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

[coinzcoinzcoinz]

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

It's me. I'm a huge DarkCoin supporter. I want to own 1% of all DRK and I want to drive the price up.

[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).

Trusting master nodes that are randomly selected for transactions?

For most people, the privacy aspect will be adequately covered. But it's not that hard to imagine the scenario of a potential altcoin adversary spreading FUD about DRK's operation with master nodes in order to promote their "superior" solution and how they "solved the problem".  

As I've said, if digital currencies have a worth of 10bn market cap and one percent goes to anonymity, it's 100mn market cap. That's a lot of money right there and it won't be distributed without a fight. If we assume ten percent transition from the transparent to the private/anonymous market, that's one billion. Too much money for "kindness" between market adversaries that are competing for this billion: Every weakness of Darkcoin will be highlighted as to why it shouldn't be the leading anonymous cryptocurrency but rather why some other altcoin should (to get a better position so that more of the flow of money towards the private/anonymous market can end up to them).

[GreekBitcoin]

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).

I am not the best guy when it comes to the technical stuff but can the "exposed IP addresses problem" be fixed by using tor?

btw one could say that NSA could also find you when using tor but the more difficult/expensive/time wasting it gets to find you the better...

[tifozi]

For most people, the privacy aspect will be adequately covered. But it's not that hard to imagine the scenario of a potential altcoin adversary spreading FUD about DRK's operation with master nodes in order to promote their "superior" solution and how they "solved the problem".  

As I've said, if digital currencies have a worth of 10bn market cap and one percent goes to anonymity, it's 100mn market cap. That's a lot of money right there and it won't be distributed without a fight. If we assume ten percent transition from the transparent to the private/anonymous market, that's one billion. Too much money for "kindness" between market adversaries that are competing for this billion: Every weakness of Darkcoin will be highlighted as to why it shouldn't be the leading anonymous cryptocurrency but rather why some other altcoin should (to get a better position so that more of the flow of money towards the private/anonymous market can end up to them).

100% agree. It will be played out exactly like that. Hell if it improves even more technologically, you bet BTC mafia will be after it before any other alts.

Programming wise, it will obviously add to layers of more code, but is there a compromise wrt to blockchain size?

[coins101]

Sorry to say, I am forming a breakaway faction.

DogeCoin was a clone of Litecoin. Now because of Scrypt ASICs, DogeCoin will be killed.

I got this idea for a new coin from the Litecoin breakaway group who don't like the idea of ASICs. The developers are really scared that the new Litecoin will dilute the branding of old Litecoin and they have taken the time to explain why ASICs won't hurt miners and Litecoin. It reads like FUD.

I have decided to launch DarkDogeCoin. It will have the best of DogeCoin, marketing and much wow, and DarkCoin anonymity. And DGW. And X11. And be ASIC resistant for as long as possible.

DarkDogeCoin will respect both Doge and Darkcoin communities.

As breakaway factions needs to be more than one, the dictionary defines it as a group e.g. plural. So, I am looking for anyone that wants to join me.

Launch date is 18 April.

Details here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553006.msg6018117#msg6018117

I look forward to you joining me. Much $$. Much Anonymous. So moon.

[daddeo]

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.

I agree. From my own "average Joe" perspective, a coin that offers versatility and leaves little to no room for improvement by the competition, offers the greatest chance for success. It meets all the needs of the user/consumer and renders the use of other coins for specific scenarios pointless. If I can change the level of privacy I need for a certain transaction, why use anything else.

[kaene]

Sorry to say, I am forming a breakaway faction.

DogeCoin was a clone of Litecoin. Now because of Scrypt ASICs, DogeCoin will be killed.

I got this idea for a new coin from the Litecoin breakaway group who don't like the idea of ASICs. The developers are really scared that the new Litecoin will dilute the branding of old Litecoin and they have taken the time to explain why ASICs won't hurt miners and Litecoin. It reads like FUD.

I have decided to launch DarkDogeCoin. It will have the best of DogeCoin, marketing and much wow, and DarkCoin anonymity. And DGW. And X11. And be ASIC resistant for as long as possible.

DarkDogeCoin will respect both Doge and Darkcoin communities.

As breakaway factions needs to be more than one, the dictionary defines it as a group e.g. plural. So, I am looking for anyone that wants to join me.

Launch date is 18 April.

Details here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553006.msg6018117#msg6018117

I look forward to you joining me. Much $$. Much Anonymous. So moon.

Will it have an IPO accepting DRK? If so I'm in for 10k DRK

[illodin]

I suspect it's not going to be that easy to just take the drk code and add command & conquer on top of it.  

[igigme77]

Looks like we've gone all Chinese. Great news.

Any country or State that controls or trashes privacy is target audience 

Do not easily believe that the message from the Chinese
This is me in the community
Others of my education
Good luck to you
 

[AnonyMint]

I do believe NSA-proofing is a virtually impossible task

No it is reasonably simple actually.

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.  

So you are leaving a trapdoor open for the NSA on purpose? Btw the USA is not the only country with snooping agencies. What about people in totalitarian countries who need our help? What about serving the China market?

There is a way to keep ALL the snoops out. And do strong anonymity.

Btw, the NSA is cooperating with the G20 to track down all wealth and confiscate it after 2016. Have fun. See links below...

...we headed into a crazy period where the governments will try to fund the $150223 trillion global debt bubble [4] by hunting down all private capital (G20 announced a database for this today, NSA will contribute and note this is the bankster business model for them to own everything)...

[igigme77]

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

Thank you for your message
Dark will have its own story?
Hope it can fly to the moon
Good luck

[darkproton]

Sorry to say, I am forming a breakaway faction.

DogeCoin was a clone of Litecoin. Now because of Scrypt ASICs, DogeCoin will be killed.

I got this idea for a new coin from the Litecoin breakaway group who don't like the idea of ASICs. The developers are really scared that the new Litecoin will dilute the branding of old Litecoin and they have taken the time to explain why ASICs won't hurt miners and Litecoin. It reads like FUD.

I have decided to launch DarkDogeCoin. It will have the best of DogeCoin, marketing and much wow, and DarkCoin anonymity. And DGW. And X11. And be ASIC resistant for as long as possible.

DarkDogeCoin will respect both Doge and Darkcoin communities.

As breakaway factions needs to be more than one, the dictionary defines it as a group e.g. plural. So, I am looking for anyone that wants to join me.

Launch date is 18 April.

Details here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=553006.msg6018117#msg6018117

I look forward to you joining me. Much $$. Much Anonymous. So moon.

Hahaha! Almost had me! Man thats a good one. You nearly fried my mind.

[splawik21]

I suspect it's not going to be that easy to just take the drk code and add command & conquer on top of it.  

Agree more you should have the written acceptance of DRK and DOGE devs I think.

[sippsnapp]

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

one day those orders should be the norm , like 1k btc for 1 drk, buahahaha

[splawik21]

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

one day those orders should be the norm , like 1k btc for 1 drk, buahahaha

& 1BTC will cost 1 $ it's cool anyway..

[boubou]

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

Great! Is there a solution for windows as well?

"Fix" ? I've been mining with my R9 290s for months without issue. What exactly is it fixing?

We were about 20 to have problem with R9 290: the cards launch and mine at é.5Mh rate, but after 10 minutes a drop happened and the cards keep on mining at 2.3M.
A 0.2Mh/s drop happened on all cards from various brands and bios, all kind of OS and .conf file, all models are 290.
Srtrangely few people did not experiment this bug. May be you're one of them.

[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).

I am not the best guy when it comes to the technical stuff but can the "exposed IP addresses problem" be fixed by using tor?

btw one could say that NSA could also find you when using tor but the more difficult/expensive/time wasting it gets to find you the better...

I don't know if Darkcoin is designed to allow you to send over Tor.

Even if it is, Tor will not hide your IP reliably from snooping agencies. Tor is better than nothing, but there are designs which can hide your IP absolutely and reliably. I don't think anyone has implemented such a design yet for the way we need to use it.

[tifozi]

I don't know if Darkcoin is designed to allow you to send over Tor.

Even if it is, Tor will not hide your IP reliably from snooping agencies. Tor is better than nothing, but there are designs which can hide your IP absolutely and reliably. I don't think anyone has implemented such a design yet for the way we need to use it.

There is a Sr. Member who posted couple of functional DRK Tor nodes a few pages back. Any coin using the bitcoin source can Tor

Code:

darkcoind --help

[AnonyMint]

I don't know if Darkcoin is designed to allow you to send over Tor.

Even if it is, Tor will not hide your IP reliably from snooping agencies. Tor is better than nothing, but there are designs which can hide your IP absolutely and reliably. I don't think anyone has implemented such a design yet for the way we need to use it.

There is a Sr. Member who posted couple of functional DRK Tor nodes a few pages back. Any coin using the bitcoin source can Tor

Code:

darkcoind --help

Everyone needs to use it. So it needs to be turned on by default. Because as the participants in your Darksend mix lose anonymity, then you lose anonymity too even if you used Tor.

The only feature of Darkcoin is claimed anonymity now correct? The cpu-only aspect is crossed out on the web page.

Thus shouldn't your anonymity be actually stronger otherwise an altcoin is simply going to do it better than Darksend.

Don't worry about Zerocash, it takes 9ms verification per transaction (Zerocoin is 500msec). That won't scale. Your competition won't come from Zerocash. It will come from another altcoin.

[bigtimespaghetti]

My client is not connecting to any nodes, anyone got a conf file example I could copy?