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

[splawik21]

We have seen it rise. It has been stabilizing and people are loading. Next is a full blown DRK breakout Arkanoid style.

lol one of my old favorites!

I've spent months playing this
Would be cool to play it with darkcoins which ocassionaly comes out of the bricks

[TaoOfSaatoshi]

Bitcoin Price Analysis: Week of Feb 23
(DRK mentioned)

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113538/bitcoin-price-analysis-week-of-feb-23-no-volatility
 

Coinbase's "commercial"



...is a Darkcoin's commercial.

Evan, what have you done?!

Darkcoin commercial initiated:

https://twitter.com/taoofsatoshi/status/569896110271148033

Cheers,

Tao

[MyFarm]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

[stonehedge]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

I agree that the ref node has to go and I believe that it is seen as a high priority for the dev team.

However, why does everybody get so freaked out by it?  Its a temporary and elegant solution to a problem.  Without it, we'd just go back to variance in masternode payments.

I stand to be corrected but it is not an attack vector for the network.

[eduffield]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

Removal of the reference node is absolutely a priority. Instead of a blockchain based solution, I was thinking it could use the same exact logic as InstantX, just collect 20 of 30 signatures. If you get 20+ for one address, then it wins and is enforced. So the masternode network as a whole becomes the reference node.

[eduffield]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

I agree that the ref node has to go and I believe that it is seen as a high priority for the dev team.

However, why does everybody get so freaked out by it?  Its a temporary and elegant solution to a problem.  Without it, we'd just go back to variance in masternode payments.

I stand to be corrected but it is not an attack vector for the network.

I agree, it literally poses no risk to any part of the system.

[stonehedge]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

I agree that the ref node has to go and I believe that it is seen as a high priority for the dev team.

However, why does everybody get so freaked out by it?  Its a temporary and elegant solution to a problem.  Without it, we'd just go back to variance in masternode payments.

I stand to be corrected but it is not an attack vector for the network.

I agree, it literally poses no risk to any part of the system.

Thanks Ed.

[crackfoo]

The latest shift for the Xpool Multipool paid out over 23+ DRK, 76+ BTCD, 56+FIBRE & 0.012+ BTC.

** We are now merge mining on all algos. X11: Unitus - SCRYPT: Dogecoin & ViaCoin & SysCoin & PesetaCoin - SHA256: DevCoin & NameCoin.

Any problems, please PM as I may miss your post.

Cheers!

www.xpool.ca

[MyFarm]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

I agree that the ref node has to go and I believe that it is seen as a high priority for the dev team.

However, why does everybody get so freaked out by it?  Its a temporary and elegant solution to a problem.  Without it, we'd just go back to variance in masternode payments.

I stand to be corrected but it is not an attack vector for the network.

I agree, it literally poses no risk to any part of the system.

Let's say you roll out an update and enforcement is off.  The next day, god forbid, you get hit by a bus before you turn enforcement on.  What then?

We saw what bad actor pools do when enforcement is not on.  It's not variance as stonehedge alludes; it is theft.

The beauty of bitcoin is it doesn't need a single person to flip a switch for it to work properly.  At present, Darkcoin does.

That's a risk to the entire masternode system and as such, a risk to the entire Darkcoin network.  And a potentially catastrophic one at that.

[Sub-Ether]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

Removal of the reference node is absolutely a priority. Instead of a blockchain based solution, I was thinking it could use the same exact logic as InstantX, just collect 20 of 30 signatures. If you get 20+ for one address, then it wins and is enforced. So the masternode network as a whole becomes the reference node.

Evan, thanks for clarifying,every step makes a more hack resistant and stronger decentralized network-I actually thought the masternodes did the signatures already for most things!  lol.
My question is, can the blockchain possibly be altered in advance of the transactions so that when instantX is sent it has 5 real confirmations in the blockchain previously, by having the transaction already taken place? (but the private key has not been assigned perhaps)
For example, lets say, 10 minor transactions are made every block for coins of values 0,1...8,9 darkcoin and placed in the blockchain on a reserved part of the block but the destination address has not been decided or signed for (but almost). Hence if I send you 1 darkcoin, the 1 POW confirmation afterwards is combined with 5 POW's in 5 previous blocks, so attaining the somewhat impossible action of having already done 5 POW's in the past once it is signed off.
Obviously there would have to be a transaction limit, in this case of 1+2+3....+8+9+10 coins per block(but could alter in size in future blocks based on averages from the previous) but you get the idea.
Can a workaround like this be done to alter previous blocks, or essentially is this what instantX does anyway in a different way?  

[stonehedge]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

I agree that the ref node has to go and I believe that it is seen as a high priority for the dev team.

However, why does everybody get so freaked out by it?  Its a temporary and elegant solution to a problem.  Without it, we'd just go back to variance in masternode payments.

I stand to be corrected but it is not an attack vector for the network.

I agree, it literally poses no risk to any part of the system.

Let's say you roll out an update and enforcement is off.  The next day, god forbid, you get hit by a bus before you turn enforcement on.  What then?

We saw what bad actor pools do when enforcement is not on.  It's not variance as stonehedge alludes; it is theft.

The beauty of bitcoin is it doesn't need a single person to flip a switch for it to work properly.  At present, Darkcoin does.

That's a risk to the entire masternode system and as such, a risk to the entire Darkcoin network.  And a potentially catastrophic one at that.

Evan isn't a single point of failure.

I'm on shaky ground here but I think the reference node was created to solve masternode payment variance...not be a method of enforcing payments.

[eduffield]

Let's say you roll out an update and enforcement is off.  The next day, god forbid, you get hit by a bus before you turn enforcement on.  What then?
We saw what bad actor pools do when enforcement is not on.  It's not variance as stonehedge alludes; it is theft.
The beauty of bitcoin is it doesn't need a single person to flip a switch for it to work properly.  At present, Darkcoin does.
That's a risk to the entire masternode system and as such, a risk to the entire Darkcoin network.  And a potentially catastrophic one at that.

There's a reference node key in the software. If I get hit by a bus, someone just needs to change the key and have everyone update. What would that take, like six hours?

[Minotaur26]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

Removal of the reference node is absolutely a priority. Instead of a blockchain based solution, I was thinking it could use the same exact logic as InstantX, just collect 20 of 30 signatures. If you get 20+ for one address, then it wins and is enforced. So the masternode network as a whole becomes the reference node.

I like this idea because it has been proven to work with InstantX, plus this is related to masternode payments so it makes sense that the whole masternode network is responsible to keep payments on track, because if there wasn't a masternode network then you would not need payments at all.

[MyFarm]

I just added 20btc worth of DRK to my position.  This is the first Darkcoin purchase I have made in a LONG time.  I am still very bothered by the centralized reference node Darkcoin employs and hope that removing it becomes a priority.  In my opinion, Darkcoin is vulnerable in its dominant position as the king of anonymity until that happens.  All it will take is one top tier dev who sees the chink in Darkcoin's armor and doesn't fucking disappear

Once the reference node issue is finally resolved, I suspect we'll be seeing ATH's for Darkcoin.

I agree that the ref node has to go and I believe that it is seen as a high priority for the dev team.

However, why does everybody get so freaked out by it?  Its a temporary and elegant solution to a problem.  Without it, we'd just go back to variance in masternode payments.

I stand to be corrected but it is not an attack vector for the network.

I agree, it literally poses no risk to any part of the system.

Let's say you roll out an update and enforcement is off.  The next day, god forbid, you get hit by a bus before you turn enforcement on.  What then?

We saw what bad actor pools do when enforcement is not on.  It's not variance as stonehedge alludes; it is theft.

The beauty of bitcoin is it doesn't need a single person to flip a switch for it to work properly.  At present, Darkcoin does.

That's a risk to the entire masternode system and as such, a risk to the entire Darkcoin network.  And a potentially catastrophic one at that.

Evan isn't a single point of failure.

I'm on shaky ground here but I think the reference node was created to solve masternode payment variance...not be a method of enforcing payments.

Evan is absolutely, 100% a single point of failure.  While devs like Vertoe are amazing and worth their weight in gold, I do not believe (but would love to be wrong) that they can step into Evans shoes and get Darkcoin's core code to the point it needs to be.  There will come a point where Evan is no longer a single point of failure, but at this point, if Evan got hit by a bus or pulled a Mr. Spread, the value of Darkcoin would tank.  I suspect that won't be the case a year from now.

[MyFarm]

Let's say you roll out an update and enforcement is off.  The next day, god forbid, you get hit by a bus before you turn enforcement on.  What then?
We saw what bad actor pools do when enforcement is not on.  It's not variance as stonehedge alludes; it is theft.
The beauty of bitcoin is it doesn't need a single person to flip a switch for it to work properly.  At present, Darkcoin does.
That's a risk to the entire masternode system and as such, a risk to the entire Darkcoin network.  And a potentially catastrophic one at that.

There's a reference node key in the software. If I get hit by a bus, someone just needs to change the key and have everyone update. What would that take, like six hours?

Certainly, but then someone has to maintain the actual reference node.  I'm sure as heck not going to trust anyone to the degree I trust you.  And the point is, I shouldn't have to trust anyone when it comes to cryptocurrency.  It's supposed to be trustless.  Because let's be honest, humans can't be trusted.  We're all fallible.  

Your biggest argument against other forms of anonymous coins is they require trust.  Darkcoin must be trustless.

[GhostPlayer]

Evan is absolutely, 100% a single point of failure. ... if Evan got hit by a bus or pulled a Mr. Spread, the value of Darkcoin would tank.  I suspect that won't be the case a year from now.

Ther is this thing called github, that Mr.Spread knows intimately too well.

 How does on pull a Mr.Spread? What happened?

[eduffield]

Let's say you roll out an update and enforcement is off.  The next day, god forbid, you get hit by a bus before you turn enforcement on.  What then?
We saw what bad actor pools do when enforcement is not on.  It's not variance as stonehedge alludes; it is theft.
The beauty of bitcoin is it doesn't need a single person to flip a switch for it to work properly.  At present, Darkcoin does.
That's a risk to the entire masternode system and as such, a risk to the entire Darkcoin network.  And a potentially catastrophic one at that.

There's a reference node key in the software. If I get hit by a bus, someone just needs to change the key and have everyone update. What would that take, like six hours?

Certainly, but then someone has to maintain the actual reference node.  I'm sure as heck not going to trust anyone to the degree I trust you.  And the point is, I shouldn't have to trust anyone when it comes to cryptocurrency.  It's supposed to be trustless.  Because let's be honest, humans can't be trusted.  We're all fallible. 

I agree, I'm not arguing we should keep it. It's temporary 

[MyFarm]

Let's say you roll out an update and enforcement is off.  The next day, god forbid, you get hit by a bus before you turn enforcement on.  What then?
We saw what bad actor pools do when enforcement is not on.  It's not variance as stonehedge alludes; it is theft.
The beauty of bitcoin is it doesn't need a single person to flip a switch for it to work properly.  At present, Darkcoin does.
That's a risk to the entire masternode system and as such, a risk to the entire Darkcoin network.  And a potentially catastrophic one at that.

There's a reference node key in the software. If I get hit by a bus, someone just needs to change the key and have everyone update. What would that take, like six hours?

Certainly, but then someone has to maintain the actual reference node.  I'm sure as heck not going to trust anyone to the degree I trust you.  And the point is, I shouldn't have to trust anyone when it comes to cryptocurrency.  It's supposed to be trustless.  Because let's be honest, humans can't be trusted.  We're all fallible. 

I agree, I'm not arguing we should keep it. It's temporary 

At this point, it has been upgraded to semi-permanent

I do believe you that it will be removed at some point.  I look forward to that day so I can stop fucking around with other coins and get behind Darkcoin 100% again as I sincerely believe it will be the 3rd billion dollar cryptocurrency.

[MyFarm]

Evan is absolutely, 100% a single point of failure. ... if Evan got hit by a bus or pulled a Mr. Spread, the value of Darkcoin would tank.  I suspect that won't be the case a year from now.

Ther is this thing called github, that Mr.Spread knows intimately too well.

 How does on pull a Mr.Spread? What happened?

http://spreadcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=4

[MyFarm]

Evan, if you haven't, I'd suggest looking at Spreadcoin's solution to masternode payments.  I'm no programmer but the people I had look at the code tell me it's elegant.

It'd be nice if some good came out of that fucking train wreck.  If it can be utilized so you can focus your time and energy elsewhere, then it'll all have been worth it.