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

[camosoul]

- 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

I don't fuckin' believe it; something useful just happened in this thread...

[1715311802]

1715311802

[1715311802]

1715311802

[1715311802]

1715311802

[1715311802]

1715311802

[camosoul]

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

Excellent work, but not on that nasty oil burning heap of crap...

[camosoul]

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.

I think I'll just hold my wallets cold until a better denom scheme is implemented... May be done before RC4 goes mainnet...

[GhostPlayer]

oooh... someone just snatched 5k... sweet 

[Ozziecoin]

Really staggering that there are sellers when testnet shows functioning wallet anonymising transactions.

[camosoul]

Really staggering that there are sellers when testnet shows functioning wallet working.

Shitcoiners don't read.

[JGCMiner]

oooh... someone just snatched 5k... sweet  

You look at this -- then you look at the limit...

If I just spend nearly $30k on DRK I would not be happy if after I sent the coins to my wallet I was subsequently informed that I need to jump through hoops to get anonymous. If there is a limit it should be much higher.

[stealth923]

oooh... someone just snatched 5k... sweet  

I think someone should just pony up the 1040drk and take us back over 0.01 once and for all.

[coinzcoinzcoinz]

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

Excellent work, but not on that nasty oil burning heap of crap...

Im buying this car after RC4 and will have it customized like in the picture. Will post pics when done.

Edit: this is a really good photoshop btw, very well done

[stealth923]

this car after RC4 and will have it customized like in the picture. Will post pics when done.

This is the only time on this forum I have read something like this knowing it will come true - especially with your wallet

[dark-sailor]

ForexMinute.com – For a cryptocurrency that is nearly four-five months old, Darkcoin has acquired enough public attention and is now counted among the most serious contenders of Litecoin’s position. The coin currently holds the prestigious fifth spot at CoinMarketCap.COM, and is blessed with a strong community as well.

The way Darkcoin has ascended to its current position is indeed mention worthy. The coin’s development team has brought people something that was never discussed before on the global scale – a digital coin with transaction anonymity. This feature, dubbed as Darksend, instantly grabbed the minds of many experts and novices inside the cryptocurrency market.

[Ignition75]

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

If I'm a Shale (A ShitCoin Whale), by now I've accumulated a bit of DRK and I'm ready to try and counter any fresh demand from RC4 by attempting to keep the price down for as long as possible.

It will go down a little something like this:

[Ozziecoin]

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

Excellent work, but not on that nasty oil burning heap of crap...

Im buying this car after RC4 and will have it customized like in the picture. Will post pics when done.

Edit: this is a really good photoshop btw, very well done

Now you got to think of name for plates. 

[Lauda]

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.

Well no, if you read about the 2nd part you would see that DDOS-ing 1000 MNs isn't even that hard. Well i'm interested if one of them has some input on the matter. As for this:

Code:

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.

DRK has enforced it halfway is what he was trying to say. He said that these are just his concerns. I would like to watch a discussion between him and our developers, that would be interesting.

[Ozziecoin]

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.

Well no, if you read about the 2nd part you would see that DDOS-ing 1000 MNs isn't even that hard. Well i'm interested if one of them has some input on the matter. As for this:

Code:

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.

DRK has enforced it halfway is what he was trying to say. He said that these are just his concerns. I would like to watch a discussion between him and our developers, that would be interesting.

No. I'll go with el presidente and say that DDOSing 1000 MNs is bloody hard. Don't you guys read the stuff chaeplin writes?

As for enforcing part way, seriously what has the price of rice in China got to do with it? Just think. It makes no difference. The outputs are taken, split up, mixed with other outputs of same size then deposited to new random addresses in your wallet.

[Ozziecoin]

If you try to flood any bitcoin based daemon on the open port, it will auto ban your ip.

Edit: my MNs reject all ports except the open port by default. I think chaeplin's do the same.

[illodin]

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.

Well no, if you read about the 2nd part you would see that DDOS-ing 1000 MNs isn't even that hard.

Didn't say it wouldn't be hard - no idea if it is or isn't - I just said the incentive to ddos is minimal. You will ddos the whole masternode network, and after some time the wallet realizes what's up, and disables anonymization process. If someone you're interested in happened to anonymize his incoming funds in that exact time window you might get something, but what are the odds your ddos resulted in anything? Small I'd guess. Therefor, no incentive.

[Ignition75]

Oh my... I hadn't realised how badly the coins that shall not be named are doing...

Just goes to show... Trolling on other people's threads turns serious investment away... It's completely desperate and unprofessional...

[Phillis]

If you try to flood any bitcoin based daemon on the open port, it will auto ban your ip.

yup

[illodin]

If you try to flood any bitcoin based daemon on the open port, it will auto ban your ip.

yup

Ban from where? If the data gets to the virtual machine running the daemon it's already too late.