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

[mattmct]

Should update the original post mentioning moolah. Darkcoin is accepted there. It is primarily a store front for people, and you can pay in whatever coin you like (that is accepted) and moolah transfers it for the merchant. They will also have a fiat/DRK exchange. That is big news imo.

Also, I have a question, what are the biggest pools for DRK?

From the moolah's official website FAQ:

What currencies do you support?
Currently we support Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Litecoin and Vertcoin.

Where is Darkcoin?

Currency Support
We currently support Auroracoin, Bitcoin, Darkcoin, Dogecoin, Litecoin, Mintcoin and Vertcoin.

It's there on their features page, https://moolah.io/merchants/learn-more , I guess they forgot to update their FAQ page.

Awesome to see!

[humanitee]

Currency Support
We currently support Auroracoin, Bitcoin, Darkcoin, Dogecoin, Litecoin, Mintcoin and Vertcoin.

It's there on their features page, https://moolah.io/merchants/learn-more , I guess they forgot to update their FAQ page.

Awesome to see!

Yes! Very awesome indeed! I wasn't aware of them, thanks for the update!

Somewhere to spend, ahhh yeah. 

[HammerHedd]

Short of a mathematically provable algo, my assumption is that full information + clever guys + lots of servers will be able to unravel any path information. From an anonymity standpoint the whole txout->txin system is absolutely horrible. Its like if you looked at a $100 USD bill with a microscope you could see every transaction it was involved in! This is why some theorize bitcoin was invented by one of the TLA's

For example, at some point the funds come out of the stealth address to a public destination. Even if knapsacking analysis is prevented by streams of identical denominations, there is still timing analysis.

That is partly the reason that darkcoin is 99% anonymous. You run into the lock and key problem:

Any security system !ANY! is only designed to defeat a certain level of motivation, an anticipated level of attack. No system can be 100%. In the lock and key analogy, if you really build an impenetrable lock system, an supremely determined attacker will simply attack the door itself. You can build security against a reasonable level of attack, but you cannot protect against any attack. It simply isn't possible.

The goal is to make it more costly to attack something than any potential gain. That's why you can put a chain lock on your beat up bicycle and an expensive alarm on your Ferrari. Darkcoin cannot reasonably expect to defeat the full computing power of the NSA armed with quantum computers backed by picobytes of datastorage to analyze every single transaction within the network and calculate probabilities for in and out addresses. That being said, we will probably never have that kind of scrutiny - in fact, it is likely that most of that power is busy collecting information on Russia, China, etc. While it is theorietically possible for darksend to be cracked, it is highly improbable that it will ever be cracked because the incentive isn't there.

That, and most everyone else is incapable of cracking it.

[HammerHedd]

http://darkcoin.mine.nu/poolhash.html

This is pool hashrate (sum of pool's hash. coinmine, such, lottery, mininghub, official, p2pool, cpupool)

update : 10 min.
recent block : when block found.

Chaeplin, do you have a DRK address for tips? You really deserve some for all the work you've put in.

[HammerHedd]

Remember that idea about being able to send a short message via darksend? I was thinking about it again, and it occurred to me that it could work this way:

Each transaction that is denominated also contains an encrypted "message" string. If a "real" message is being sent, a fee (whatever is reasonable) is deducted from the wallet, and included in the denominated sums <- length to be determined by reasonable block size, but I'm thinking something around twitter-sized. We don't want to bloat the blockchain

Each message transaction that contains a message and is not really part of any amount to be distributed has a certain (random) amount removed and added to the block reward. The remaining amount is then sent to the intended recipient. All blocks coming form darksend have encrypted messages strings, but only some of the strings  have real messages. The real messages can only be decrypted by the recipient after arriving, perhaps using one of the wallet's addresses as a key.

Encryption should be no problem because the network is hashing encryption anyway - why not use some of it?

If every transaction (at least every Darksend transaction) has an message string attached, it would be impossible to tell which were real or not. It would also add additional, non-transactions to Darksend, which would further obfuscate the in <> out of the pool

[Fermin]

http://darkcoin.mine.nu/poolhash.html

This is pool hashrate (sum of pool's hash. coinmine, such, lottery, mininghub, official, p2pool, cpupool)

update : 10 min.
recent block : when block found.

Very good job man!

[sippsnapp]

Remember that idea about being able to send a short message via darksend? I was thinking about it again, and it occurred to me that it could work this way:

Each transaction that is denominated also contains an encrypted "message" string. If a "real" message is being sent, a fee (whatever is reasonable) is deducted from the wallet, and included in the denominated sums <- length to be determined by reasonable block size, but I'm thinking something around twitter-sized. We don't want to bloat the blockchain

Each message transaction that contains a message and is not really part of any amount to be distributed has a certain (random) amount removed and added to the block reward. The remaining amount is then sent to the intended recipient. All blocks coming form darksend have encrypted messages strings, but only some of the strings  have real messages. The real messages can only be decrypted by the recipient after arriving, perhaps using one of the wallet's addresses as a key.

Encryption should be no problem because the network is hashing encryption anyway - why not use some of it?

If every transaction (at least every Darksend transaction) has an message string attached, it would be impossible to tell which were real or not. It would also add additional, non-transactions to Darksend, which would further obfuscate the in <> out of the pool

The idea is nice BUT , KISS , what first comes to my mind is anything that flows in the blockchain makes it bigger, the second thing is every part we add might be attackable. Im not a programmer, just my common sense.

[HammerHedd]

Remember that idea about being able to send a short message via darksend? I was thinking about it again, and it occurred to me that it could work this way:

Each transaction that is denominated also contains an encrypted "message" string. If a "real" message is being sent, a fee (whatever is reasonable) is deducted from the wallet, and included in the denominated sums <- length to be determined by reasonable block size, but I'm thinking something around twitter-sized. We don't want to bloat the blockchain

Each message transaction that contains a message and is not really part of any amount to be distributed has a certain (random) amount removed and added to the block reward. The remaining amount is then sent to the intended recipient. All blocks coming form darksend have encrypted messages strings, but only some of the strings  have real messages. The real messages can only be decrypted by the recipient after arriving, perhaps using one of the wallet's addresses as a key.

Encryption should be no problem because the network is hashing encryption anyway - why not use some of it?

If every transaction (at least every Darksend transaction) has an message string attached, it would be impossible to tell which were real or not. It would also add additional, non-transactions to Darksend, which would further obfuscate the in <> out of the pool

The idea is nice BUT , KISS , what first comes to my mind is anything that flows in the blockchain makes it bigger, the second thing is every part we add might be attackable. Im not a programmer, just my common sense.

I hear you... But I think that in this case, it could provide additional functionality without much overhead... I might be wrong, and I'm no programmer, either. But imagine the usefulness of being able to send a small note, a shipping address, a software key, etc. along with a darksend transaction. It would REALLY add to the usability as a medium of exchange.

[humanitee]

I hear you... But I think that in this case, it could provide additional functionality without much overhead... I might be wrong, and I'm no programmer, either. But imagine the usefulness of being able to send a small note, a shipping address, a software key, etc. along with a darksend transaction. It would REALLY add to the usability as a medium of exchange.

InternetApe confirmed a few pages back they would like to enable sending messages and it's on the list for future features.

[sippsnapp]

I hear you... But I think that in this case, it could provide additional functionality without much overhead... I might be wrong, and I'm no programmer, either. But imagine the usefulness of being able to send a small note, a shipping address, a software key, etc. along with a darksend transaction. It would REALLY add to the usability as a medium of exchange.

Id love a feature like this too but the very last thing we want is something broken.
Also my thought about blockchain size, what in 10 years from now? sure hardware gets cheaper and more effective but look at bitcoin blockchain.
Id be very much interested if we can shrink the actual blockchain size while maintaining the level of anonymity and security.

[TanteStefana]

It's not any less trackable to 'the same' user if the change goes to a throw away address to original wallet or secondary wallet, plus that just complicates things to where it isn't usable.

Whenever a change address from a darksend is used in a transaction with an address existing before the darksend there could potentially be a privacy breach. In the current implamentation, the wallet constructs transactions from any of the addresses it has control over, so this could happen on any transaction if the wallet keeps its own change. By sending the change to a completely different wallet, there is no chance for those addresses to get mixed together.

I don't see why this would be necessary as the change is returned with a stealth address?

[AlexGR]

If I'm not mistaken the feature regarding encrypted messages over the network was discussed in the early days of bitcoin development (not in the "adding noise to darksend" context). I do not remember what was the reason for not implementing it though. Priorities? Some kind of problem like bloating? It'd be interesting if some old-timer remembers what happened and why that feature got "stuck".

[TanteStefana]

If I'm not mistaken the feature regarding encrypted messages over the network was discussed in the early days of bitcoin development (not in the "adding noise to darksend" context). I do not remember what was the reason for not implementing it though. Priorities? Some kind of problem like bloating? It'd be interesting if some old-timer remembers what happened and why that feature got "stuck".

It didn't really get stuck, someone brought up the idea, everyone liked it, but at the time we wanted to concentrate on what was to become darksend.  The other things that have been done for the coin besides, came from immediate need (rework of the rewards(was too harsh), KGW then DGW).  Aside from those, the concentration has always been to get Darksend out of Beta and into DarkCoin ASAP while making sure it's completely solid.

We have Evan for at least 2 years, as he's dedicated 100% of his time for the next two years, LOL, and we'll hold him to it  So I'm sure, with the speed and skill he brings to this coin, we'll have all kinds of amazing features by the time he has finished!

Oh, sorry, I see you were talking about bitcoin!  Nevermind, LOL

[HammerHedd]

I hear you... But I think that in this case, it could provide additional functionality without much overhead... I might be wrong, and I'm no programmer, either. But imagine the usefulness of being able to send a small note, a shipping address, a software key, etc. along with a darksend transaction. It would REALLY add to the usability as a medium of exchange.

InternetApe confirmed a few pages back they would like to enable sending messages and it's on the list for future features.

Aha! You're right... I"m going to keep pondering it in case any of these ideas are helpful...

[AlexGR]

It didn't really get stuck, someone brought up the idea, everyone liked it, but at the time we wanted to concentrate on what was to become darksend.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I meant that the idea was brought up a couple of years ago when Bitcoin (not Darkcoin) was in its first stages of development (so the question of why wasn't it implemented is for Bitcoin really in order that we can find the answer of why the Bitcoin devs didn't push it, did they have some issue or something?)

[HammerHedd]

Coinmine is creeping up again!



if you want to spread some hash around, try stratum+tcp://darkcoin.kicks-ass.net:7903

P2Pool node with only 0.5% fee (Hey, I gotta keep the lights on here!)

[InternetApe]

If I'm not mistaken the feature regarding encrypted messages over the network was discussed in the early days of bitcoin development (not in the "adding noise to darksend" context). I do not remember what was the reason for not implementing it though. Priorities? Some kind of problem like bloating? It'd be interesting if some old-timer remembers what happened and why that feature got "stuck".

The messages would be a nice addition, but its not a high priority. It will take ALOT of testing to make sure someone cant put text in that would cause injection issues.

[agx.io]

Darkcoin is LIVE on agx.io! Trade DRK/BTC for FREE during Beta. AGX is running a 50k NOBL deposit bonus for BTC deposits >.02 BTC through 03/23 11:59p UTC and enter to win an AMD Radeon R9 280x giveaway. Learn more about the promotion here: http://31.media.tumblr.com/787b05ed67a5db64ceecd90c75f529b0/tumblr_n2prr4jmrP1trlaa8o1_1280.png

- The Austin Global Team

Find us at:
agx.io
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=507474
bitcointalk handles: "agx.io," "AustinGlobal"
twitter.com/AustinGlobalX
austinglobal.tumblr.com

[philipmicklon]

If I'm not mistaken the feature regarding encrypted messages over the network was discussed in the early days of bitcoin development (not in the "adding noise to darksend" context). I do not remember what was the reason for not implementing it though. Priorities? Some kind of problem like bloating? It'd be interesting if some old-timer remembers what happened and why that feature got "stuck".

The messages would be a nice addition, but its not a high priority. It will take ALOT of testing to make sure someone cant put text in that would cause injection issues.

Why would we add messages to a crypto coin? Isn't bitmessage the perfect option for those who wish to send private messages?

[AlexGR]

If I'm not mistaken the feature regarding encrypted messages over the network was discussed in the early days of bitcoin development (not in the "adding noise to darksend" context). I do not remember what was the reason for not implementing it though. Priorities? Some kind of problem like bloating? It'd be interesting if some old-timer remembers what happened and why that feature got "stuck".

The messages would be a nice addition, but its not a high priority. It will take ALOT of testing to make sure someone cant put text in that would cause injection issues.

Why would we add messages to a crypto coin? Isn't bitmessage the perfect option for those who wish to send private messages?

I think the concept is about short messages attached to transactions (or transaction-less short messages for noise per the earlier poster).