidence. "We think it works, but uh, just in case, we don't want whales trying to kill Evan if it fucks up real bad..." It looks bad...

Can I send out to split it down? How many wallet.dat files do I freakin' need? It's kinda like MNs... Without multi-entry, it's too many manufactured points of failure.

Nothing to do with confidence. It creates tons of outputs. When you send there will be higher transact costs due to lots of inputs or the send fails when trying to send large amounts in one go.

[BrainShutdown]

- Darksend limited to 5000DRK per wallet.dat. Client will warn about this the first time it's opened, then disable darksend from then on.

I hope this doesn't stick in final release, and is just a temporary troubleshooting crutch... Most of my wallet.dats are 5 digits... I most definitely want them anonified...

lol what a terribly wonderful problem you have there.

Yeah, it sucks... ;-)

But it is a valid concern I'd like to know more about... The 10DRK limit of Legacy DS was known to be a temporary thing... 5K DRK anon limit is, uh, weird. I'd like to think it's temporary because it's just so oddball... It feels like a lack of confidence. "We think it works, but uh, just in case, we don't want whales trying to kill Evan if it fucks up real bad..." It looks bad...

Can I send out to split it down? How many wallet.dat files do I freakin' need? It's kinda like MNs... Without multi-entry, it's too many manufactured points of failure.

Nothing to do with confidence. It creates tons of outputs. When you send there will be higher transact costs due to lots of inputs or the send fails when trying to send large amounts in one go.

Flare pointed out the technical reasons and possible solutions here https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc4-testing.1830/page-76#post-15286

The technical background of the 5000 DRK limitation is, that with current denomination scheme (0.1 ; 1 ; 10 ; 100 ; 500) the tx scripts for sending amounts > 5000 DRK get to large (20k+) and will not be relayed/mined by miners.

Possible solutions are to

a) extend the scheme by additional denomination units (e.g. 1000 & 5000)
b) switch to different scheme:
- either binary scheme as proposed by Kristov Atlas ( 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 + ...)
- or a optimized scheme as proposed by babygiraffe in https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-7th.1735/#post-11434

[Ozziecoin]

With 5000 drk limit, I think Evan mentioned it is possible to override. So u can try to start with enable darksend rounds 8. Can't remember exact command.

[Ozziecoin]

All the coins that can't be named are about to go bye bye.