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

[KryptoFoo]

Development Updates - July 15th

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-15th.1788/

Sorry if has been answered already, but what if I hold 26.1301456 DRK in my wallet - does anonymization operate down to the single satoshi level?

[1715123130]

1715123130

[1715123130]

1715123130

[1715123130]

1715123130

[sharkbyte093]

From the update:

Every 10 blocks, user clients network-wide will send any unmixed, traceable Darkcoins in their possession through an anonymization phase. In this phase, Masternodes are used in chained succession to mix the coins they receive from the network and break them down into homogenous denominations. After being processed by a minimum of 2 Masternodes, the coins are either sent to the next Masternode in the chain or back to the user’s wallet at randomly generated change addresses.

Can a user opt-out of this background anonymization for some or all of his or her coins, or is Darkcoin moving to a model where it is essentially mandatory that all coins be mixed in this way even if they are just sitting in wallets?

I ask because it seems like there are use cases where being able to trace the history of your own coins -- or proving that history to others, by pointing them to a neutral third party block explorer -- is a desired feature.  Scrambling the ability to trace and document that history (when the ability to document that history is actually desired, of course) by mixing coins in the background introduces some new wrinkles, especially for business use cases.

You're asking if a coin that is being built for anonymity can be easily traced?

And this:

From the update:

Every 10 blocks, user clients network-wide will send any unmixed, traceable Darkcoins in their possession through an anonymization phase. In this phase, Masternodes are used in chained succession to mix the coins they receive from the network and break them down into homogenous denominations. After being processed by a minimum of 2 Masternodes, the coins are either sent to the next Masternode in the chain or back to the user’s wallet at randomly generated change addresses.

Can a user opt-out of this background anonymization for some or all of his or her coins, or is Darkcoin moving to a model where it is essentially mandatory that all coins be mixed in this way even if they are just sitting in wallets?

I ask because it seems like there are use cases where being able to trace the history of your own coins -- or proving that history to others, by pointing them to a neutral third party block explorer -- is a desired feature.  Scrambling the ability to trace and document that history (when the ability to document that history is actually desired, of course) by mixing coins in the background introduces some new wrinkles, especially for business use cases.

I respectfully disagree with you, the final transaction the person to person transaction occurs directly so that you can see the coins leave your wallet directly to the recipient's address and you can see the address getting the coins in the blockchain. So you can verify any transaction between buyer and seller just like you do now, but you are using previously mixed and denominated coins so that it is really a fog for everyone else! It is just brilliant, basically ecash! Great for business applications and way better than Bitcoin for B2B.

[coins101]

Development Updates - July 15th

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-15th.1788/

Sorry if has been answered already, but what if I hold 26.1301456 DRK in my wallet - does anonymization operate down to the single satoshi level?

0.01 DRK

Edit 0.001 DRK (what he said down below  )

Sorry to be terse, but there are other threads discussing Bitcoin. This is about the future.

[toknormal]

So you can verify any transaction between buyer and seller just like you do now, but you are using previously mixed and denominated coins so that it is really a fog for everyone else! It is just brilliant, basically ecash! Great for business applications and way better than Bitcoin for B2B.

+1

It is brilliant. It solves a lot of issues I often wondered about (like the advantages of being able to use block explorer to check the transaction happened) while at the same time *improving* anonymity by generalising it to the entire coin supply.

[camosoul]

instead of bickering over whats the best algo for making an individual transaction disappear, just turn the entire f*cking coin supply into mist !!!

I agree that this makes sense for an objective, BUT:

Do the wallet-sent TX stand out in that mist? I still think the client should denominate before it sends to a masternode. This might happen by default per the pre-mix. But, sends from wallets are still not sends from identified MNs, so it's something identifiably not mist going into the mist... Thus, it might be identified coming out. I'd like to see a denominated multi-point-exit to shore this up.

It looks like it's almost there to me... I'd start my explanation of why I say that by saying first, it looks like the mist moved from the client to the MNS, and the identifiable part moved from the MNs to the clients... Now, this is not 100% true because the clients are receiving pre-mixed. But quantities and timing are still potentially, sometimes identifiable. Noted, there is a percentage linked on a google docs spreadsheet. Probability it not absolutely. That's why it's called probability and not absolutely.

If the client sent out DRK in the same denominations, and with the same IP obfuscation (which pre-suppsoes that there will be IP obfuscation added at some point) as the MNs used, there would be no way to know what the hell was going to where. IF change came out of the 8-box look randomly;

1) sometimes skipping a block in timing
2) some bits coming out earlier than others. (MN2 sends one hunk of denominated change, MN5 sends another hunk, etc)

Then the when goes to hell too.

Also, the 10 block cycle is a cycle, not a mist. It's the opposite of homogeneous...

Then you've truly got a homogeneous mist going. The picture/updated info is a mist into which a somewhat thicker mist comes and goes... It's not quite homogenous.

Don't take this as an insult or a troll. It's damn near perfect now. I'm just thinking out loud about how to make it a little MORE perfect...

I wonder if blowjayxt, our resident homojenius wants to chime in on how this is or is not homogeneous?

[eltito]

Development Updates - July 15th

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-15th.1788/

Sorry if has been answered already, but what if I hold 26.1301456 DRK in my wallet - does anonymization operate down to the single satoshi level?

Denominations go down to .001 DRK.  Anything below that goes to the miners that found the block as a fee.

[TanteStefana2]

Get a room.

Exactly what I was thinking. There's probably not much more pathetic in this world than a troll fanboy. It ranks even lower than a racist whinging miner troll looking for attention.

Come off it, it was a backhanded complement!  He was being facetious!

[coins101]

Darkcoin Is The eCash Economy™

[TanteStefana2]

Development Updates - July 15th

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-15th.1788/

Sorry if has been answered already, but what if I hold 26.1301456 DRK in my wallet - does anonymization operate down to the single Duff level?

No, it'll be mix of amounts.

[7vpo]

Darkcoin Is The ShitCash Economy™

[luigi1111]

The way I understand it, nothing is added to the blockchain between the green boxes. The masternodes never actually hold the funds, they just facilitate signing. Someone correct me if I am mistaken.  

This is correct the masternodes never actually hold the funds they just facilitate transactions.

Pardon me for playing Devil's Advocate: But, if the coins don't actually change hands, how does this obfuscate anything?

They are still mixed with all the other "dirty" coins with a group signature as before. They "do" change hands, just from your right hand to your left hand if you will. The additional nodes reduces the chance of collusion to near 0. Each "hop" occurs every ten minutes as specified; so your coins will be with multiple participants *each* hop

Also, assuming user-defined mixing depth (or even just assuming minimum depth of two), coins would be entering and leaving the "train" (masternode chain in the graphic) at different intervals, not all after #8 (which would be an extended mixing time of approx. 3h 20m for your coins).

[camosoul]

Development Updates - July 15th

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-15th.1788/

Sorry if has been answered already, but what if I hold 26.1301456 DRK in my wallet - does anonymization operate down to the single Duff level?

No, it'll be mix of amounts.

So that dangly bit might echo for eternity...

[coins101]

Trolls paid with rollback coins

[sharkbyte093]

instead of bickering over whats the best algo for making an individual transaction disappear, just turn the entire f*cking coin supply into mist !!!

I agree that this makes sense for an objective, BUT:

Do the wallet-sent TX stand out in that mist? I still think the client should denominate before it sends to a masternode. This might happen by default per the pre-mix. But, sends from wallets are still not sends from identified MNs, so it's something identifiably not mist going into the mist... Thus, it might be identified coming out. I'd like to see a denominated multi-point-exit to shore this up.

It looks like it's almost there to me... I'd start my explanation of why I say that by saying first, it looks like the mist moved from the client to the MNS, and the identifiable part moved from the MNs to the clients... Now, this is not 100% true because the clients are receiving pre-mixed. But quantities and timing are still potentially, sometimes identifiable. Noted, there is a percentage linked on a google docs spreadsheet. Probability it not absolutely. That's why it's called probability and not absolutely.

If the client sent out DRK in the same denominations, and with the same IP obfuscation (which pre-suppsoes that there will be IP obfuscation added at some point) as the MNs used, there would be no way to know what the hell was going to where. IF change came out of the 8-box look randomly;

1) sometimes skipping a block in timing
2) some bits coming out earlier than others. (MN2 sends one hunk of denominated change, MN5 sends another hunk, etc)

Then the when goes to hell too.

Also, the 10 block cycle is a cycle, not a mist. It's the opposite of homogeneous...

Then you've truly got a homogeneous mist going. The picture/updated info is a mist into which a somewhat thicker mist comes and goes... It's not quite homogenous.

Don't take this as an insult or a troll. It's damn near perfect now. I'm just thinking out loud about how to make it a little MORE perfect...

I wonder if blowjayxt, our resident homojenius wants to chime in on how this is or is not homogeneous?

Very good points. A good place to start with regards to the block cycle might be to assign it a random probabilty that stands to have it occur somewhere between every 5-15 blocks or so.

The ultimate goal is to seamlessly hide the person-to-person transactions among the general mixing so that one cannot discern the difference.

I know this probably won't be popular (speed-wise) but maybe a good approach would be for people to have the option to wait for the general mixing to send a transaction (built into the client)? It would certainly slow down transaction speed but if the transaction were synced with the general mixing it would be very difficult to track. It could be implemented in the form of a checkbox perhaps? Maybe call it DarkMist.

Would it even be possible to do the general mixing every block or two, or would that be too much of a burden on the network?

[7vpo]

Trolls paid with rollback coins

Because, They don't make an explanation unless a dick enters to devs asses...

[splawik21]

LOL nice jump on mintpal!

[coins101]

QED

[KryptoFoo]

Development Updates - July 15th

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-15th.1788/

Sorry if has been answered already, but what if I hold 26.1301456 DRK in my wallet - does anonymization operate down to the single Duff level?

No, it'll be mix of amounts.

The duff! He definitely deserves to be immortalized in the terminology

[georgem]

Live, kristof atlas DARK NEWS talks about darkcoin etc..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohiCNDT7W08

[luigi1111]

instead of bickering over whats the best algo for making an individual transaction disappear, just turn the entire f*cking coin supply into mist !!!

I agree that this makes sense for an objective, BUT:

Do the wallet-sent TX stand out in that mist? I still think the client should denominate before it sends to a masternode. This might happen by default per the pre-mix. But, sends from wallets are still not sends from identified MNs, so it's something identifiably not mist going into the mist... Thus, it might be identified coming out. I'd like to see a denominated multi-point-exit to shore this up.

It looks like it's almost there to me... I'd start my explanation of why I say that by saying first, it looks like the mist moved from the client to the MNS, and the identifiable part moved from the MNs to the clients... Now, this is not 100% true because the clients are receiving pre-mixed. But quantities and timing are still potentially, sometimes identifiable. Noted, there is a percentage linked on a google docs spreadsheet. Probability it not absolutely. That's why it's called probability and not absolutely.

If the client sent out DRK in the same denominations, and with the same IP obfuscation (which pre-suppsoes that there will be IP obfuscation added at some point) as the MNs used, there would be no way to know what the hell was going to where. IF change came out of the 8-box look randomly;

1) sometimes skipping a block in timing
2) some bits coming out earlier than others. (MN2 sends one hunk of denominated change, MN5 sends another hunk, etc)

Then the when goes to hell too.

Also, the 10 block cycle is a cycle, not a mist. It's the opposite of homogeneous...

Then you've truly got a homogeneous mist going. The picture/updated info is a mist into which a somewhat thicker mist comes and goes... It's not quite homogenous.

Don't take this as an insult or a troll. It's damn near perfect now. I'm just thinking out loud about how to make it a little MORE perfect...

I wonder if blowjayxt, our resident homojenius wants to chime in on how this is or is not homogeneous?

I'd thought of this as well, and it does seem superior (random exit points for change for mix > 2). It might be a pain to implement though; I think I need to mull it over a bit more.