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

[eduffield]

I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?

Posted this over at DCT as well, but...

Three thoughts/questions:

1. How exactly would this new fee --say, to the masternodes -- be enforced?

2. I thought the DS transaction fee was there not just to prevent Sybil attacks but also to ensure DS blocks get processed immediately by miners. I remember the days of 0.001 fees when RC4 was released and DS rounds >1 not working because of this issue.  

3. This seems like a lot more work compared to adding a fees mixing phase. Is there some technical reason why the fee mixing phase can't be done or is a bad idea?

1. I'm thinking the user will pay for Darksend access for a period of time. For example, you do one transaction for 0.1 to the Darksend access address, this is the very first thing you do when Darksend starts. Then you send that transaction ID, and a signature proving you own the input. That gives you access to darksend for 1 day or something.

2. You're correct. That's what the hard fork is for.

3. I think there's a problem with the fee mixing phase. That would be much easier, but every round of a darksend would still go back to 1 Darksend fee mixing transaction. So you could follow a transaction from round 8,7...1. If you control the last masternode, you could tell who owns the final Darkcoin.

[1715162161]

1715162161

[1715162161]

1715162161

[1715162161]

1715162161

[1715162161]

1715162161

[1715162161]

1715162161

[JGCMiner]

I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?

Posted this over at DCT as well, but...

Three thoughts/questions:

1. How exactly would this new fee --say, to the masternodes -- be enforced?

2. I thought the DS transaction fee was there not just to prevent Sybil attacks but also to ensure DS blocks get processed immediately by miners. I remember the days of 0.001 fees when RC4 was released and DS rounds >1 not working because of this issue.  

3. This seems like a lot more work compared to adding a fees mixing phase. Is there some technical reason why the fee mixing phase can't be done or is a bad idea?

1. I'm thinking the user will pay for Darksend access for a period of time. For example, you do one transaction for 0.1 to the Darksend access address, this is the very first thing you do when Darksend starts. Then you send that transaction ID, and a signature proving you own the input. That gives you access to darksend for 1 day or something.

2. You're correct. That's what the hard fork is for.

3. I think there's a problem with the fee mixing phase. That would be much easier, but every round of a darksend would still go back to 1 Darksend fee mixing transaction. So you could follow a transaction from round 8,7...1. If you control the last masternode, you could tell who owns the final Darkcoin.

Thank you.

After hearing your response I now support this plan.

[eduffield]

I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?

making things more affordable for the enduser is always a good idea.

But I don't understand, you want to make darksend transactions completely free, yet pass payments to the masternode network?
Are you talking about voluntary fees?

If something becomes completely free, doesn't this enable DOS attacks?
I have always looked at fees as some sort of DOS hurdle, so that it would cost a fortune to flood the network with millions of transactions.

Voluntary fees? No, but it would be much cheaper than it is now.

DOS attacks? We could have a masternode sign the transaction when publishing it. The distribution should be really even among the masternodes, so that would eliminate bloat. So if you own 1 masternode, you could publish 1 transaction every 2 days currently.

[roede94105]

I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?

Posted this over at DCT as well, but...

Three thoughts/questions:

1. How exactly would this new fee --say, to the masternodes -- be enforced?

2. I thought the DS transaction fee was there not just to prevent Sybil attacks but also to ensure DS blocks get processed immediately by miners. I remember the days of 0.001 fees when RC4 was released and DS rounds >1 not working because of this issue.  

3. This seems like a lot more work compared to adding a fees mixing phase. Is there some technical reason why the fee mixing phase can't be done or is a bad idea?

1. I'm thinking the user will pay for Darksend access for a period of time. For example, you do one transaction for 0.1 to the Darksend access address, this is the very first thing you do when Darksend starts. Then you send that transaction ID, and a signature proving you own the input. That gives you access to darksend for 1 day or something.

2. You're correct. That's what the hard fork is for.

3. I think there's a problem with the fee mixing phase. That would be much easier, but every round of a darksend would still go back to 1 Darksend fee mixing transaction. So you could follow a transaction from round 8,7...1. If you control the last masternode, you could tell who owns the final Darkcoin.

Just not sure about the fee for a period of time

[Kai Proctor]

Just not sure about the fee for a period of time

Me too.

[coins101]

I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?

Posted this over at DCT as well, but...

Three thoughts/questions:

1. How exactly would this new fee --say, to the masternodes -- be enforced?

2. I thought the DS transaction fee was there not just to prevent Sybil attacks but also to ensure DS blocks get processed immediately by miners. I remember the days of 0.001 fees when RC4 was released and DS rounds >1 not working because of this issue.  

3. This seems like a lot more work compared to adding a fees mixing phase. Is there some technical reason why the fee mixing phase can't be done or is a bad idea?

1. I'm thinking the user will pay for Darksend access for a period of time. For example, you do one transaction for 0.1 to the Darksend access address, this is the very first thing you do when Darksend starts. Then you send that transaction ID, and a signature proving you own the input. That gives you access to darksend for 1 day or something.

2. You're correct. That's what the hard fork is for.

3. I think there's a problem with the fee mixing phase. That would be much easier, but every round of a darksend would still go back to 1 Darksend fee mixing transaction. So you could follow a transaction from round 8,7...1. If you control the last masternode, you could tell who owns the final Darkcoin.

no brainer. lose the fees.

add the fees to InstantX - Give people the option to pay for first class mail, vs. second class mail.

[eduffield]

Just not sure about the fee for a period of time

Me too.

Why? So you pay 0.05DRK when you want to mix, then you mix how ever much you want. If your client goes over 24 hours, it'll spend another 0.05DRK to keep going. It eliminates the timing attacks and double spending attacks.

[JGCMiner]

I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?

Posted this over at DCT as well, but...

Three thoughts/questions:

1. How exactly would this new fee --say, to the masternodes -- be enforced?

2. I thought the DS transaction fee was there not just to prevent Sybil attacks but also to ensure DS blocks get processed immediately by miners. I remember the days of 0.001 fees when RC4 was released and DS rounds >1 not working because of this issue.  

3. This seems like a lot more work compared to adding a fees mixing phase. Is there some technical reason why the fee mixing phase can't be done or is a bad idea?

1. I'm thinking the user will pay for Darksend access for a period of time. For example, you do one transaction for 0.1 to the Darksend access address, this is the very first thing you do when Darksend starts. Then you send that transaction ID, and a signature proving you own the input. That gives you access to darksend for 1 day or something.

2. You're correct. That's what the hard fork is for.

3. I think there's a problem with the fee mixing phase. That would be much easier, but every round of a darksend would still go back to 1 Darksend fee mixing transaction. So you could follow a transaction from round 8,7...1. If you control the last masternode, you could tell who owns the final Darkcoin.

no brainer. lose the fees.

add the fees to InstantX - Give people the option to pay for first class mail, vs. second class mail.

With no fees people would spam attack the network with Sybil identities and bloat up the blockchain via Darksend.

@eduffield
As for the duration fee, thinking about it more I now think it may not work well as spammers can still spam during that window. Maybe the 0.05 fee is enough to keep them away, dunno...

[georgem]

add the fees to InstantX - Give people the option to pay for first class mail, vs. second class mail.

That's it!

So we would have a few different fee-permutations. How much would each cost?

1) user makes transaction without darksend and without Instant TX
2) user makes transaction with darksend and without Instant TX
3) user makes transaction without darksend and with Instant TX (oh wait, that's not possible, lol, needs to be denominated/mixed to be instant TXable, right?)
4) user makes transaction with darksend and with Instant TX

[eduffield]

I think I'm in favor of hard-forking the network to make Darksend transactions completely free. So there will be no fees to track at all. Instead of the miners, they could pay either the masternode network (the one you connected to even), the development fund, foundation fund, etc. These payments would be passed to the masternode and could be cashed later to avoid timing analysis. Another upside to this is it's impossible to do in Bitcoin and the fees could be MUCH lower than 0.0125. Thoughts?

Posted this over at DCT as well, but...

Three thoughts/questions:

1. How exactly would this new fee --say, to the masternodes -- be enforced?

2. I thought the DS transaction fee was there not just to prevent Sybil attacks but also to ensure DS blocks get processed immediately by miners. I remember the days of 0.001 fees when RC4 was released and DS rounds >1 not working because of this issue.  

3. This seems like a lot more work compared to adding a fees mixing phase. Is there some technical reason why the fee mixing phase can't be done or is a bad idea?

1. I'm thinking the user will pay for Darksend access for a period of time. For example, you do one transaction for 0.1 to the Darksend access address, this is the very first thing you do when Darksend starts. Then you send that transaction ID, and a signature proving you own the input. That gives you access to darksend for 1 day or something.

2. You're correct. That's what the hard fork is for.

3. I think there's a problem with the fee mixing phase. That would be much easier, but every round of a darksend would still go back to 1 Darksend fee mixing transaction. So you could follow a transaction from round 8,7...1. If you control the last masternode, you could tell who owns the final Darkcoin.

no brainer. lose the fees.

add the fees to InstantX - Give people the option to pay for first class mail, vs. second class mail.

With no fees people would spam attack the network with Sybil identities and bloat up the blockchain via Darksend.

@eduffield
As for the duration fee, thinking about it more I now think it may not work well as spammers can still spam during that window. Maybe the 0.05 fee is enough to keep them away, dunno...

DOS attacks? We could have a masternode sign the transaction when publishing it. The distribution should be really even among the masternodes, so that would eliminate bloat. So if you own 1 masternode, you could publish 1 transaction every 2 days currently. So it requires 1000DRK to use this feature and you still can't use it very much.

[JGCMiner]

add the fees to InstantX - Give people the option to pay for first class mail, vs. second class mail.

That's it!

So we would have a few different fee-permutations. How much would each cost?

1) user makes transaction without darksend and without Instant TX
2) user makes transaction with darksend and without Instant TX
3) user makes transaction without darksend and with Instant TX
4) user makes transaction with darksend and with Instant TX

But Darksend and instantx are separate. Evan already said that instantx will not speed up Darksend. Does somebody have the quote? It was from a few days ago.

[choeymethod]

I might jump into the altmarket, do you guys think it's a good time to buy some drk now?

[roede94105]

Just not sure about the fee for a period of time

Me too.

Why? So you pay 0.05DRK when you want to mix, then you mix how ever much you want. If your client goes over 24 hours, it'll spend another 0.05DRK to keep going. It eliminates the timing attacks and double spending attacks.

people could still spam during that window and bloat the network for free, no?

[HinnomTX]

no brainer. lose the fees.

add the fees to InstantX - Give people the option to pay for first class mail, vs. second class mail.

1. Agreed. The fees of 0.0125 would need to be reduced down the road anyway, as DRK price appreciates.
2. Great idea! InstantX transactions should be treated like first class, and with a fee to use it. Could make a useful DOS deterrent as well.  

[georgem]

add the fees to InstantX - Give people the option to pay for first class mail, vs. second class mail.

That's it!

So we would have a few different fee-permutations. How much would each cost?

1) user makes transaction without darksend and without Instant TX
2) user makes transaction with darksend and without Instant TX
3) user makes transaction without darksend and with Instant TX
4) user makes transaction with darksend and with Instant TX

But Darksend and instantx are separate. Evan already said that instantx will not speed up Darksend. Does somebody have the quote? It was from a few days ago.

Then I am wrong, I always assumed that instant TX per definition is only possible with previously mixed darksend money.

[eduffield]

Just not sure about the fee for a period of time

Me too.

Why? So you pay 0.05DRK when you want to mix, then you mix how ever much you want. If your client goes over 24 hours, it'll spend another 0.05DRK to keep going. It eliminates the timing attacks and double spending attacks.

people could still spam during that window and bloat the network for free, no?

DOS attacks? We could have a masternode sign the transaction when publishing it. The distribution should be really even among the masternodes, so that would eliminate bloat. So if you own 1 masternode, you could publish 1 transaction every 2 days currently. So it requires 1000DRK to use this feature and you still can't use it very much.

[HinnomTX]

I might jump into the altmarket, do you guys think it's a good time to buy some drk now?

Yes. If you need some motivation, you can gaze upon our developer's wizardry in real time right here and at darkcointalk.

[TanteStefana2]

Guess what made the Playstation the most popular console in history?  The black market...  They still made plenty of money from retail sales of games, however because people had the freedom to chip the console and download when they felt like it, it became the most popular gaming console in the history of the planet.

Darkcoin will be the same, people can use it normally or they can invoke Darksend when they feel like it.

Why would anyone not use darksend?  When this coin gets to the point where I'll be paying for things with it, you can bet I'll have all my coins denominated.  I don't want any of my personal information, interests, clothing size, etc... known to the world.  Even if nobody is looking, I will feel much more secure with my privacy in tact, thank you very much.

I just can't believe young people today seem to have no clue how important their privacy is.  Sure, they put tons of stupid info about themselves on facebook.  You have a bit of control there.  But picture this.  You have videos of yourself mooning the camera man, you were young and silly.  It's put up on Facebook by a friend, but today, you have an important job, you're the top Financial advisor at your firm, and are up for partnership.  Then someone finds that video of you when you were a kid.

you lose the partnership.

You must have LONG TERM vision of your future kids!  Privacy is NOT a laughing matter, it's serious.  It'll come back to bite you if you don't maintain it.  I think there are very few of us with our privacy in tact anymore.  I include myself.  Though I've tried a little, just owning a web domain, they f*^king publish my name, address, phone number, etc... on who is.  WTF, why does the world need to know that?

Anyway, if there were a camera watching you poop in your bathroom where someone could be watching you, would you still make silly faces in the mirror, pretend you're doing a toothpaste commercial?  squeeze a zit?  Could you EVER be yourself?

[roede94105]

Just not sure about the fee for a period of time

Me too.

Why? So you pay 0.05DRK when you want to mix, then you mix how ever much you want. If your client goes over 24 hours, it'll spend another 0.05DRK to keep going. It eliminates the timing attacks and double spending attacks.

people could still spam during that window and bloat the network for free, no?

DOS attacks? We could have a masternode sign the transaction when publishing it. The distribution should be really even among the masternodes, so that would eliminate bloat. So if you own 1 masternode, you could publish 1 transaction every 2 days currently. So it requires 1000DRK to use this feature and you still can't use it very much.

I think I misunderstood something here.. If someone pays a small amount to be able to darksend for 24hours, then it means those people could mega spam during 24 hours, regardless of the MNs, no?

EDIT: or you meant people pay for the time the anonymization process? Then they actually darksend 10 days later for free if they want to? So if it's about anonymizing the funds, then yes people can't spam or DDOS

[Kai Proctor]

Just not sure about the fee for a period of time

Me too.

Why? So you pay 0.05DRK when you want to mix, then you mix how ever much you want. If your client goes over 24 hours, it'll spend another 0.05DRK to keep going. It eliminates the timing attacks and double spending attacks.

Hard to implement no ? How about paying a (one time) fee randomly to one of the masternodes involved in the rounds ?

EDIT : hmm no the first round's masternode.