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

[daddeo]

I feel my last post may have been confusing so I’ll try to explain it better.

Sender A (SA) sends 8DRK to Receiver A (RA)

The masternode takes the 10DRK from SA and parks it, none of those coins will be used in the rest of the transaction.

The masternode from its 1000DRK balance takes 8DRK and sends to RA and 2DRK to SA as the change.

The original 10DRK from SA will be used at a later date to fulfill someone else’s transaction.

This way the change SA gets back isn’t even part of the original transaction of 10DRK. There’s no worry about tainting your next transactions with the change from previous transactions. If it’s done this way none of the coins can technically be tracked back to the original sender because they stopped for a layover on the masternode for X number of blocks before being used again. So you have separation of not only the addresses but it will appear that the coins sat in another wallet for a period of time before being spent again. Please correct me if I’m wrong about this, I’m trying to comprehend DarkSend as well.

The coins in the masternodes aren't used for mixing.  1000 coins is way too small an amount for something like that.  As I understand it the coins coming in from other clients form the mixing pool.

Perhaps the master nodes or some kind of "exchange" node could be used in the mixing process at least in the beginning. I'm finding it hard to believe that the mixing pools will have enough collateral early on to make speedy transactions.

DarkSend is the default for all transactions. You have to opt-out of DarkSend to use regular Darkcoin with an ordinary block chain.

Understood. But a tx could still take a long time in the early stages of adoption if the pools are waiting for similarly sized inputs to mix with.

[1715644427]

1715644427

[1715644427]

1715644427

[1715644427]

1715644427

[1715644427]

1715644427

[GhostPlayer]

how come I've never seen these Darkcoin videos!?

http://blog.coinium.org/announcements/darkcoin/new-pool-darkcoin/

[humanitee]

Wallets X, X1, etc. aren't associated in any way to wallet A.  Nor can input and output amounts be matched - unless someone gains physical access to the machine where John keeps his wallet, I suppose.

This got me thinking:

What prevents wallets A, X, X1 from being associated by IP address?  There's no association on the block chain, but IP association is just as bad...

I2P.

Need to get smart on this I guess - I've never heard of it :p.  Is that something that will be built into the client or is it a separate protocol (like tor) that will need to be set up?

If separate, that's something that needs to be made clear with like a flashing neon sign...

I think I have a better solution than that, I want to turn the masternodes into I2P relays for darkcoin. So your client will pick one when you start, then relay any messages through that one. It encrypts all of the traffic, removes the connection between IP and address and it the blockchain is still a complete fog. Plus it'll be a private I2P, so it'll be super fast. Masternodes are going to be awesome  

There's the quote about it.

Pretty great anonymity could also be obtained by sending the broadcast 4+ peers away from you. Encrypt the packets and you'd be good.

[coins101]

I spent a fair amount of time thinking about the discussion with dime, humanitee, luigi1111, camosoul and others yesterday about the anonymity of Darksend.  I suspected that the logic behind darksend as currently implemented was not sound, and I thought it would be best to determine how exactly darksend was working, and do an in-depth analysis of a mixing cycle and the transactions that follow mixing.

...

Best,
Sim

Wow! This is great. About 400+ pages ago I talked about having a different kind of pool for change outputs only. Put in all of your change outputs and you'll get new fresh clean inputs of 10DRK. The client could automatically do this after each darksend, which would also get you new inputs for the next round.

I'm currently embedded in patching stratum and p2pool to support the masternode payments, which is why I haven't been around. It takes a lot of work to make something so different from anything else out there, dare I say, revolutionary?

It just occurred to me, I'm a bit slow, that having to patch the supporting infrastructure to make DarkSend work is genius - it will limit the number of potential clones.

They would be breaking their infrastructure every two minutes, no one would bother mining.

[thelonecrouton]

Wallets X, X1, etc. aren't associated in any way to wallet A.  Nor can input and output amounts be matched - unless someone gains physical access to the machine where John keeps his wallet, I suppose.

This got me thinking:

What prevents wallets A, X, X1 from being associated by IP address?  There's no association on the block chain, but IP association is just as bad...

I2P.

Need to get smart on this I guess - I've never heard of it :p.  Is that something that will be built into the client or is it a separate protocol (like tor) that will need to be set up?

If separate, that's something that needs to be made clear with like a flashing neon sign...

I think the I2P stuff is run on the masternodes, it will be built into darkcoind I assume, regular clients don't need to know anything about it or set anything up.

[Cryptocoinrank.com]

█ ★Darkcoin (DRK) █→ Now Live on: http://www.cryptocoinrank.com/Darkcoin
Hope you like it! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579901.0

Enjoy

[eltito]

I'm not sure I understand.

John darksends 2 coins from A to C, gets 8 back as change on address X.
He then contributes 2 additional coins from another address in his wallet, address X1?

If that's how it works I'm not sure I get how this helps.  It just exposes the holder of address X1 as the person who darksent 2 coins to C.

I am probably misunderstanding where X1 S1 and W1 are coming from.

Thinking about this more, you're right.  It may not expose address A, but it does expose X1 - which isn't a huge deal unless A is somehow associated to X1 via IP and assuming X1 is more or less a burn address that will never be reused after it empties out to the change pool.

The only way I can think to get around it would be for the masternodes to hold change from a sender's transactions in some sort of escrow until they add up to a certain amount, then send it back to X1.  So the only amount of change anyone ever gets in one send to one specific address is 5DRK (or whatever).

edit: and now I realize I've just invented change denomination, which has been talked about several times already 

[philipmicklon]

I think we need to stress this point in our marketing: Darkcoin is more fungible than bitcoin. This is an incredible advantage for a currency.

[eltito]

I think I have a better solution than that, I want to turn the masternodes into I2P relays for darkcoin. So your client will pick one when you start, then relay any messages through that one. It encrypts all of the traffic, removes the connection between IP and address and it the blockchain is still a complete fog. Plus it'll be a private I2P, so it'll be super fast. Masternodes are going to be awesome  

There's the quote about it.

Holy crap!  I read that at the time it was posted and had no idea wtf he was talking about, heh.  Thinking about the nuts and bolts of darksend all afternoon (and finally more or less getting my head around it...I think) I get how awesome this is.

Thanks.

[AlexGR]

I think we need to stress this point in our marketing: Darkcoin is more fungible than bitcoin. This is an incredible advantage for a currency.

How do you mean that?

[philipmicklon]

I think we need to stress this point in our marketing: Darkcoin is more fungible than bitcoin. This is an incredible advantage for a currency.

How do you mean that?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=56073.0

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1le87j/bitcoin_core_dev_on_stolen_coins_and_transaction/

[mannie]

Dark Wallet is set to launch this week: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/29/dark-wallet-for-managing-bitcoin-arrives-this-week/

I wonder if this centralized solution will fall flat on its face and expose the need for a decentralized anonymous currency? Could be good for Darkcoin.

[miningpoolhub]

I think we need to stress this point in our marketing: Darkcoin is more fungible than bitcoin. This is an incredible advantage for a currency.

+1

I think block time is too long, but other things are great!

[daddeo]

Dark Wallet is set to launch this week: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/29/dark-wallet-for-managing-bitcoin-arrives-this-week/

I wonder if this centralized solution will fall flat on its face and expose the need for a decentralized anonymous currency? Could be good for Darkcoin.

Taken from that article:

In an email Monday, Stephen Hudak, spokesman for the U.S. government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, declined to comment specifically on Dark Wallet. He did, however, say, “We are well aware of the many emerging technological efforts designed to subvert financial transparency. It’s certainly our business to be interested and vigilant with respect to any activities that may assist money laundering and other financial crimes.”

What are the chances DRK is on that radar?

[eduffield]

I spent a fair amount of time thinking about the discussion with dime, humanitee, luigi1111, camosoul and others yesterday about the anonymity of Darksend.  I suspected that the logic behind darksend as currently implemented was not sound, and I thought it would be best to determine how exactly darksend was working, and do an in-depth analysis of a mixing cycle and the transactions that follow mixing.

...

Best,
Sim

Wow! This is great. About 400+ pages ago I talked about having a different kind of pool for change outputs only. Put in all of your change outputs and you'll get new fresh clean inputs of 10DRK. The client could automatically do this after each darksend, which would also get you new inputs for the next round.

I'm currently embedded in patching stratum and p2pool to support the masternode payments, which is why I haven't been around. It takes a lot of work to make something so different from anything else out there, dare I say, revolutionary?

On second thought, I'm not sure this solves the problem.  My understanding is that you want to accumulate the dirty change in the wallet until it breaches a certain amount (say 10 for example), then it is washed in a "change only" wash with a bunch of "10" transactions.  The problem I see is that even the clean coins could be linked to the original transaction.  Just to explain:

John darksends 2 coins from A to C, gets 8 back as change on address X
a few days later..
John darksends 8 coins from B to D, gets 2 back as change on address Y

Y+X are submitted to the change mixing pool (10 coins), and come out "clean" at address Z.

The problem is that the coins at address Z are not clean really, they are "suspect", they could have possibly participated in any darksends that generated the dirty coins that composed the "change washing" pool.

Now when Johns wants to spend coins from A, B, and Z in the same transaction.

So if John wants to send coins from A+B+Z in one transaction, the fact that Z participated in a pool that contained X and Y is enough to expose A and B as the original participants in the darksend transaction.

Really it leaves us at the same position that we were at previously after the original darksends.

I hope that made sense.

I came up with a way better solution to this issue than my previous idea. Plus it's already supported by DarkSend, I'll just enforce it in RC3

John darksends 2.5 coins from A to C, gets 7.5 back as change on address X, Y, V, Z  (X = 5DRK, Y = 1DRK, V = 1DRK, Z=0.5DRK )
Joe darksends 3 coins from E to G, gets 7 back as change on address W, K, J  (W = 5DRK, K = 1DRK, J = 1DRK)
Suzie darksends 3.5 coins from K to Q, gets 6.5 back as change on address F, G, H  (F = 5DRK, G = 1DRK, H = 0.5DRK)

Change is denominated into units of 5, 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 DRK. I'll introduce the precision limitation back again of 0.01DRK. So if you get 7.5 DRK of change back, you'll end up with 5DRK+1DRK+1DRK+0.5DRK.

You could still possible do taint analysis on denominations only used once, but this would be solved with multiple rounds in DarkSend.

[Honest Tim]

Dark Wallet is set to launch this week: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/29/dark-wallet-for-managing-bitcoin-arrives-this-week/

I wonder if this centralized solution will fall flat on its face and expose the need for a decentralized anonymous currency? Could be good for Darkcoin.

Taken from that article:

In an email Monday, Stephen Hudak, spokesman for the U.S. government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, declined to comment specifically on Dark Wallet. He did, however, say, “We are well aware of the many emerging technological efforts designed to subvert financial transparency. It’s certainly our business to be interested and vigilant with respect to any activities that may assist money laundering and other financial crimes.”

What are the chances DRK is on that radar?

1.02 AKA 50/1 on

[ImI]

Dark Wallet is set to launch this week: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/29/dark-wallet-for-managing-bitcoin-arrives-this-week/

I wonder if this centralized solution will fall flat on its face and expose the need for a decentralized anonymous currency? Could be good for Darkcoin.

Taken from that article:

In an email Monday, Stephen Hudak, spokesman for the U.S. government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, declined to comment specifically on Dark Wallet. He did, however, say, “We are well aware of the many emerging technological efforts designed to subvert financial transparency. It’s certainly our business to be interested and vigilant with respect to any activities that may assist money laundering and other financial crimes.”

What are the chances DRK is on that radar?

not yet, but longterm it could of course become an issue.

on the other side, if gov starts to "attack" coin marketcap would be well beyond 100$mio

also there are other markets than the US

[coins101]

Dark Wallet is set to launch this week: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/29/dark-wallet-for-managing-bitcoin-arrives-this-week/

I wonder if this centralized solution will fall flat on its face and expose the need for a decentralized anonymous currency? Could be good for Darkcoin.

Taken from that article:

In an email Monday, Stephen Hudak, spokesman for the U.S. government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, declined to comment specifically on Dark Wallet. He did, however, say, “We are well aware of the many emerging technological efforts designed to subvert financial transparency. It’s certainly our business to be interested and vigilant with respect to any activities that may assist money laundering and other financial crimes.”

What are the chances DRK is on that radar?

not yet, but longterm it could of course become an issue.

on the other side, if gov starts to "attack" coin marketcap would be well beyond 100$mio

also there are other markets than the US

like i said before, eCash is not illegal. its bitcoin, without the block chain.

When you move from crypto to fiat, you have to go through KYC if its a material transaction. you have to do this with exchanges anyway.

[ilic]

Dark Wallet is set to launch this week: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/04/29/dark-wallet-for-managing-bitcoin-arrives-this-week/

I wonder if this centralized solution will fall flat on its face and expose the need for a decentralized anonymous currency? Could be good for Darkcoin.

Taken from that article:

In an email Monday, Stephen Hudak, spokesman for the U.S. government’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, declined to comment specifically on Dark Wallet. He did, however, say, “We are well aware of the many emerging technological efforts designed to subvert financial transparency. It’s certainly our business to be interested and vigilant with respect to any activities that may assist money laundering and other financial crimes.”

What are the chances DRK is on that radar?

this could be good por DRK publicity but not so good if the govt try and make a point to shut DRK down.

I really liked the idea posted a few pages back about using crypto/DRK to move money within and in and out of 3rd world countries.  Getting a piece of the Western Union market would be phenomenal.  They charge a ridiculous fee to send money back and forth and to be able to offer people a simple app that works on (almost) any phone to send funds to family members etc could be huge.

I get so excited by this thread, i truly think Evan is a genius and that DRK will be a revolutionary coin.   Nice work people.

[daddeo]

I spent a fair amount of time thinking about the discussion with dime, humanitee, luigi1111, camosoul and others yesterday about the anonymity of Darksend.  I suspected that the logic behind darksend as currently implemented was not sound, and I thought it would be best to determine how exactly darksend was working, and do an in-depth analysis of a mixing cycle and the transactions that follow mixing.

...

Best,
Sim

Wow! This is great. About 400+ pages ago I talked about having a different kind of pool for change outputs only. Put in all of your change outputs and you'll get new fresh clean inputs of 10DRK. The client could automatically do this after each darksend, which would also get you new inputs for the next round.

I'm currently embedded in patching stratum and p2pool to support the masternode payments, which is why I haven't been around. It takes a lot of work to make something so different from anything else out there, dare I say, revolutionary?

On second thought, I'm not sure this solves the problem.  My understanding is that you want to accumulate the dirty change in the wallet until it breaches a certain amount (say 10 for example), then it is washed in a "change only" wash with a bunch of "10" transactions.  The problem I see is that even the clean coins could be linked to the original transaction.  Just to explain:

John darksends 2 coins from A to C, gets 8 back as change on address X
a few days later..
John darksends 8 coins from B to D, gets 2 back as change on address Y

Y+X are submitted to the change mixing pool (10 coins), and come out "clean" at address Z.

The problem is that the coins at address Z are not clean really, they are "suspect", they could have possibly participated in any darksends that generated the dirty coins that composed the "change washing" pool.

Now when Johns wants to spend coins from A, B, and Z in the same transaction.

So if John wants to send coins from A+B+Z in one transaction, the fact that Z participated in a pool that contained X and Y is enough to expose A and B as the original participants in the darksend transaction.

Really it leaves us at the same position that we were at previously after the original darksends.

I hope that made sense.

I came up with a way better solution to this issue than my previous idea. Plus it's already supported by DarkSend, I'll just enforce it in RC3

John darksends 2.5 coins from A to C, gets 7.5 back as change on address X, Y, V, Z  (X = 5DRK, Y = 1DRK, V = 1DRK, Z=0.5DRK )
Joe darksends 3 coins from E to G, gets 7 back as change on address W, K, J  (W = 5DRK, K = 1DRK, J = 1DRK)
Suzie darksends 3.5 coins from K to Q, gets 6.5 back as change on address F, G, H  (F = 5DRK, G = 1DRK, H = 0.5DRK)

Change is denominated into units of 5, 1, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.05, and 0.01 DRK. I'll introduce the precision limitation back again of 0.01DRK. So if you get 7.5 DRK of change back, you'll end up with 5DRK+1DRK+1DRK+0.5DRK.

You could still possible do taint analysis on denominations only used once, but this would be solved with multiple rounds in DarkSend.

Would these "multiple rounds in DarkSend" be automated?