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

[TanteStefana]

CoinJoin can't work. Period.

Oh god, I thought I ignored you a long time ago!  Good bye #6

[TanteStefana]

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.

I'll help here, nothing is started until the payments are in, including the penalty payment.

[TanteStefana]

At one point I'm sure one of them will say : "Hmmm I'm not convinced, show me the source code I'm sure I will detect some flaws".

Dude, sometime people share their though, you should listening. if you have better method, please provide. if not, please read carefully what they said, don't ack like you know it all.

This is from experience, he isn't being a butt, he's exhausted from Anonymint's constant attacks that are ALWAYS the same thing over and over, and he never accepts the clear answers.  You can read all his rants all you like, I've read them before and don't need to again.  We have answered and answered him over and over again.  One user pegged him as having the Dunning–Kruger effect, and I have to completely agree.  I'm done.

[TanteStefana]

the problem with anonycoin, he is dismissive even before he has really seen it, and even before knowing anything regarding the way it works,

its always good to have 3rd party to look things trough, but being desmissive before even knowing anything about this particular implementation thats more like trolling...

Yes, my love, so why do you answer and worse still, quote him?  LOL
BTW, thank you dearly for misspelling his name, gave me a giggle

[TanteStefana]

We are talking about two different folks here (hopefully)

AnonyMint: Asking good questions. Long time member.

ILoveAnonCoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=276866     -> Check his posts. Pure Troll. No approach is correct against these types of cancer. Is most likely the hungsukmom character or someone similar.

Anyways back to technical discussions Sorry for the short offtopic.

A jerk that's been here since 1908 would still be a jerk, LOL

[TanteStefana]

This is all ad hominem. Why not simply attack his argument if you believe it's unfounded?

Because it's tiring LimLims!  I haven't even read his comments today, and I'm exhausted!  Have mercy, I used to have so much tolerance, now I'm dried up, and it's only been since mid January that I've been on this board.  I've NEVER gotten so irritated with people before Bitcointalk!  Now I totally understand why people get so mean!

[TanteStefana]

I expect nothing less from a self-proclaimed "world-class programmer who knows his shit". 

It's brown, it's stinky, I wish he'd keep it in his own toilet!

[TanteStefana]

There's a difference between bashing and commenting.

Everyone here is part of the community even if you deem them negative. Any shit can lead to good shit. Embrace it instead and stop the personal level shit. That just ruins for outsiders wanting to get in.

Thank you, you now have my old job.  Take care, I've broken today and I didn't even read any of his rant, LOL.  I must be in a very bad mood today, but it felt good to gripe, please ignore my comments above unless they give you a giggle

[TanteStefana]

Here is the fix for the R9 290 mining.
Tested on BAMT 1.6, it worked.
You can put it in first post, or not.


I have sent a 30 Darkcoin Bounty to cryptogretzky by myself, for the bug finding.

If any-one want to pay me back a part of that bounty, here is my address to share the cost.
XavaNMidPmofBUt4RWLf6YHhNDUNA7TjY6

As I only have 3 r9 290 I'll make 3 month to recover that bounty with my increased hasrate, but I'll be in peace with this bug.






run "aticonfig --adapter=all --initial -f".

add these 4 lines into /etc/rc.local before exit 0

Code:

export DISPLAY=:0
xset s off
xset -dpms
xset s noblank

Just in case it's not already executable, run:

Code:

chmod +x /etc/rc.local

Enjoy, and sleep in peace now

So glad you figured this out!  I know you've been struggling with it for a long time now.  Congrats!

[haggis]

Here is the fix for the R9 290 mining.
Tested on BAMT 1.6, it worked.
You can put it in first post, or not.


I have sent a 30 Darkcoin Bounty to cryptogretzky by myself, for the bug finding.

If any-one want to pay me back a part of that bounty, here is my address to share the cost.
XavaNMidPmofBUt4RWLf6YHhNDUNA7TjY6

As I only have 3 r9 290 I'll make 3 month to recover that bounty with my increased hasrate, but I'll be in peace with this bug.






run "aticonfig --adapter=all --initial -f".

add these 4 lines into /etc/rc.local before exit 0

Code:

export DISPLAY=:0
xset s off
xset -dpms
xset s noblank

Just in case it's not already executable, run:

Code:

chmod +x /etc/rc.local

Enjoy, and sleep in peace now

Can this please be archived in post #1 or on the website technical FAQ?

[TanteStefana]

Can this please be archived in post #1 or on the website technical FAQ?

I put it in the mining forum at https://www.darkcointalk.org/threads/solution-if-youre-having-trouble-with-r9-290-dropping-hashes.184/

Hopefully people will find it there

[Standhaft]

You can always see when TanteStefana wakes up from the dead. Post after post

[vertoe]

Stuff about his 3x290 + 1x290X rig takes out 1/15 of the whole network speed.

You are doing 1/15 of the network with 4 GPUs? 1 GH/s with 4 GPUs? 250 MH/s per GPU? Did you ever check you are using the correct miner?

You can always see when TanteStefana wakes up from the dead. Post after post

lol indeed

[mannie]

Interesting article in Wired about Bitcoin's place as a hybrid payments system: http://www.wired.com/2014/03/bitcoin-currency_martin/

What I found most interesting as a DRK holder were these final paras!

"The existing, bank-based payments system is expensive and antediluvian — but also profitable and therefore jealously guarded by its powerful owners. Other technologies co-exist — such as cash payment face-to-face, or the developing world staple of hawala for international transfers — but they cannot seriously compete with banks. If Bitcoin’s technology is as cheap, as scalable, and as secure as its advocates claim, it may be different.

That last point, of course, is crucial. One reason that cash, that most archaic of payments technologies, still exists, is because it really is anonymous. Anonymity in transactions can be abused, of course. But it remains a basic civil liberty. Payments systems that use ledgers rarely offer the same assurance. Efficiency and economy are nice to have: but not at the cost of our right to privacy."

[jl777]

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin.

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users.

If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete.

Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node.

Best of luck with it.

Thanks AnonyMint!
You are the real deal in anonymityland

James

[jl777]

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin.

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users.

If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete.

Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node.

Best of luck with it.

+1

definitiv an nice idea to use a "divide-and-conquer"-algorithm on signing !

the master node is still elected randomly, so no node will be default master everytime

TLA would have no problem in getting a large percentage of nodes

[jl777]

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.

You know, the solution eduffield came up with is very simple, has about a 99.9% obfuscation (enough info, you maybe able to make some associations with enough power, but very expensive).  This is why I see this as a huge advantage:

1. the simpler something is, the more directly it works, the less "holes" that will be found! 

2.  The "hole" this system has is obvious and a clear solution has been implemented. I think it will be very difficult if not impossible to take advantage of this system because of the fine charged if there is any funny business.  It's financially unfeasible.  This is the only "hole" that can be seen and it is logically and financially closed.

3.  The NSA possibly could find probable cause that a wallet belongs to a person, maybe even that that person has made repeated purchases to another person, I don't know.  They almost have infinite funds.  However, if I were the NSA, I'd try to get this information by infecting computers with back doors etc... malware, which they already do according to Snowden.  Who can defend against a government that does such things, and ours does.  The only way to protect ourselves from the government is by staying off line.

So, you can pile more systems of obfuscation on top of DarkSend as it is, but you would only make it have more hidden holes that could be discovered by a malicious person who could do a ton of damage!  Keep it simple stupid, is a successful acronym for a reason: KISS

And finding a simple yet extremely effective solution is a sign of brilliance.  E=mc(2) came from clearing out the debris and only looking at the facts, the clear facts.

The issue Anonymint raises is not about losing anonymity, but of Darksends being blocked
good thing he also proposed a divide and conquer workaround
getting that added to Darksend will make it 10 times better!!

[STT]

Since gov uses inflationary measures to tax not just income but any personal cash, it is likely anonymity is essential to avoid the endless pursuit of any wealth outside big gov.   It may well be that trend accentuates dark coin greatly over the years or even months depending how events unfold

[JGCMiner]

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I see a difference between the typical mixer and Eduffield's idea. The mixer already knows that he will be mixing in advance -- in Darksend, how does one know (NSA or otherwise) that they are the master node if that node is decentralized and elected pseudorandomly?  

Thus even if the master node knows everything, if he doesn't realize he knows everything, and subsequntly logs it, then he is harmless. What am I missing here?

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin.

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users.

If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete.

Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node.

Best of luck with it.

+1

definitiv an nice idea to use a "divide-and-conquer"-algorithm on signing !

the master node is still elected randomly, so no node will be default master everytime

TLA would have no problem in getting a large percentage of nodes

What's TLA?

[TanteStefana]

Earlier in the development someone attacked DarkSend this way and broke it for a day or so. I ended up coming up with what I call collateral transactions. A collateral transaction is a transaction that is only sent to the master node and if broadcast will transfer money from the node in question to the master node.

The main problem is CoinJoin happens in 3 main stages:

1.) ACCEPTING INPUTS (inputs are the money I’m sending)
2.) ACCEPTING OUTPUTS (outputs are who I’m sending to)
3.) SIGN INPUTS (everyone signs their input separately then sends them)

In stage 2, what if someone fails to send their output?  
In stage 3, what if someone fails to sign?

So with blind signing (footnote 1) when a user adds an output, you know it’s one of your users but you don’t know which. So if a user fails to provide outputs, the whole session must restart and no one can be punished.

I've thought about multiple designs for DarkSend, many of which do have the issue you’re talking about:

Design A: Users provide inputs and collateral, then later will provide outputs. The master node must know which user didn’t provide the outputs to be able to charge him. If we use blind signing we can’t charge the bad actor fees.

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

//Accepting inputs
1. User A provides (Input, txCollateral, Output1, Output2)
2. User B provides (Input, txCollateral, Output1, Output2)
3. User C provides (Input, txCollateral, Output1, Output2)

//Signing
1. User A provides (Input, txCollateral)
2. User B fails to provide to sign
3. User C provides (Input, txCollateral)

//Fees
1. User B is charged

So to be clear, the master must know who is sending money to who. But ONLY the master node will need to know this. Beyond that the blockchain is still anonymous, and master nodes can be decentralized among the users of the network.

(1) More about blind signing:
http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/jnw/article/viewFile/0508921928/2053

Question from the other forum:

If someone pulls out (bad actor), is the whole DS transaction disbanded?  Does it have to start all over again or is another user "invited in"