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

[blajde]

Hey guys, first off. Love this coin, love all you guys putting all the hard work i love everything but I need someone to help me out here.

I have a really big amount of darks, ive been non stop buying with the daily profits i get from trading btc so i buy around 100 a day, its been 1month now so i have a decent amount of darks and im loving this coin because it seems to be stable with a great future.

This is my concern. I am seeing a trend, people are cashing out btc and getting the fk out of this whole currency system.

This makes me feel like cashing out the thousands I have and closing the books. Although i really want to see a future in this coin, I am wondering if this whole virtual currency is gonna die and if Darkcoin was simply too late to join the race.

Please make me change my mind because I really want to buy this condo and start my life but if this rises I would be lightyears ahead for my age than just a simple condo.

Mixed emotions fellas, fuarkkk

I would like to tell you that people aren't really cashing out and this is just an illusion. Those people you believe are cashing out is just holding Fiat on the exchanges. They will jump the train again once they see a BTC stable uptrend or relativlty stable side trend. We didn't come here to cash out at the lowest point did we? Well and you are in DRK so you know you are in for the longer run. Also latest dump was based on false rumours. I won't make your mind for you, but here's some candy

Cheers

[coins101]

Hey guys, first off. Love this coin, love all you guys putting all the hard work i love everything but I need someone to help me out here.

I have a really big amount of darks, ive been non stop buying with the daily profits i get from trading btc so i buy around 100 a day, its been 1month now so i have a decent amount of darks and im loving this coin because it seems to be stable with a great future.

This is my concern. I am seeing a trend, people are cashing out btc and getting the fk out of this whole currency system.

This makes me feel like cashing out the thousands I have and closing the books. Although i really want to see a future in this coin, I am wondering if this whole virtual currency is gonna die and if Darkcoin was simply too late to join the race.

Please make me change my mind because I really want to buy this condo and start my life but if this rises I would be lightyears ahead for my age than just a simple condo.

Mixed emotions fellas, fuarkkk

I have read a few of the replies.  All good.

The sea of red on coinmarketcap is down to rumours that China is banning banks from interacting with exchanges. That's causing panic selling. The rumours might be true, but they are still not confirmed. The question is: how important is China to bitcoin?

The other important question for the long-term is - can bitcoin find a place in the financial space? VCs are spending hundreds of millions because they think it can. Their time horizon is not a few months. Its takes a minimum of 12 months for anything straightforward to go from start to launch.

Western Union and the other money transfer businesses, plus many consumer FX firms, are probably the ones who are at risk initially. WU charges $5-$10 on a $100 transfer. Once people get used to $0.05 per transfer with bitcoin then their day is done. WU has reinvented itself many times over, so expect them to be working on a bitcoin project. All they need is regulatory clarity and they could be the biggest players in a few years with all their bitcoin <> fiat outlets.

My brother was involved in a start-up. He had a very, very small stake. The ones that founded the business did so with $10,000. Seven years later they sold out for $50m. My brother got $500k after  taxes. The point is that throughout those seven years nothing was certain and it cost him lost opportunities elsewhere, so he probably came out net +$300k.

Problems? There are many.  All these pump and dump coins are making newbies punch drunk and nursing loses. ASICs are killing the mass supporters - the miners. The miners are the ones that help spread the word, so these ASICs are counter productive on a number of fronts. The current market prices are probably forcing people to turn off their rigs. There are systemic risks at the moment.

Bitcoin is at the point where VC money and regulatory interest is converging. It has a bright future and as we can see just about every other alt-coins is currently tied to the success of bitcoin. Because bitcoin has a bright future, a few alt-coins will do well.

The thing that keeps me up at night is - Is darkcoin potentially better than bitcoin because of DarkSend? From a technical feature point of view, anonymity from the blockchain, potentially yes. Currently, the devlopers support at bitcoin is significant. Can darkcoin overtake bitcoin? probably not. What we are really gambling is that DarkSend stands up to the mass testing that will hit it and that if it passes, then darkcoin will overtake everything else in the short-term apart from bitcoin. That should see more developer support.

This is a start-up project, nothing is certain. But darkcoin has some features that have a place in the market.

[n00bnoxious]

here is my suggestion for the drk-logo(s)



have a closer look at the logo-discussion:

https://www.darkcointalk.org/threads/logo-discussion.105/

Seriously impressed with this - I especially like the way the circular 'd' shows kinda how DarkSend works (in a very loose manner, but still cool) :-D

[AlexGR]

What we are really gambling is that DarkSend stands up to the mass testing that will hit it and that if it passes, then darkcoin will overtake everything else in the short-term apart from bitcoin. That should see more developer support.

If the gamble is hedged by integrating further layers of user anonymity beyond DarkSend, any potential risk is reduced significantly. If DarkSend is the only layer, and under certain circumstances the identity is uncovered, it's a single point of failure situation: You need something extra, whether it is IP obfuscation, or something else (preferably as many layers as you can get).

[blajde]

Hehe fun thing.

We all believe in Eduffield but we are a bit skeptical towards Darksend.

So.. Eduffield if you just say it will work for sure, we all can start buying more DRK!

[werwohl]

here is my suggestion for the drk-logo(s)

http://s14.directupload.net/images/140331/mm96eujk.png

have a closer look at the logo-discussion:

https://www.darkcointalk.org/threads/logo-discussion.105/

Alter Schwede! I absolutely love this design. Very clean and professional, also looks good as small icon and incorporates the way DarkSend works!
When will be able to vote for the final design?

[CarlesPuyol]

good job.

I agree, I'm pleased with this currency..

[fra55]

here is my suggestion for the drk-logo(s)

have a closer look at the logo-discussion:

https://www.darkcointalk.org/threads/logo-discussion.105/

They are wonderful man, congrats!

[AlexGR]

Hehe fun thing.

We all believe in Eduffield but we are a bit skeptical towards Darksend.

So.. Eduffield if you just say it will work for sure, we all can start buying more DRK!

It's code... code can break if it's not clean, extremely well thought out, trial-tested, reviewed, etc etc. It needs time to be patched to better levels of reliable functionality and prove itself, just like BTC code is taking years and still has questionmarks if something can break it and render it useless. Even things like stratum, kgw, dgw, need fixing. You can't have complicated code working flawlessly from day 1, no matter the assurances. That's just how it is.

It's always better to have realistic expectations rather than unrealistic ones because that way no disillusionment can occur later on and comments like "ohhhhhh disaster, darksend is a flop" start to spring up after some bug or something.

[illodin]

A c h m a c h i n g !

[rickraw]

85 designs submitted on the designcrowd site! Should be a lot of great options, can't wait to see them in ~2 days.

[AnonyMint]

CoinJoin can't work. Period. I had another debate in the CoinJoin thread a few weeks ago with gmaxwell and I won. Go read it for yourself.

The problem is you can't prevent someone from denial-of-service attacking by refusing to sign the second stage of the operation. They can block all DarkSends this way.

There is not any anonymity offered by DarkSend, because the shorts will simply attack it once the coin becomes valuable and DarkSends won't get processed. The system will jam. And the price will plummet.

I am not talking about DOS protection against sending transactions. Your developer misunderstood me before. I am talking about denial by refusing to sign the second stage of the DarkSend. Then the DarkSend has to reset and start over again. The attacker can do this over and over, and blacklisting can't work. If you blacklist the IP address, he can just get a botnet. If you blacklist the block chain address, he will just go through another instance of the DarkSend that uses a different blacklist. If you use one blacklist system wide, then you can have cheating miners or pools who cause legitimate users to become blacklisted.

http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/2014/02/24/interview-anoncoin-developer-speaks-zerocoin-implementation/

When the number of participants is high, a malicious participant can execute a denial of service attack by refusing to sign the transaction.

As I understand it, the developer is keeping this closed source for now, so I cannot speak with certainty as to how he will overcome the various problems with CoinJoin.

P.S. Just wait until DarkCoin's CoinJoin is denial-of-service attacked (if necessary I will do it to prove it is vulnerable, will wait until it becomes more popular then bet short on it and DOS-attack it). Tried to tell them that, but they didn't want to listen. Oh well. CoinJoin can't be protected against this because it is a two-step process (not atomic). Go read my debate with gmaxwell in the CoinJoin thread. Blacklisting input addresses is futile.

iirc drk dev asked you to exploit it in the test net setting but you disappeared.  
It's possible I remember wrong though.

They never PM'ed me as I requested. I don't spend my time monitoring that DK thread that has several pages per day of new posts.

Did they attempt to do anything to deal with DOS-attacks? The problem is that if you blacklist the input address, someone can just go create another input address (even passing through another instance of the mixer). If they are sharing a single blacklist coin-wide, then it is not a decentralized coin (i.e. some pools could lie and cause addresses to become unspendable). Etc, etc, etc.

Nothing in their whitepaper about DOS protection:

http://darkcoin.io/downloads/DarkcoinWhitepaper.pdf

[chaeplin]

~~~

http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/DarkSendDocumentation.pdf

already answerd
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg5643365#msg5643365

Code:

I got charged a fee of 0.1 for using DarkSend!

When using DarkSend it’s possible that you’ll be charged 0.1DRK if your client doesn’t 
give the network the needed information for some reason. For example your internet 
may go out, your computer could shut off, etc. This feature was designed to stop possible 
abuse of the system by adding a cost to misbehaving clients. 


I got a random payment of 0.1 for having my client on!

Randomly your client may be picked to be master for a few DarkSend sessions. During
these times if anyone attempts to abuse the system, you’ll receive the money that was
lost in the attack, this is yours for supporting the network!

[AnonyMint]

~~~

http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/DarkSendDocumentation.pdf

already answerd
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg5643365#msg5643365

Code:

I got charged a fee of 0.1 for using DarkSend!

When using DarkSend it’s possible that you’ll be charged 0.1DRK if your client doesn’t 
give the network the needed information for some reason. For example your internet 
may go out, your computer could shut off, etc. This feature was designed to stop possible 
abuse of the system by adding a cost to misbehaving clients. 

You can still DOS free-of-charge in the stage of providing the outputs. You can't identify the signers of the inputs to know who to charge a fee until the last stage where all inputs need to be signed to the transaction.

By definition the blind signing of the outputs has to be uncorrelated with the inputs.

http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/DarkSendDocumentation.pdf#page=2

Stage 2: Collecting Inputs
Stage 3: Collecting Outputs
Stage 4: Collecting Signatures

[LimLims]

You can still DOS free-of-charge in the stage of providing the outputs. You can't identify the signers of the inputs to know who to charge a fee until the last stage where all inputs need to be signed to the transaction.

By definition the blind signing of the outputs has to be uncorrelated with the inputs.

I don't claim to understand this perfectly -- but does this part of the whitepaper contradict you here?

[snip]
To defend against various attacks, DarkSend implements  a collateral system.  A transaction for
0.1DRK  is  made  out  to  the payment  node  to  ensure  proper  usage  of  the  system.  This
transaction  is  separate from the  funds added to the DarkSend pool.  If a user submits an input
but  refuses  to  sign  or  leaves  at  any  stage,  the  payment  node  will  “cash” the  transaction
by signing  and  broadcasting  it.  Collateral  transactions require multiple signatures to complete
from more than one payment node.
[/snip]

[AnonyMint]

You can still DOS free-of-charge in the stage of providing the outputs. You can't identify the signers of the inputs to know who to charge a fee until the last stage where all inputs need to be signed to the transaction.

By definition the blind signing of the outputs has to be uncorrelated with the inputs.

I don't claim to understand this perfectly -- but does this part of the whitepaper contradict you here?

[snip]
To defend against various attacks, DarkSend implements  a collateral system.  A transaction for
0.1DRK  is  made  out  to  the payment  node  to  ensure  proper  usage  of  the  system.  This
transaction  is  separate from the  funds added to the DarkSend pool.  If a user submits an input
but  refuses  to  sign  or  leaves  at  any  stage,  the  payment  node  will  “cash” the  transaction
by signing  and  broadcasting  it.  Collateral  transactions require multiple signatures to complete
from more than one payment node.
[/snip]

By definition if anyone can correlate who didn't sign an output to the one who provided an input, then the anonymity is broken.

So the only way the penalty fee payment could be uncorrelated from the inputs to the transaction, is to create the penalty payment after providing the inputs. Thus one could DOS at that point and refuse to provide the penalty payment.

Indeed they can prevent DOS if they break the anonymity by correlating your penalty payment to both your input and output.

[LimLims]

By definition if anyone can correlate who didn't sign an output to the one who provided an input, then the anonymity is broken.

So the only way the penalty fee payment could be uncorrelated from the inputs to the transaction, is to create the penalty payment after providing the inputs. Thus one could DOS at that point and refuse to provide the penalty payment.

Indeed they can prevent DOS if they break the anonymity by correlating your penalty payment to both your input and output.

Doesn't the refusal to sign only have to be correlated with the 0.1 DRK collateral for this to work?

[AnonyMint]

By definition if anyone can correlate who didn't sign an output to the one who provided an input, then the anonymity is broken.

So the only way the penalty fee payment could be uncorrelated from the inputs to the transaction, is to create the penalty payment after providing the inputs. Thus one could DOS at that point and refuse to provide the penalty payment.

Indeed they can prevent DOS if they break the anonymity by correlating your penalty payment to both your input and output.

Doesn't the refusal to sign only have to be correlated with the 0.1 DRK collateral for this to work?

If all the participants to a mix "collect their inputs", then they provide their penalty payment. Then the DOS attack comes in that second step where not all provide their penalty payment. Thus restart and "collect inputs" again. And again, and again and again. Forever.

If the penalty payment is provided before "collect their inputs", then the system knows who is the owner of the input and the output, and thus anonymity is broken.

[LimLims]

If all the participants to a mix "collect their inputs", then they provide their penalty payment. Then the DOS attack comes in that second step where not all provide their penalty payment. Thus restart and "collect inputs" again. And again, and again and again. Forever.

If the penalty payment is provided before "collect their inputs", then the system knows who is the owner of the input and the output, and thus anonymity is broken.

I don't understand it well enough to give you an answer. *Paging Evan*

I do appreciate that you put time into thinking this through. I might have a read through the debate you linked to when I have some time.

[AnonyMint]

Let me try to explain it one more time.

CoinJoin has the following steps:

1. Participants provide their inputs key addresses (that they will use to sign in step 3).
2. Participants blind sign output addresses (and the list from step 1) so it is not possible to see who signed which output address.
3. Participants sign their inputs to the transaction that includes all the inputs and outputs.

If we assign a penalty payment transaction to the Participant before step 1, then the blind signing in step 2 is useless, because we can associate the input addresses to the output addresses.

If we assign a penalty payment transaction to the Participant before step 2, then the adversary can refuse to provide the penalty payment transaction and we must go back to repeat step 1 without being able to penalize the adversary.

There is no solution. CoinJoin is a broken idea.

The only pseudo-"solution" I ever thought of was to use divide-and-conquer to find the adversary, i.e. split the list of participants in two when try again. But the problem is the adversary can just proceed before you isolate him. So he still DOS a percentage of the DarkSends.

The smaller the Participants set, the less of DOS problem you have if you use the divide-and-conquer. So you could just do very small mixes. And then users need to mix numerous times to get a larger Participants set. Your anonymity depends on a large Participants set. But then the problem is the DOS percentage will increase by the number of times you need to pass through the mixer, e.g. if 1 time through mixer has 5% DOS rate, then 5 times through it has a 25% DOS rate.

None of the pseudo-"solution"s are really good.