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

[camosoul]

After a few days of peace, a new FUD offensive seems to have begun. My only comment to this is:

In 2014, a crack dev crypto unit was sent to prison by an organised FUD court for a crime they didn't commit.

This unit promptly escaped from a maximum-security FUD stockade to the crypto underground.

Today, still wanted by the POS coin shill's and FUD'sters, they survive as developers of fortune.

If you have a problem... if no one else can help... and if you can find them... maybe you can hire... the dArk-Team.

Da dada daaaa da da daaaa...

[salmion]

After a few days of peace, a new FUD offensive seems to have begun. My only comment to this is:

In 2014, a crack dev crypto unit was sent to prison by an organised FUD court for a crime they didn't commit.

This unit promptly escaped from a maximum-security FUD stockade to the crypto underground.

Today, still wanted by the POS coin shill's and FUD'sters, they survive as developers of fortune.

If you have a problem... if no one else can help... and if you can find them... maybe you can hire... the dArk-Team.

Da dada daaaa da da daaaa...

da da daa dun da daaa!

da dedede daaa!

[fernando]

People here go from circle jerking to panic mode very fast. I don't see the problem  .

It all depends on what Evan meant by that statement. I think we can all agree that no enforcement is very very problematic. Miners do not necessarily have to be sympathetic to DRK. Additionally, no enforcement would open up an attack vector on the Masternode network. Someone who doesn't like DRK can simply mine at a 20% advantage to everyone else, while undermining the system that lets DRK function.

There has to be enforcement. I suppose the advantage of the RC3 voting method is that is has been tried and tested so in that regards surely less risky to turn on?

Let's wait to hear from the captain..

Let's wait... and let's stop stalking him!! if we keep overanalyzing his comments everywhere the result will be him not being able to interact with the community for fear of starting a storm with a typo. I get we are all really into drk and we all want to know things the minute they happen, but there has to be a middle point.

[eduffield]

People here go from circle jerking to panic mode very fast. I don't see the problem  .

It all depends on what Evan meant by that statement. I think we can all agree that no enforcement is very very problematic. Miners do not necessarily have to be sympathetic to DRK. Additionally, no enforcement would open up an attack vector on the Masternode network. Someone who doesn't like DRK can simply mine at a 20% advantage to everyone else, while undermining the system that lets DRK function.

There has to be enforcement. I suppose the advantage of the RC3 voting method is that is has been tried and tested so in that regards surely less risky to turn on?

Let's wait to hear from the captain..

The RC4 system has inherent issues that were documented in Jira, plus it also has a systematic risk to the network (Sporking is less risky than a hard fork, but there's a risk the network forks wouldn't actually go away when the spork was turned off after a failure). These few issues combined with the fact that we've reached 80-90% payment efficiency tells me that it's not worth the risk to the network to move from the RC3 payment system.

Also, I have a separate plan I've been considering as an alternative that carries no risk and can be done at RC5's launch. Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments.

[camosoul]

Evan doesn't say stuff: everyone flips and and curses his mother.

Evan says stuff: everyone flips and and curses his mother.

Looking at two vectors of human behavior, the price and the chatter, it's clear wild freaky animals who do not deserve to call themselves human do not base their decisions on Reason, Logic, Evan, or Fundamentals.

If you're going to run around like maniacs no matter what, why do you care what he has to say? This could be glass beads, sea shells, or a catapult full of bat guano... The shaved fuckin' apes are going to run wild and beat each other up with sticks because that's just what they do. DRK, Evan, etc.. has not a damn thing to do with it. Bunch of idiots.

Reverting to the RC3 way of paying nodes makes me sad, but it isn't the dRK apocalypse... It's barely a concern. DS+ is still working (for most people). DRK has anon on a transparent chain! Nobody else has that. MNs still exist and their operators, hopefully aren't as dumb as the rest of the animals... This is another thing that is wrong with not making people learn how to do it right... You end up with the wrong sort of people operating MNs. We don't want fickle, brain-dead shitcoiners running MNs. Helping lazy, entitled brats, who refer to basic common sense as "nerd expert," run MNs that they have no business running only buttfucks the MN network. MNs are not money hoses and we have too many trader/miner retards finding their way into them.

Who was running the MN share thingy? This is the way to do it. Throw your coins at people who know what they're doing instead. I'd be willing to put my exposed coins into an MN share just for the sake of supporting the right way of doing it...

[camosoul]

Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments.

Y U NO DO THIS IN APRIL?

;-)

Fuck everybody on an old version. This is how you do it. Trying to be nice only leads to assholes taking advantage of it. USe the heavy hand, let there be short-term complaining and gnashing of teeth, move forward a month later and it's all fine.

Sometimes the only way to adjust a bitch's attitude is to fuck her in the butt and throw her out. It's not nice, and you might not like yourself for doing it, but the shittiest of people, like you find in the cesspool that is crypto, just can't be handled any other way. Sometimes you have to do an ugly thing because it's the only thing that will work. It sucks, but a man does what is needed even if it's ugly.

ALSO

Once open sourced, people could modify the code to report false version numbers. It would expose these operators as deliberately black hatting it. They would be the only non-payers and would shame themselves beyond recourse.

[JGCMiner]

People here go from circle jerking to panic mode very fast. I don't see the problem  .

It all depends on what Evan meant by that statement. I think we can all agree that no enforcement is very very problematic. Miners do not necessarily have to be sympathetic to DRK. Additionally, no enforcement would open up an attack vector on the Masternode network. Someone who doesn't like DRK can simply mine at a 20% advantage to everyone else, while undermining the system that lets DRK function.

There has to be enforcement. I suppose the advantage of the RC3 voting method is that is has been tried and tested so in that regards surely less risky to turn on?

Let's wait to hear from the captain..

The RC4 system has inherent issues that were documented in Jira, plus it also has a systematic risk to the network (Sporking is less risky than a hard fork, but there's a risk the network forks wouldn't actually go away when the spork was turned off after a failure). These few issues combined with the fact that we've reached 80-90% payment efficiency tells me that it's not worth the risk to the network to move from the RC3 payment system.

Also, I have a separate plan I've been considering as an alternative that carries no risk and can be done at RC5's launch. Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments.

Will this keep people from the running RC4 client but forcing the % paid to 1% or 0%?  Also what happens if people hack the protocol version?  If it can handle those attack vectors then that idea is fine.

IMO, even if the compliance is fine now, as DRK increases in adoption and the marketcap goes up the malicious WILL attack.

[fernando]

Who was running the MN share thingy? This is the way to do it. Throw your coins at people who know what they're doing instead. I'd be willing to put my exposed coins into an MN share just for the sake of supporting the right way of doing it...

There are several at darkcointalk marketplace:
https://darkcointalk.org/forums/marketplace.9/

[Toninho]

Darkcoin is finished, everybody goes to Ethancoin

Fuck the CHITCOINS and POS

[Brilliantrocket]

Will this keep people from the running RC4 client but forcing the % paid to 1% or 0%?  If it can handle that attack vector then that idea is fine.

IMO, even if the compliance is fine now, as DRK increases in adoption and the marketcap goes up the malicious WILL attack.

This is inevitable and we need a bulletproof solution. If DRK comes out as the #1 anonymous coin while having a shoddy enforcement solution, other coins could easily take that place by attacking masternode payments.

[gekos]

I wonder if this is something Kristol Atlas discovered?

[camosoul]

People here go from circle jerking to panic mode very fast. I don't see the problem  .

It all depends on what Evan meant by that statement. I think we can all agree that no enforcement is very very problematic. Miners do not necessarily have to be sympathetic to DRK. Additionally, no enforcement would open up an attack vector on the Masternode network. Someone who doesn't like DRK can simply mine at a 20% advantage to everyone else, while undermining the system that lets DRK function.

There has to be enforcement. I suppose the advantage of the RC3 voting method is that is has been tried and tested so in that regards surely less risky to turn on?

Let's wait to hear from the captain..

The RC4 system has inherent issues that were documented in Jira, plus it also has a systematic risk to the network (Sporking is less risky than a hard fork, but there's a risk the network forks wouldn't actually go away when the spork was turned off after a failure). These few issues combined with the fact that we've reached 80-90% payment efficiency tells me that it's not worth the risk to the network to move from the RC3 payment system.

Also, I have a separate plan I've been considering as an alternative that carries no risk and can be done at RC5's launch. Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments.

Will this keep people from the running RC4 client but forcing the % paid to 1% or 0%?  If it can handle that attack vector then that idea is fine.

IMO, even if the compliance is fine now, as DRK increases in adoption and the marketcap goes up the malicious WILL attack.

Making something work is not as hard as making it work properly and securely in a hostile environment. Over 95% of the work is hardening. Most people don't do it. coughmicrosoftcough

[RenegadeMan]

People here go from circle jerking to panic mode very fast. I don't see the problem  .

It all depends on what Evan meant by that statement. I think we can all agree that no enforcement is very very problematic. Miners do not necessarily have to be sympathetic to DRK. Additionally, no enforcement would open up an attack vector on the Masternode network. Someone who doesn't like DRK can simply mine at a 20% advantage to everyone else, while undermining the system that lets DRK function.

There has to be enforcement. I suppose the advantage of the RC3 voting method is that is has been tried and tested so in that regards surely less risky to turn on?

Let's wait to hear from the captain..

The RC4 system has inherent issues that were documented in Jira, plus it also has a systematic risk to the network (Sporking is less risky than a hard fork, but there's a risk the network forks wouldn't actually go away when the spork was turned off after a failure). These few issues combined with the fact that we've reached 80-90% payment efficiency tells me that it's not worth the risk to the network to move from the RC3 payment system.

Also, I have a separate plan I've been considering as an alternative that carries no risk and can be done at RC5's launch. Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments.

+1

I think everyone has to continue to remind themselves that this is beta software being worked on in a series of Release Candidates. There will be set backs as well as great leaps forward.

What I like about your approach Evan is that you're demonstrating a higher overarching concern for the integrity of the network than for specific features to be focussed on with a "do or die" attitude. This is what's really important for DRK. Better that we miss out on small amounts of DRK because of this issue now than risk a major unexpected fork resulting in a big mess that will bring the whole thing to its knees.

I'm sure Evan knows how important payments for MN operators are. Without the MNs being well supported, much of the architecture will come unstuck. Let's just await the turn of events before getting all too carried away. Enforcement will no doubt be part of the mix soon, but I think Evan's exercising considerable wisdom in his approach and we should just let him handle it in this most appropriate way.

[camosoul]

I wonder if this is something Kristol Atlas discovered?

I'm pretty sure it was known, but he emphasized it as more of a problem than originally thought.

It's just code, it can be changed... DRK isn't as carved in stone as BTC. Evan is open to fixing and changing things. BTC calls it "a feature, not a bug."

[Ignition75]

IMO there is a manipulation again, Evan and team are closer and closer to RC5 release so the manipulators know these are the last weeks for getting some cheap coins before BIG MO.
The same guy or guys sell themselves the coins doing some artificial panic and having buy orders already prepared.
After all they will be laughing all the way to drkbank.
Good night.

+1

This is exactly what I would be doing if I was a big player watching Darkcoin...

[Brilliantrocket]

I wonder if this is something Kristol Atlas discovered?

No, there were a number of recurring payment bugs discovered over the past several weeks. Payments are not really random, as they should be. Some nodes are getting multiple payments in a row, while some wallets that aren't connected to a masternode are getting paid.

[abercrombie]

I took it as no enforcement for the update, not 'no enforcement ever'. Fingers crossed.

No enforcement for RC5 would still be terrible. If that is the case, this is a multiple month setback. I am seriously stressing right now.

Is DarkCoin done?

[RenegadeMan]

Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments.

Y U NO DO THIS IN APRIL?

;-)

Fuck everybody on an old version. This is how you do it. Trying to be nice only leads to assholes taking advantage of it. USe the heavy hand, let there be short-term complaining and gnashing of teeth, move forward a month later and it's all fine.

Sometimes the only way to adjust a bitch's attitude is to fuck her in the butt and throw her out. It's not nice, and you might not like yourself for doing it, but the shittiest of people, like you find in the cesspool that is crypto, just can't be handled any other way. Sometimes you have to do an ugly thing because it's the only thing that will work. It sucks, but a man does what is needed even if it's ugly.

ALSO

Once open sourced, people could modify the code to report false version numbers. It would expose these operators as deliberately black hatting it. They would be the only non-payers and would shame themselves beyond recourse.

Camo, I've enjoyed most of your posts, as extreme and "out there" as they are (apart from your RC4 meltdown). But I just have to take issue with this:

Sometimes the only way to adjust a bitch's attitude is to fuck her in the butt and throw her out. It's not nice, and you might not like yourself for doing it...

What we need here is intelligence, brilliance, quality and care. We need people that can articulate themselves to make a point clear, argue facts and clarify confusion. We also need to show respect to each other and to people that may not have any idea what this is all about.

I think you are an intelligent man but you're also an appalling example of a frightened individual who hides behind this outward persona of a kick-arse, gun wielding, no-time-for-anyone-different-to-me, loud-mouthed, obnoxious, dick head. Your capacity for misogyny with a phrase like that is up there with the best (worst) examples to be found on the Internet. There is at least one female regularly on here (Tante), and bless her for being able to survive in here. And I'd like to see a whole lot more females because diversity is what crypto needs. But using language like that is not going to attract them or keep them here.

Think about what I'm saying for the benefit of the DRK community.

[JGCMiner]

People here go from circle jerking to panic mode very fast. I don't see the problem  .

It all depends on what Evan meant by that statement. I think we can all agree that no enforcement is very very problematic. Miners do not necessarily have to be sympathetic to DRK. Additionally, no enforcement would open up an attack vector on the Masternode network. Someone who doesn't like DRK can simply mine at a 20% advantage to everyone else, while undermining the system that lets DRK function.

There has to be enforcement. I suppose the advantage of the RC3 voting method is that is has been tried and tested so in that regards surely less risky to turn on?

Let's wait to hear from the captain..

The RC4 system has inherent issues that were documented in Jira, plus it also has a systematic risk to the network (Sporking is less risky than a hard fork, but there's a risk the network forks wouldn't actually go away when the spork was turned off after a failure). These few issues combined with the fact that we've reached 80-90% payment efficiency tells me that it's not worth the risk to the network to move from the RC3 payment system.

Also, I have a separate plan I've been considering as an alternative that carries no risk and can be done at RC5's launch. Basically, I would set a minimum protocol version and boot anyone not running RC4 or later off the network. This should get us to 98%+ payments.

+1

I think everyone has to continue to remind themselves that this is beta software being worked on in a series of Release Candidates. There will be set backs as well as great leaps forward.

What I like about your approach Evan is that you're demonstrating a higher overarching concern for the integrity of the network than for specific features to be focussed on with a "do or die" attitude. This is what's really important for DRK. Better that we miss out on small amounts of DRK because of this issue now than risk a major unexpected fork resulting in a big mess that will bring the whole thing to its knees.

I'm sure Evan knows how important payments for MN operators are. Without the MNs being well supported, much of the architecture will come unstuck. Let's just await the turn of events before getting all too carried away. Enforcement will no doubt be part of the mix soon, but I think Evan's exercising considerable wisdom in his approach and we should just let him handle it in this most appropriate way.

The protocol based enforcement is better than nothing (which is what we have now) and thus is a decent intermediate step. However, if it can't prevent people from forcing payments to 0% while using the rc4 client or protocol version hacks then in the long run we need something better.

As camo said, hardening is very hard... but it MUST be done. Especially for a coin aiming to be the #1 anon solution. In the future there will be tons of people, governments, and other organizations trying to destroy what Evan has built... there really is no reason to "groove" a pitch right in the middle of the plate for them.   

[tungfa]

http://cointelegraph.com/news/112378/dark-wallet-vs-bitcoin-fog-battle-of-anonymous-bitcoin-services

Anonymity in the NEWS ....>