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

[TanteStefana]

In a way, this might be a good thing.  If the asic developers can't make money because coins simply change their algorithms this time around-and probably in the future, it's possible we won't even have a future threat!  Game over, we won!

What if all of that is followed by a Bitcoin hard fork for the same? Can you imagine, for a brief moment, the insanity that would ensue?

Might not be that brief! LOL

Although, I must say that running an asic on my computer is nice because it doesn't effect the usefulness of my computer.

[JPGagnon]

Hey Guys, I just wanted to mention that I've launched my coin - Québecoin - It's a currency for the province (and nation) of Québec, Canada. It features both X11 and DarkGravityWave. I'm very thankful towards Evan (as you can see in my thread) for both those creations and I think they are cutting edge. Here's a picture we made for Dark Gravity Wave, maybe you can use it for Darkcoin as well.



Here's the link to Québecoin - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552561.0

P.S. : We have no intention of implementing Darksend - that is yours to have and keep and we know that.

Stop making shitcoins please 

From your posting history I can see you'll be the first one asking for a handout when the coin is released! I came here to thank Evan, not get flamed. You can do that in my own thread.

[ecoinfund]

http://www.ecoinfund.com/images/logo.jpg

Website  |  Twitter   |  Bitcointalk

Hello DarkCoin Community.

We have added DRK to ECOINFUND.（DRK/BTC,DRK/LTC）
ECOINFUND is a diversified international exchange from china.
Cuz we are a new exchange，seize the chance now.（login, invitation, trading contest will received ecc，the maximum was 80 ECC.ECC Dedails)
Happy trading !!

[smns]

Hey Guys, I just wanted to mention that I've launched my coin - Québecoin - It's a currency for the province (and nation) of Québec, Canada. It features both X11 and DarkGravityWave. I'm very thankful towards Evan (as you can see in my thread) for both those creations and I think they are cutting edge. Here's a picture we made for Dark Gravity Wave, maybe you can use it for Darkcoin as well.

https://i.imgur.com/yacvlHA.png

Here's the link to Québecoin - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=552561.0

P.S. : We have no intention of implementing Darksend - that is yours to have and keep and we know that.

Stop making shitcoins please 

From your posting history I can see you'll be the first one asking for a handout when the coin is released! I came here to thank Evan, not get flamed. You can do that in my own thread.

You're so nice Sherlock, good luck!

[STT]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

[CHAOSiTEC]

Come and help mine darkcoin, and get a chance of winning the lottery pool.

for the next week im going to do a lottery EVERY day, ill even trow in 200 DRK of my own.

So each day 1 lucky winner will get 50% of fees, AND 28.57 DRK

Pool Pays Witdrawal fee: 0.0

Dedicated pool, we only run Darkcoin mining

DDOS Protected pool, resistant to: fake shares & scrypt ddos

Stable Fast Server, but dont take my word for it, see what others have said in this thread

ALSO

we have our very own dice game http://dice.lotterymining.com

[AnonyMint]

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

yes, but if you could do it better, than do it better, even if the current solution seems trustfull and enough (because of randomly chosen nodes), but something like the divide-and-conquer approach will help it to make it even better in my eyes.

ofc there are problems, too - which needs a solution. like - if you divide-and-conquer, at some points the darksend transaction wouldn't be as obfuscating as it could be, because only a fragment of users would be in that darksend transaction. (right?)

but i believe thats a good idea, which could help us.

Problem with trusting a random node is Sybil attacks. Unless the cost of creating a node is significant, the adversary can flood with nodes.

Also a market could develop for buying the information from nodes.

Trusting a node is not anonymity. It is a form of privacy.

Can you have perfect trust with perfect anonymity? Or are they dynamic dualities
I'm having trouble conceiving how trust might work with perfect anonymity and vice versa

Let's differentiate between anonymity and privacy.

Anonymity means that no one can know some aspect of your identity, e.g. you might decide to reveal the name of your company but never who runs that company.

Privacy means only some people know some aspect of your identity, e.g. the merchants you buy from may know your account number but otherwise not public unless revealed by one of those merchants.

Anonymity is a more secure form of privacy because there is no trust involved, because no one knows what you have not revealed to anyone.

So I can choose to trust a merchant who reveals its name and stakes its reputation on that name, without needing to know who owns that merchant. The key here is that prior bad outcomes don't follow the owner to new ventures. So history of performance of a merchant becomes paramount.

If I don't want to trust a merchant to deliver the goods, the merchant and I can agree on a 3rd party escrow agent with multisig on payment (both I and escrow agent must sign for payment to be transferred to merchant). Again no need for the escrow agent to reveal his/her true name rather the historical reputation of a pseudonym will suffice.

Ditto on contracts, arbitration agents can be chosen on contract signing.

In short, our personal identity can be orthogonal to our business performance identity.

This allows us to fail and start over again. It is very forgiving. And it keeps the government, conniving attorneys, and the Kangeroo court system out of our business.

[eduffield]

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

yes, but if you could do it better, than do it better, even if the current solution seems trustfull and enough (because of randomly chosen nodes), but something like the divide-and-conquer approach will help it to make it even better in my eyes.

ofc there are problems, too - which needs a solution. like - if you divide-and-conquer, at some points the darksend transaction wouldn't be as obfuscating as it could be, because only a fragment of users would be in that darksend transaction. (right?)

but i believe thats a good idea, which could help us.

Problem with trusting a random node is Sybil attacks. Unless the cost of creating a node is significant, the adversary can flood with nodes.

Also a market could develop for buying the information from nodes.

Trusting a node is not anonymity. It is a form of privacy.

Can you have perfect trust with perfect anonymity? Or are they dynamic dualities
I'm having trouble conceiving how trust might work with perfect anonymity and vice versa

Let's differentiate between anonymity and privacy.

Anonymity means that no one can know some aspect of your identity, e.g. you might decide to reveal the name of your company but never who runs that company.

Privacy means only some people know some aspect of your identity, e.g. the merchants you buy from may know your account number but otherwise not public unless revealed by one of those merchants.

Anonymity is a more secure form of privacy because there is no trust involved, because no one knows what you have not revealed to anyone.

So I can choose to trust a merchant who reveals its name and stakes its reputation on that name, without needing to know who owns that merchant. The key here is that prior bad outcomes don't follow the owner to new ventures. So history of performance of a merchant becomes paramount.

If I don't want to trust a merchant to deliver the goods, the merchant and I can agree on a 3rd party escrow agent with multisig on payment (both I and escrow agent must sign for payment to be transferred to merchant). Again no need for the escrow agent to reveal his/her true name rather the historical reputation of a pseudonym will suffice.

Ditto on contracts, arbitration agents can be chosen on contract signing.

In short, our personal identity can be orthogonal to our business performance identity.

This allows us to fail and start over again. It is very forgiving. And it keeps the government, conniving attorneys, and the Kangeroo court system out of our business.

The master nodes would be required to have a single input greater than 1000DRK (or something like that). So if there's 5000 capable nodes it would cost 5000*1000DRK to see 50% of the messages. It would be impossible to buy enough darkcoin off of the exchanges to pull off such an attack on a large amount of users.

So if you can pull off getting 5% of the transactions, the clear ones should become worthless because there's no trail to follow.

[Acidyo]

What's up with the dude mining at 2gh/s on suchpool.pw?

[AnonyMint]

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!!

The "solution" eduffield came up with breaks anonymity and achieves only privacy. He did this to prevent Darksends from being blocked. I proposed the divide-and-conquer as a way to get both anonymity and prevent blocking. In fact, it is the only way that can do that.

Eduffield's "solution" exposes your IP address, input, and output (as a correlated triplet) to the random node. That is the antithesis of anonymity. It is broadcasting your identity all over the place (to random nodes).

[AnonyMint]

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

yes, but if you could do it better, than do it better, even if the current solution seems trustfull and enough (because of randomly chosen nodes), but something like the divide-and-conquer approach will help it to make it even better in my eyes.

ofc there are problems, too - which needs a solution. like - if you divide-and-conquer, at some points the darksend transaction wouldn't be as obfuscating as it could be, because only a fragment of users would be in that darksend transaction. (right?)

but i believe thats a good idea, which could help us.

Problem with trusting a random node is Sybil attacks. Unless the cost of creating a node is significant, the adversary can flood with nodes.

Also a market could develop for buying the information from nodes.

Trusting a node is not anonymity. It is a form of privacy.

Can you have perfect trust with perfect anonymity? Or are they dynamic dualities
I'm having trouble conceiving how trust might work with perfect anonymity and vice versa

Let's differentiate between anonymity and privacy.

Anonymity means that no one can know some aspect of your identity, e.g. you might decide to reveal the name of your company but never who runs that company.

Privacy means only some people know some aspect of your identity, e.g. the merchants you buy from may know your account number but otherwise not public unless revealed by one of those merchants.

Anonymity is a more secure form of privacy because there is no trust involved, because no one knows what you have not revealed to anyone.

So I can choose to trust a merchant who reveals its name and stakes its reputation on that name, without needing to know who owns that merchant. The key here is that prior bad outcomes don't follow the owner to new ventures. So history of performance of a merchant becomes paramount.

If I don't want to trust a merchant to deliver the goods, the merchant and I can agree on a 3rd party escrow agent with multisig on payment (both I and escrow agent must sign for payment to be transferred to merchant). Again no need for the escrow agent to reveal his/her true name rather the historical reputation of a pseudonym will suffice.

Ditto on contracts, arbitration agents can be chosen on contract signing.

In short, our personal identity can be orthogonal to our business performance identity.

This allows us to fail and start over again. It is very forgiving. And it keeps the government, conniving attorneys, and the Kangeroo court system out of our business.

The master nodes would be required to have a single input greater than 1000DRK (or something like that). So if there's 5000 capable nodes it would cost 5000*1000DRK to see 50% of the messages. It would be impossible to buy enough darkcoin off of the exchanges to pull off such an attack on a large amount of users.

So if you can pull off getting 5% of the transactions, the clear ones should become worthless because there's no trail to follow.

The black budget of the NSA is at least $40 billion as documented by Edward Snowden recently, but Catherine Austin Fitts and others document the $2.3 trillion that went missing from the Pentagon budget that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted on TV the day before 9/11. The documents were destroyed in the Pentagon missileairplane attack.

Obtaining a lot of DRK will be the first and ongoing priority of the national security agencies, as it is their job to crack any encrypted data transfers on the internet.

By concentrating master nodes among the wealthy, you've created the perfect motivation for the wealthy to be friends with the government. The government gives them favors, they give the government data.

This is why privacy is not good enough. Only anonymity will suffice.

Sorry I don't like being a pain, but false claims of anonymity is going to hurt a lot of people in the end. The best is to fix it. Of course divide-and-conquer is not as efficient or elegant as your collateral payment. But the collateral payment breaks anonymity. What is the point of building something which can be easily broken by the NSA.

[AnonyMint]

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."

+1 nice article

it's always nice when someone brings into focus in a slightly new way, what currency really is and always has been.  We're not reinventing the wheel, just adding the wings so we can take off and land and drive in the air

I made that point months ago about cash was our anonymity and it is being taken away. The author of that story was reading my threads on bitcointalk.org.

You will find many stories coming out which are building off my insights.

Look at the bombshell revelation I amplified today about Bitpay is driving the price of BTC down:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg6015809#msg6015809

[bazka]

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

yes, but if you could do it better, than do it better, even if the current solution seems trustfull and enough (because of randomly chosen nodes), but something like the divide-and-conquer approach will help it to make it even better in my eyes.

ofc there are problems, too - which needs a solution. like - if you divide-and-conquer, at some points the darksend transaction wouldn't be as obfuscating as it could be, because only a fragment of users would be in that darksend transaction. (right?)

but i believe thats a good idea, which could help us.

Problem with trusting a random node is Sybil attacks. Unless the cost of creating a node is significant, the adversary can flood with nodes.

Also a market could develop for buying the information from nodes.

Trusting a node is not anonymity. It is a form of privacy.

Can you have perfect trust with perfect anonymity? Or are they dynamic dualities
I'm having trouble conceiving how trust might work with perfect anonymity and vice versa

Let's differentiate between anonymity and privacy.

Anonymity means that no one can know some aspect of your identity, e.g. you might decide to reveal the name of your company but never who runs that company.

Privacy means only some people know some aspect of your identity, e.g. the merchants you buy from may know your account number but otherwise not public unless revealed by one of those merchants.

Anonymity is a more secure form of privacy because there is no trust involved, because no one knows what you have not revealed to anyone.

So I can choose to trust a merchant who reveals its name and stakes its reputation on that name, without needing to know who owns that merchant. The key here is that prior bad outcomes don't follow the owner to new ventures. So history of performance of a merchant becomes paramount.

If I don't want to trust a merchant to deliver the goods, the merchant and I can agree on a 3rd party escrow agent with multisig on payment (both I and escrow agent must sign for payment to be transferred to merchant). Again no need for the escrow agent to reveal his/her true name rather the historical reputation of a pseudonym will suffice.

Ditto on contracts, arbitration agents can be chosen on contract signing.

In short, our personal identity can be orthogonal to our business performance identity.

This allows us to fail and start over again. It is very forgiving. And it keeps the government, conniving attorneys, and the Kangeroo court system out of our business.

The master nodes would be required to have a single input greater than 1000DRK (or something like that). So if there's 5000 capable nodes it would cost 5000*1000DRK to see 50% of the messages. It would be impossible to buy enough darkcoin off of the exchanges to pull off such an attack on a large amount of users.

So if you can pull off getting 5% of the transactions, the clear ones should become worthless because there's no trail to follow.

The black budget of the NSA is at least $40 billion as documented by Edward Snowden recently, but Catherine Austin Fitts and others document the $2.3 trillion that went missing from the Pentagon budget that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted on TV the day before 9/11. The documents were destroyed in the Pentagon missileairplane attack.

Obtaining a lot of DRK will be the first and ongoing priority of the national security agencies, as it is their job to crack any encrypted data transfers on the internet.

By concentrating master nodes among the wealthy, you've created the perfect motivation for the wealthy to be friends with the government. The government gives them favors, they give the government data.

This is why privacy is not good enough. Only anonymity will suffice.

Sorry I don't like being a pain, but false claims of anonymity is going to hurt a lot of people in the end. The best is to fix it. Of course divide-and-conquer is not as efficient or elegant as your collateral payment. But the collateral payment breaks anonymity. What is the point of building something which can be easily broken by the NSA.

I don't fully understand the technical ins and outs of what you are saying but if this is the case maybe it could be beneficial to consider anonymints point of view. Could what he is saying be possibly eduffield?

[eduffield]

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

yes, but if you could do it better, than do it better, even if the current solution seems trustfull and enough (because of randomly chosen nodes), but something like the divide-and-conquer approach will help it to make it even better in my eyes.

ofc there are problems, too - which needs a solution. like - if you divide-and-conquer, at some points the darksend transaction wouldn't be as obfuscating as it could be, because only a fragment of users would be in that darksend transaction. (right?)

but i believe thats a good idea, which could help us.

Problem with trusting a random node is Sybil attacks. Unless the cost of creating a node is significant, the adversary can flood with nodes.

Also a market could develop for buying the information from nodes.

Trusting a node is not anonymity. It is a form of privacy.

Can you have perfect trust with perfect anonymity? Or are they dynamic dualities
I'm having trouble conceiving how trust might work with perfect anonymity and vice versa

Let's differentiate between anonymity and privacy.

Anonymity means that no one can know some aspect of your identity, e.g. you might decide to reveal the name of your company but never who runs that company.

Privacy means only some people know some aspect of your identity, e.g. the merchants you buy from may know your account number but otherwise not public unless revealed by one of those merchants.

Anonymity is a more secure form of privacy because there is no trust involved, because no one knows what you have not revealed to anyone.

So I can choose to trust a merchant who reveals its name and stakes its reputation on that name, without needing to know who owns that merchant. The key here is that prior bad outcomes don't follow the owner to new ventures. So history of performance of a merchant becomes paramount.

If I don't want to trust a merchant to deliver the goods, the merchant and I can agree on a 3rd party escrow agent with multisig on payment (both I and escrow agent must sign for payment to be transferred to merchant). Again no need for the escrow agent to reveal his/her true name rather the historical reputation of a pseudonym will suffice.

Ditto on contracts, arbitration agents can be chosen on contract signing.

In short, our personal identity can be orthogonal to our business performance identity.

This allows us to fail and start over again. It is very forgiving. And it keeps the government, conniving attorneys, and the Kangeroo court system out of our business.

The master nodes would be required to have a single input greater than 1000DRK (or something like that). So if there's 5000 capable nodes it would cost 5000*1000DRK to see 50% of the messages. It would be impossible to buy enough darkcoin off of the exchanges to pull off such an attack on a large amount of users.

So if you can pull off getting 5% of the transactions, the clear ones should become worthless because there's no trail to follow.

The black budget of the NSA is at least $40 billion as documented by Edward Snowden recently, but Catherine Austin Fitts and others document the $2.3 trillion that went missing from the Pentagon budget that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld admitted on TV the day before 9/11. The documents were destroyed in the Pentagon missileairplane attack.

Obtaining a lot of DRK will be the first and ongoing priority of the national security agencies, as it is their job to crack any encrypted data transfers on the internet.

By concentrating master nodes among the wealthy, you've created the perfect motivation for the wealthy to be friends with the government. The government gives them favors, they give the government data.

This is why privacy is not good enough. Only anonymity will suffice.

Sorry I don't like being a pain, but false claims of anonymity is going to hurt a lot of people in the end. The best is to fix it. Of course divide-and-conquer is not as efficient or elegant as your collateral payment. But the collateral payment breaks anonymity. What is the point of building something which can be easily broken by the NSA.

Darkcoin is meant to fix problems with Bitcoin, not to be CriminalCoin. I'm afraid that if you're trying to hide something from the NSA, we don't want to be involved with that.

Privacy is a human right and it's about time that a coin implemented it. However, if the NSA wants to find out what you're doing, they will. No matter how much you protect it, if someone wants your information bad enough they'll get it.

It's Especially true with Zerocash/Zerocoin and their use of exotic mathematics. I've read through it and it's insanely complicated, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a room full of cryptographers in the NSA ripping it apart already.  

[GreekBitcoin]

there is a 28BTC buy order at cryptsy...fake or not its amazing

[AlexGR]

Darkcoin is meant to fix problems with Bitcoin, not to be CriminalCoin. I'm afraid that if you're trying to hide something from the NSA, we don't want to be involved with that.

Privacy is a human right and it's about time that a coin implemented it. However, if the NSA wants to find out what you're doing, they will. No matter how much you protect it, if someone wants your information bad enough they'll get it.

It's Especially true with Zerocash/Zerocoin and their use of exotic mathematics. I've read through it and it's insanely complicated, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a room full of cryptographers in the NSA ripping it apart already.  

I do believe NSA-proofing is a virtually impossible task, since they have control on factors beyond our own code (hardware, networks) but the issue here is this: DarkSend is launched, everything rolls, it's open sourced etc etc. Then another one comes along, takes Dark Send code, implements divide & conquer and then boooom. He claims they have the superior anonymous coin. It's a market weakness for DRK placement right there if it lags behind.

Now, the situation is obviously difficult having to choose one or the other, so I propose this: What if DarkSend had 2 checkboxes, one that is simple "Enable DarkSend" and a further one which activates "Divide and Conquer" for "extra anonymity". I've been thinking about a slide bar actually that enhances the degree of anonymity, with something like 1 to 10 - and increasing parameters like time delay for transaction or laundry depth (multiple laundering) to make it more obfuscated, but maybe it could simply go the Div/Conq way at max setting for the more paranoid about their secrecy.

[eduffield]

Darkcoin is meant to fix problems with Bitcoin, not to be CriminalCoin. I'm afraid that if you're trying to hide something from the NSA, we don't want to be involved with that.

Privacy is a human right and it's about time that a coin implemented it. However, if the NSA wants to find out what you're doing, they will. No matter how much you protect it, if someone wants your information bad enough they'll get it.

It's Especially true with Zerocash/Zerocoin and their use of exotic mathematics. I've read through it and it's insanely complicated, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a room full of cryptographers in the NSA ripping it apart already.  

I do believe NSA-proofing is a virtually impossible task, since they have control on factors beyond our own code (hardware, networks) but the issue here is this: DarkSend is launched, everything rolls, it's open sourced etc etc. Then another one comes along, takes Dark Send code, implements divide & conquer and then boooom. He claims they have the superior anonymous coin. It's a market weakness for DRK placement right there if it lags behind.

Now, the situation is obviously difficult having to choose one or the other, so I propose this: What if DarkSend had 2 checkboxes, one that is simple "Enable DarkSend" and a further one which activates "Divide and Conquer" for "extra anonymity". I've been thinking about a slide bar actually that enhances the degree of anonymity, with something like 1 to 10 - and increasing parameters like time delay for transaction or laundry depth (multiple laundering) to make it more obfuscated, but maybe it could simply go the Div/Conq way at max setting for the more paranoid about their secrecy.

Why not just offer "rounds" of DarkSend through separate master nodes, i.e:

User 1 -> Change Address 1 (master node 1)
Change Address 1 -> Change Address 2 (master node 2)
Change Address 2 -> Change Address 3 (master node 3)
Change Address 3 -> Change Address 4 (master node 4)
Change Address 4 -> Change Address 5 (master node 5)
Change Address 5 -> Destination (master node 6)

I suppose my issue with Divide and Conquer is that it involves implementing blind signing, which could be done later but is not simple. So I doubt there will be versions of that popping up in other coins.

[AlexGR]

Darkcoin is meant to fix problems with Bitcoin, not to be CriminalCoin. I'm afraid that if you're trying to hide something from the NSA, we don't want to be involved with that.

Privacy is a human right and it's about time that a coin implemented it. However, if the NSA wants to find out what you're doing, they will. No matter how much you protect it, if someone wants your information bad enough they'll get it.

It's Especially true with Zerocash/Zerocoin and their use of exotic mathematics. I've read through it and it's insanely complicated, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a room full of cryptographers in the NSA ripping it apart already.  

I do believe NSA-proofing is a virtually impossible task, since they have control on factors beyond our own code (hardware, networks) but the issue here is this: DarkSend is launched, everything rolls, it's open sourced etc etc. Then another one comes along, takes Dark Send code, implements divide & conquer and then boooom. He claims they have the superior anonymous coin. It's a market weakness for DRK placement right there if it lags behind.

Now, the situation is obviously difficult having to choose one or the other, so I propose this: What if DarkSend had 2 checkboxes, one that is simple "Enable DarkSend" and a further one which activates "Divide and Conquer" for "extra anonymity". I've been thinking about a slide bar actually that enhances the degree of anonymity, with something like 1 to 10 - and increasing parameters like time delay for transaction or laundry depth (multiple laundering) to make it more obfuscated, but maybe it could simply go the Div/Conq way at max setting for the more paranoid about their secrecy.

Why not just offer "rounds" of DarkSend through separate master nodes, i.e:

User 1 -> Change Address 1 (master node 1)
Change Address 1 -> Change Address 2 (master node 2)
Change Address 2 -> Change Address 3 (master node 3)
Change Address 3 -> Change Address 4 (master node 4)
Change Address 4 -> Change Address 5 (master node 5)
Change Address 5 -> Destination (master node 6)

I like it... thing is, from a market perspective, someone can still implement the D&Q and claim that they "solved the inherent problem of darkcoin for trusting master nodes that know who is transacting what". It's just how it goes with altcoins. Other are expecting every weakness to capitalize (and cannibalize the market cap).

[tifozi]

I made that point months ago about cash was our anonymity and it is being taken away. The author of that story was reading my threads on bitcointalk.org.

You will find many stories coming out which are building off my insights.

Look at the bombshell revelation I amplified today about Bitpay is driving the price of BTC down:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg6015809#msg6015809

Seems very presumptuous. I was following your comments seriously up until this point. That article is from last year. Why would it drive the prices down today, and especially after you post it?

Do you have journal papers in crypto you can cite? Or programming achievements? A PM is also fine if you prefer it. I can identify myself as well if you want.

[tifozi]

Darkcoin is meant to fix problems with Bitcoin, not to be CriminalCoin. I'm afraid that if you're trying to hide something from the NSA, we don't want to be involved with that.

Privacy is a human right and it's about time that a coin implemented it. However, if the NSA wants to find out what you're doing, they will. No matter how much you protect it, if someone wants your information bad enough they'll get it.

It's Especially true with Zerocash/Zerocoin and their use of exotic mathematics. I've read through it and it's insanely complicated, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a room full of cryptographers in the NSA ripping it apart already.  

I do believe NSA-proofing is a virtually impossible task, since they have control on factors beyond our own code (hardware, networks) but the issue here is this: DarkSend is launched, everything rolls, it's open sourced etc etc. Then another one comes along, takes Dark Send code, implements divide & conquer and then boooom. He claims they have the superior anonymous coin. It's a market weakness for DRK placement right there if it lags behind.

Now, the situation is obviously difficult having to choose one or the other, so I propose this: What if DarkSend had 2 checkboxes, one that is simple "Enable DarkSend" and a further one which activates "Divide and Conquer" for "extra anonymity". I've been thinking about a slide bar actually that enhances the degree of anonymity, with something like 1 to 10 - and increasing parameters like time delay for transaction or laundry depth (multiple laundering) to make it more obfuscated, but maybe it could simply go the Div/Conq way at max setting for the more paranoid about their secrecy.

Why not just offer "rounds" of DarkSend through separate master nodes, i.e:

User 1 -> Change Address 1 (master node 1)
Change Address 1 -> Change Address 2 (master node 2)
Change Address 2 -> Change Address 3 (master node 3)
Change Address 3 -> Change Address 4 (master node 4)
Change Address 4 -> Change Address 5 (master node 5)
Change Address 5 -> Destination (master node 6)

I like it... thing is, from a market perspective, someone can still implement the D&Q and claim that they "solved the inherent problem of darkcoin for trusting master nodes that know who is transacting what". It's just how it goes with altcoins. Other are expecting every weakness to capitalize (and cannibalize the market cap).

Trusting master nodes that are randomly selected for transactions?