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

[AlexGR]

So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.

Avoid multiple tickets for masternodes. It will reduce number of nodes making the system less resilient.

[thelonecrouton]

I'm getting an odd problem with my client.

Every time I try to send, it alters the amount to 0 and erases the address, calls it a send to self of 0DRK and still shows confirms... Damn strange.

Restarted client. Now different effect...

Only applies to using darksend. regular send works fine.

Waiting for entries 1/3. Stays that way until a block pops, then says idle and poof, like the darksend attempt never happened... Absolutely no log output in regard to it.

I'm not even sure where to look... Fuckin' weird...

Now spontaneously back to "payment to yourself" shit... Address is definitely not mine...

Darksend is just plain broken.

It just timed out while waiting for other inputs. Nothing ended up being sent anywhere, that's all. Working as intended within beta limitations.

[tifozi]

There were originally two strategies for masternode payments. One requires a hardfork and one doesn't. I originally decided to do the one that does, because you can't cheat as a pool operator. But, that comes with a price. The code must reject cheating blocks and that's what caused the forking issue.

The other way is to setup the client to pay nodes in a provably fair way. If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

Like others have suggested, all of the groundwork has been laid. I have implemented the masternodes, the election system for payments and it's compatible with this soft fork.

So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.

My goal with Darkcoin has always been to take the #2 spot from Litecoin. I believe we have the best chance we've ever had now and these changes will actually help realize that goal.

As for my communication? Lately I've just had my nose to the grindstone, coding all of the time. I intend to be much more involved with the community in the future. This will include getting a team of software developers and managing the vision of the project. I think my time might be better spent in the future doing interviews, speaking at conferences and being Darkcoin's figurehead.

Good stuff. So many volunteers now, and I would love to see new hands join the team as well.

[coastermonger]

If someone had their masternode coins stolen it was probably due to poor security on their box.

With almost 400 masternodes I'd be shocked if someone didn't have their coins stolen.

For people's peace of mind, I still think the private keys should never need to touch the masternode. All thats needed to validate ownership of coins is a signed message. The user should be able to sign a message using Darkcoin QT on an offline computer and then transfer the signed message to the masternode using a USB drive. This signed message contains all the proof that the network needs for authorizing the masternode to receive dividends and process darksends.

That's a really good point.  Excuse my ignorance though, doesn't this run into the issue of "proving" that the 1000 DRK existed at that address at the moment in time that the node is being used?  Otherwise I could just sign a message for an address, transfer to a new address, rinse and repeat.

[Ozziecoin]

So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.

Avoid multiple tickets for masternodes. It will reduce number of nodes making the system less resilient.

Fully agree with AlexGR.  Also, IN THE VERY UNLIKELY INSTANCE if coins are stolen, you won't lose the WHOLE LOT. I will continue to maintain separate MNs.

[chaeplin]

hello there is a a backdoor in the version 10.8.8 i have been stolen 999 dark coin from my master node
here is my wallet address http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/address.dws?XfNfxwfQpVKccGprG6PdRWT2UtMGoM9gCL.htm

it has been moved to this wallet XwKx3mWB9ncJo5ZudqyEZ1MoQWMSmE3CwP

it seems either the devs or someone who gave the version given on darkcoin.io got a backdoor


here is the log of my masternode server
 st login : from 192.162.103.175

Can you give a little more info, did you have the wallet encrypted? How was your darkcoin.conf setup?

DRK on the MN? Not hardened? We need more info. Calling it a backdoor up front suggests you don't know how to secure your serve and were also fool enough to have your DRK ON the server instead of remote MN w/ cold wallet... You're sounding like a troll. We don't want to write you off if it's true, but so far... That may be precisely your troll tactic.

I'm trying to figure out my own weird-ass darksend problem...

are you on skype can you come i am with friend trying to figure out how this could happend
i don't know what to do
i have lost 1000k all what i mined and bought so far
please help !

XfNfxwfQpVKccGprG6PdRWT2UtMGoM9gCL has 1,000.6.

Can't find any transfer to  XwKx3mWB9ncJo5ZudqyEZ1MoQWMSmE3CwP .


Need more info.





Edit :

Code:

chaeplin
Full Member
***

Yay!

[philipmicklon]

If someone had their masternode coins stolen it was probably due to poor security on their box.

With almost 400 masternodes I'd be shocked if someone didn't have their coins stolen.

For people's peace of mind, I still think the private keys should never need to touch the masternode. All thats needed to validate ownership of coins is a signed message. The user should be able to sign a message using Darkcoin QT on an offline computer and then transfer the signed message to the masternode using a USB drive. This signed message contains all the proof that the network needs for authorizing the masternode to receive dividends and process darksends.

That's a really good point.  Excuse my ignorance though, doesn't this run into the issue of "proving" that the 1000 DRK existed at that address at the moment in time that the node is being used?  Otherwise I could just sign a message for an address, transfer to a new address, rinse and repeat.

No different than if the 1000 drk is sitting on the masternode. It could always be spent. The network has to be able to validate that the masternode contains an unspent input > 1000drk.

It is 100% possible to implement masternodes that don't require anything more than pasting in a signed message. No private keys ever need to touch an online box.

[JGCMiner]

There were originally two strategies for masternode payments. One requires a hardfork and one doesn't. I originally decided to do the one that does, because you can't cheat as a pool operator. But, that comes with a price. The code must reject cheating blocks and that's what caused the forking issue.

The other way is to setup the client to pay nodes in a provably fair way. If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

Like others have suggested, all of the groundwork has been laid. I have implemented the masternodes, the election system for payments and it's compatible with this soft fork.

So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.

My goal with Darkcoin has always been to take the #2 spot from Litecoin. I believe we have the best chance we've ever had now and these changes will actually help realize that goal.

As for my communication? Lately I've just had my nose to the grindstone, coding all of the time. I intend to be much more involved with the community in the future. This will include getting a team of software developers and managing the vision of the project. I think my time might be better spent in the future doing interviews, speaking at conferences and being Darkcoin's figurehead.

Thank you for the response. I am happy that this is possible without a hardfork, but I am concerned about the resulting incentive structure.

In the current system, pool owners have a good incentive to honestly pay the miners because if miners think they have been cheated then they will move elsewhere. This would result in a loss of income, via pool fees, for the pool owners.

However with this new system where the pool is expected to give 20% of the reward to the elected masternode, if the pool does not honestly pay the masternode then there is really no reason for the miners to leave. Actually, they have an incentive to stay because now they would get 100% of the reward.  I could actually see a malicious pool set up by somebody trying to destabilize the system which ADVERTISES "no payments to masternodes" to entice miners to come to their pool.

Have you considered this?  Maybe I just need more faith in human behavior...

Btw, I like all the ideas related to dev team building and improved communication.  

[Sleepyx]

If what is really needed is more masternodes then work out a way to have a cold wallet work and it will probably double.
Having said that, I'll still run my masternode as it is as I feel secure enough to do so.

[chaeplin]

XfNfxwfQpVKccGprG6PdRWT2UtMGoM9gCL

http://explorer.darkcoin.io/address/XfNfxwfQpVKccGprG6PdRWT2UtMGoM9gCL

Thank you. http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/address.dws?XfNfxwfQpVKccGprG6PdRWT2UtMGoM9gCL.htm is updated.

[Propulsion]

There were originally two strategies for masternode payments. One requires a hardfork and one doesn't. I originally decided to do the one that does, because you can't cheat as a pool operator. But, that comes with a price. The code must reject cheating blocks and that's what caused the forking issue.

The other way is to setup the client to pay nodes in a provably fair way. If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

Like others have suggested, all of the groundwork has been laid. I have implemented the masternodes, the election system for payments and it's compatible with this soft fork.

So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.

My goal with Darkcoin has always been to take the #2 spot from Litecoin. I believe we have the best chance we've ever had now and these changes will actually help realize that goal.

As for my communication? Lately I've just had my nose to the grindstone, coding all of the time. I intend to be much more involved with the community in the future. This will include getting a team of software developers and managing the vision of the project. I think my time might be better spent in the future doing interviews, speaking at conferences and being Darkcoin's figurehead.

Thank you for the response. I am happy that this is possible without a hardfork, but I am concerned about the resulting incentive structure.

In the current system, pool owners have a good incentive to honestly pay the miners because if miners think they have been cheated then they will move elsewhere. This would result in a loss of income, via pool fees, for the pool owners.

However with this new system where the pool is expected to give 20% of the reward to the elected masternode, if the pool does not honestly pay the masternode then there is really no reason for the miners to leave. Actually, they have an incentive to stay because now they would get 100% of the reward.  I could actually see a malicious pool set up by somebody trying to destabilize the system which ADVERTISES "no payments to masternodes" to entice miners to come to their pool.

Have you considered this?  Maybe I just need more faith I human behavior...

Btw, I like all the ideas related to dev team building and improved communication.  

The reward is generated by the network. The pool can not do this.

[AlexGR]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

[chaeplin]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

It's 3 hours %, changed 6 hours to 3 hours.
I will add more graphs.

[JGCMiner]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

My thoughts exactly.

@Propulsion
Is this really a non-issue? My understanding of Evan's post is that the pool would get paid from the network and said pool is responsible for the 80/20 split between miners and the elected masternode.

[AlexGR]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

It's 3 hours %, changed 6 hours to 3 hours.
I will add more graphs.

Aha... the point I was making is that these type of guys will not cooperate:

7 mins ago   May 28 2014 05:24:19   75865   6461.618   5   pool_unknown_11   25
9 mins ago   May 28 2014 05:23:00   75864   6630.923   5   coinmine.pw   62
14 mins ago   May 28 2014 05:17:24   75863   6611.335   5   miningpoolhub   13
14 mins ago   May 28 2014 05:17:11   75862   6438.863   5   trademybitcom   40
18 mins ago   May 28 2014 05:13:51   75861   6270.039   5   pool_unknown_61   6
18 mins ago   May 28 2014 05:13:45   75860   5930.718   5   coinmine.pw   68
19 mins ago   May 28 2014 05:12:37   75859   5650.398   5   pool_unknown_56   4
19 mins ago   May 28 2014 05:12:31   75858   6471.832   5   pool_unknown_57   9
28 mins ago   May 28 2014 05:03:18   75857   7113.108   5   official   28
34 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:57:32   75856   7241.690   5   pool_unknown_24   43
37 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:54:58   75855   6584.788   5   pool_unknown_59   23
39 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:52:35   75854   6407.375   5   trademybitcom   34
41 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:50:39   75853   6027.662   5   official   21
42 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:50:05   75852   5941.220   5   pool_unknown_11   32
43 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:48:39   75851   6091.048   5   suchpool   27
44 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:47:18   75850   5793.907   5   coinmine   78
46 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:46:01   75849   5813.018   5   suchpool   45
46 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:45:17   75848   5800.880   5   trademybitcom   45
48 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:43:38   75847   5732.337   5   coinmine.pw   32
49 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:42:44   75846   5809.016   5   official   28
50 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:41:38   75845   6072.799   5   miningpoolhub   30
55 mins ago   May 28 2014 04:36:32   75844   6519.874   5   pool_unknown_61   29
1 hour ago   May 28 2014 04:32:01   75843   7003.063   5   pool_unknown_58   54


We need different strategy.

[oblox]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

I would love if that pool distribution continued to stay that way or even improve a bit more. That's awesome.

[Propulsion]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

My thoughts exactly.

@Propulsion
Is this really a non-issue?

Your issue is the equivalent of asking what if one pool creates their own generated bitcoins instead of twenty five per block.

Was wrong.

[eduffield]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

I think it's a good start. Doing masternode payments via soft fork will allow them to get paid like promised, we can at least get the larger pools to pay the fees. Later on, we can hard for and enforce them.

[HiddenDark]

I'm getting an odd problem with my client.

Every time I try to send, it alters the amount to 0 and erases the address, calls it a send to self of 0DRK and still shows confirms... Damn strange.

Restarted client. Now different effect...

Only applies to using darksend. regular send works fine.

Waiting for entries 1/3. Stays that way until a block pops, then says idle and poof, like the darksend attempt never happened... Absolutely no log output in regard to it.

I'm not even sure where to look... Fuckin' weird...

Now spontaneously back to "payment to yourself" shit... Address is definitely not mine...

Darksend is just plain broken.

It just timed out while waiting for other inputs. Nothing ended up being sent anywhere, that's all. Working as intended within beta limitations.

I've probably tried to use Darksend 10 times, and every time it has "timed out", surely this can't be right.

[JGCMiner]

That part:

If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.

...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

My thoughts exactly.

@Propulsion
Is this really a non-issue?

Your issue is the equivalent of asking what if one pool creates their own generated bitcoins instead of twenty five per block.

That is not what I mean. I edited my previous post to be more clear.

As I currently understand Evan's plan:
Network pays pool 100% of reward - pool must split reward 80/20 - 80% to miners, 20% to masternode

Are you are saying a dishonest pool can't break this system?  Or I am misunderstanding what Evan proposed.