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

[tungfa]

Proof of Honor Voting !
http://www.coinssource.com/poh/

Please vote here by posting to:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855130.new#new
Evan is on #3 in the moment,
step up and lets change that !

Tx
and please Bump this ....>
tx
 

Voting will begin 12/1/2014 at 12:00 PM PST ....>

[tungfa]

Proof of Honor Voting !
http://www.coinssource.com/poh/

Please vote here by posting to:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855130.new#new
Evan is on #3 in the moment,
step up and lets change that !

Tx
and please Bump this ....>
tx
 

Voting will begin 12/1/2014 at 12:00 PM PST ....>

Check this Thread for updates:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855130.msg9703309#msg9703309

PS:
- Sunny King : Peercoin
- Mohammed Roshan : SaffronCoin

[f2000]

I believe in the se

I love Darksend but you have to realize it will be replaced once someone starts a zero knowledge proof coin.

While I've been working on DarkSend I've been thinking about this alot. You know what the problem is with a zero knowledge proof? There's a secret key that will be attacked by governments and it will eventually be cracked. That will make every transaction that ever happened in that blockchain cleartext and allow every future transaction to also be viewed as cleartext. I'm going to venture to say the government is working on quantum computers and such crypto can be solved with shor's algorithm. When they do, they're not going to tell anyone. So it's a giant honeypot.

DarkSend is immune to such attacks, all involved crypto functions could be cracked and the mixing is still done off blockchain by the masternodes. Off blockchain means that the information is lost and that's the only way to secure it, you can't do it with cryptography.

Long time no see.

Does anybody know if Evan feels the same now?
This "secret key" problem as he describes?

Evan?

Pretty sure it still stands...

I would also be interested to hear what Evan (or one of the other technical guys) thinks of this. Im not well versed in the voodoo crypto.

[crowning]

I love Darksend but you have to realize it will be replaced once someone starts a zero knowledge proof coin.

While I've been working on DarkSend I've been thinking about this alot. You know what the problem is with a zero knowledge proof? There's a secret key that will be attacked by governments and it will eventually be cracked. That will make every transaction that ever happened in that blockchain cleartext and allow every future transaction to also be viewed as cleartext. I'm going to venture to say the government is working on quantum computers and such crypto can be solved with shor's algorithm. When they do, they're not going to tell anyone. So it's a giant honeypot.

DarkSend is immune to such attacks, all involved crypto functions could be cracked and the mixing is still done off blockchain by the masternodes. Off blockchain means that the information is lost and that's the only way to secure it, you can't do it with cryptography.

Long time no see.

Does anybody know if Evan feels the same now?
This "secret key" problem as he describes?

Evan?

I don't know much about Evan's feelings  , but since his statement is based on facts and mathematics  his statement will be the same.

Maybe today he'll go as far as I do and changes the statement to "anything with a secret master key is fucked-up by design, but no one will tell you because the people in charge (governments et al) like it that way".
 
(okay, he will use the word "broken" instead of "fucked-up".)

[toknormal]

DarkSend is immune to such attacks, all involved crypto functions could be cracked and the mixing is still done off blockchain by the masternodes. Off blockchain means that the information is lost and that's the only way to secure it, you can't do it with cryptography.

See if I haven't been banging on about the advantages of a 2-tier network for weeks now.

 - legacy compliance with Bitcoin commercial infrastructure
 - decoupled scope of anon-tech allowing for evolutionary or revolutionary revisions to be firewalled off from the blockchain development
 - ability to support pre-emtive rather than reactive anonymisation
 - ability to support multiple redundancy anonymisation as opposed to just single redundancy with single-tier network
 - following on from that, massive resistance against attacks on algo weaknesses due to multiple redundancy mixing

and now (now being back in April 2014 but I just saw it 'now') Evan has added...

 - resistance to cracking by shor's algorithm

[thelonecrouton]

DarkCoin Open Bazaar integration is far away. OpenBazaar Project has alot of work todo.

Open Bazaar is a marketplace, not a payment processor. You can buy and sell in whatever currency you want.

[Ignition75]

DarkSend is immune to such attacks, all involved crypto functions could be cracked and the mixing is still done off blockchain by the masternodes. Off blockchain means that the information is lost and that's the only way to secure it, you can't do it with cryptography.

See if I haven't been banging on about the advantages of a 2-tier network for weeks now.

 - legacy compliance with Bitcoin commercial infrastructure
 - decoupled scope of anon-tech allowing for evolutionary or revolutionary revisions to be firewalled off from the blockchain development
 - ability to support pre-emtive rather than reactive anonymisation
 - ability to support multiple redundancy anonymisation as opposed to just single redundancy with single-tier network
 - following on from that, massive resistance against attacks on algo weaknesses due to multiple redundancy mixing

and now (now being back in April 2014 but I just saw it 'now') Evan has added...

 - resistance to cracking by shor's algorithm

[child_harold]

I love Darksend but you have to realize it will be replaced once someone starts a zero knowledge proof coin.

While I've been working on DarkSend I've been thinking about this alot. You know what the problem is with a zero knowledge proof? There's a secret key that will be attacked by governments and it will eventually be cracked. That will make every transaction that ever happened in that blockchain cleartext and allow every future transaction to also be viewed as cleartext. I'm going to venture to say the government is working on quantum computers and such crypto can be solved with shor's algorithm. When they do, they're not going to tell anyone. So it's a giant honeypot.

DarkSend is immune to such attacks, all involved crypto functions could be cracked and the mixing is still done off blockchain by the masternodes. Off blockchain means that the information is lost and that's the only way to secure it, you can't do it with cryptography.

Long time no see.

Does anybody know if Evan feels the same now?
This "secret key" problem as he describes?

Evan?

I don't know much about Evan's feelings  , but since his statement is based on facts and mathematics  his statement will be the same.

Maybe today he'll go as far as I do and changes the statement to "anything with a secret master key is fucked-up by design, but no one will tell you because the people in charge (governments et al) like it that way".
 
(okay, he will use the word "broken" instead of "fucked-up".)

Six months is a long time in crypto. Perhaps there have been developments in ZK that have led Evan to change his feelings?
For example Evan's above comment speaks about decrypting every ZK transaction by cracking ONE secret master key. The use of a multiple key architecture would presumably take care of this assuming such a thing were do-able. Perhaps off-blockchain tech exists for ZK?

I'm no expert, but I do know enough time has elapsed for the "landscape" to have changed.

I hold DRK and SDC (ShadowCash). We do know that Evan approached SDC for a merger and we know SDC are doing ZK work. Evan spoke of his respect for ryno's coding abilities but was he also interested in the ZK research of the Shadow team?

I'm all about the ANon and quest for the best.

BTW (hypothetical) What happens if one group runs a good chunk of masternodes, say 51%. Would they have any advantage in breaking darksend anon (like running lots of tor nodes breaks tor anon)?

thx

[Kai Proctor]

DarkSend is immune to such attacks, all involved crypto functions could be cracked and the mixing is still done off blockchain by the masternodes. Off blockchain means that the information is lost and that's the only way to secure it, you can't do it with cryptography.

See if I haven't been banging on about the advantages of a 2-tier network for weeks now.

 - legacy compliance with Bitcoin commercial infrastructure
 - decoupled scope of anon-tech allowing for evolutionary or revolutionary revisions to be firewalled off from the blockchain development
 - ability to support pre-emtive rather than reactive anonymisation
 - ability to support multiple redundancy anonymisation as opposed to just single redundancy with single-tier network
 - following on from that, massive resistance against attacks on algo weaknesses due to multiple redundancy mixing

and now (now being back in April 2014 but I just saw it 'now') Evan has added...

 - resistance to cracking by shor's algorithm

Me too !

[xxxgoodgirls]

BTW (hypothetical) What happens if one group runs a good chunk of masternodes, say 51%. Would they have any advantage in breaking darksend anon (like running lots of tor nodes breaks tor anon)?

thx

At the actual rate owning the 51% of the MNs require an investmen of almost 1.5M$.
2250 MNs and DRK value being 3$ it would cost 3.3M$.
You see it gets harder and harder as the network keeps growning.

[dasource]

BTW (hypothetical) What happens if one group runs a good chunk of masternodes, say 51%. Would they have any advantage in breaking darksend anon (like running lots of tor nodes breaks tor anon)?

thx

At the actual rate owning the 51% of the MNs require an investmen of almost 1.5M$.
2250 MNs and DRK value being 3$ it would cost 3.3M$.
You see it gets harder and harder as the network keeps growning.

That is interesting point ... food for though; if you where the feds what would you do:

1. Buy 50%+ MN @ $2 million
2. Try and crack the encryption and spend $100+ millions and countless years if not decades?

[tungfa]

Airbnb Warming to Bitcoin, Invites Coinbase to HQ ....>>

(and as AirBnB has legal issues in enough countries, DRK might be the way forward !)

http://cointelegraph.com/news/113020/airbnb-warming-to-bitcoin-invites-coinbase-to-hq
 

[Ignition75]

BTW (hypothetical) What happens if one group runs a good chunk of masternodes, say 51%. Would they have any advantage in breaking darksend anon (like running lots of tor nodes breaks tor anon)?

thx

At the actual rate owning the 51% of the MNs require an investmen of almost 1.5M$.
2250 MNs and DRK value being 3$ it would cost 3.3M$.
You see it gets harder and harder as the network keeps growning.

That is interesting point ... food for though; if you where the feds what would you do:

1. Buy 50%+ MN @ $2 million
2. Try and crack the encryption and spend $100+ millions and countless years if not decades?

It would cost a lot more, price would get pushed far beyond $3 as you're scooping up that many DRK.

Not sure if that many DRK are available to purchase either...

[dasource]

It would cost a lot more, price would get pushed far beyond $3 as you're scooping up that many DRK.

Not sure if that many DRK are available to purchase either...

Likely yeah, but what is to say they do not already run them just like with TOR? Masses of DRK was traded in the previous weeks/months and it would not exactly be difficult to buy 50,000 to 100,000 DRK .... We are talking small change here v.s. breaking encryption algos.

[illodin]

BTW (hypothetical) What happens if one group runs a good chunk of masternodes, say 51%. Would they have any advantage in breaking darksend anon (like running lots of tor nodes breaks tor anon)?

thx

At the actual rate owning the 51% of the MNs require an investmen of almost 1.5M$.
2250 MNs and DRK value being 3$ it would cost 3.3M$.
You see it gets harder and harder as the network keeps growning.

That is interesting point ... food for though; if you where the feds what would you do:

1. Buy 50%+ MN @ $2 million
2. Try and crack the encryption and spend $100+ millions and countless years if not decades?

First, to own 50% of the masternodes currently you'd have to buy another 1240 nodes. If you got those at spot price it would be $3MM. But you won't, so you'd probably spend closer to $30MM. And when/if DRK is at a point where national agencies start getting interested, it's not going to be $2.39/DRK anymore.

Second, 50% is not some magic number wrt owning masternodes. Actually, 50% is not nearly enough to give any meaningful chance of deanonymizing anything. And even if you had 100% of the nodes, you couldn't deanonymize the transactions that have already happened, nor the future transactions that use funds that have been premixed earlier. Trying to corner the masternode network just requires a lot of effort and resources for questionable gains.

[Kai Proctor]

BTW (hypothetical) What happens if one group runs a good chunk of masternodes, say 51%. Would they have any advantage in breaking darksend anon (like running lots of tor nodes breaks tor anon)?

thx

At the actual rate owning the 51% of the MNs require an investmen of almost 1.5M$.
2250 MNs and DRK value being 3$ it would cost 3.3M$.
You see it gets harder and harder as the network keeps growning.

That is interesting point ... food for though; if you where the feds what would you do:

1. Buy 50%+ MN @ $2 million
2. Try and crack the encryption and spend $100+ millions and countless years if not decades?

It's not just 51% of the masternodes it would have to be a large majority of them, pushing the cost higher.

Masternode Snooping

When Darksend peers mix with each other they use a dedicated node, called a Masternode. This node in the present implementation is required to be able to see the inputs and outputs of the transactions to ensure that parties sign, otherwise the system will charge them collateral fees.

Peers mix with many different Masternodes in a row, known as “rounds” of anonymity in the client. To follow a transaction through the full process, a user must go through a series of malicious Masternodes. This process is random, so a bad actor would need to control many Masternodes in order to attack in this way.

The trade off is a sybil resistant system or one with more personal privacy from snooping Masternodes. But in the case where a Masternode is blinded, collateral protection can’t be used. If a Masternode is blind to the submission of outputs and signing, by definition it would not know who to charge the collateral.

There are other options available, such as banning inputs of users that attempt to break the system. Something like this will have to be utilized in addition to a blinded setup to protect the system from abuse.

Source : https://darkcointalk.org/threads/reply-to-kristovs-paper.2325/

It was after the review of Kristov Atlas (many of those are now mitigated).

[dasource]

First, to own 50% of the masternodes currently you'd have to buy another 1240 nodes. If you got those at spot price it would be $3MM. But you won't, so you'd probably spend closer to $30MM. And when/if DRK is at a point where national agencies start getting interested, it's not going to be $2.39/DRK anymore.

Second, 50% is not some magic number wrt owning masternodes. Actually, 50% is not nearly enough to give any meaningful chance of deanonymizing anything. And even if you had 100% of the nodes, you couldn't deanonymize the transactions that have already happened, nor the future transactions that use funds that have been premixed earlier. Trying to corner the masternode network just requires a lot of effort and resources for questionable gains.

Fair point (other than the assumption that they do not already run a % of current MNs; which they could quite easily or equally not) what I am trying to understand is how we came to the conclusion that it is cheaper to crack encryption algos v.s. buying up enough MN to decrypt x% of TXs.

[child_harold]

BTW (hypothetical) What happens if one group runs a good chunk of masternodes, say 51%. Would they have any advantage in breaking darksend anon (like running lots of tor nodes breaks tor anon)?

thx

At the actual rate owning the 51% of the MNs require an investmen of almost 1.5M$.
2250 MNs and DRK value being 3$ it would cost 3.3M$.
You see it gets harder and harder as the network keeps growning.

That is interesting point ... food for though; if you where the feds what would you do:

1. Buy 50%+ MN @ $2 million
2. Try and crack the encryption and spend $100+ millions and countless years if not decades?

It's not just 51% of the masternodes it would have to be a large majority of them, pushing the cost higher.

Masternode Snooping

When Darksend peers mix with each other they use a dedicated node, called a Masternode. This node in the present implementation is required to be able to see the inputs and outputs of the transactions to ensure that parties sign, otherwise the system will charge them collateral fees.

Peers mix with many different Masternodes in a row, known as “rounds” of anonymity in the client. To follow a transaction through the full process, a user must go through a series of malicious Masternodes. This process is random, so a bad actor would need to control many Masternodes in order to attack in this way.

The trade off is a sybil resistant system or one with more personal privacy from snooping Masternodes. But in the case where a Masternode is blinded, collateral protection can’t be used. If a Masternode is blind to the submission of outputs and signing, by definition it would not know who to charge the collateral.

There are other options available, such as banning inputs of users that attempt to break the system. Something like this will have to be utilized in addition to a blinded setup to protect the system from abuse.

Source : https://darkcointalk.org/threads/reply-to-kristovs-paper.2325/

It was after the review of Kristov Atlas (many of those are now mitigated).

"a user must go through a series of malicious Masternodes. This process is random, so a bad actor would need to control many Masternodes in order to attack in this way."

OK. Guess that answers one of my Q's. It is theoretically possible to de-anonymize transactions by running a series of malicious MN's (kind of like running many malicious TOR nodes I guess).

I will wait on Evan (or a trusted team member i suppose) for the answer to my main question:

Six months is a long time in crypto. Perhaps there have been developments in ZK that have led Evan to change his feelings?
For example Evan's above comment speaks about decrypting every ZK transaction by cracking ONE secret master key. The use of a multiple key architecture would presumably take care of this assuming such a thing were do-able. Perhaps off-blockchain tech exists for ZK?

I'm no expert, but I do know enough time has elapsed for the "landscape" to have changed.

I hold DRK and SDC (ShadowCash). We do know that Evan approached SDC for a merger and we know SDC are doing ZK work. Evan spoke of his respect for ryno's coding abilities but was he also interested in the ZK research of the Shadow team?

I'm all about the ANon and quest for the best.

thx

[tungfa]

Is Bitcoin the Future?
By John Mauldin | November 30, 2014

Mauldins newsletter is likely one of the most influential newsletters in the English-language financial scene !! ...>
(very interesting paper, NO DRK !)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8TiBhsCw3eGZlE2RnhUTVVGR0U/view?usp=sharing
 

[defunctec]

First, to own 50% of the masternodes currently you'd have to buy another 1240 nodes. If you got those at spot price it would be $3MM. But you won't, so you'd probably spend closer to $30MM. And when/if DRK is at a point where national agencies start getting interested, it's not going to be $2.39/DRK anymore.

Second, 50% is not some magic number wrt owning masternodes. Actually, 50% is not nearly enough to give any meaningful chance of deanonymizing anything. And even if you had 100% of the nodes, you couldn't deanonymize the transactions that have already happened, nor the future transactions that use funds that have been premixed earlier. Trying to corner the masternode network just requires a lot of effort and resources for questionable gains.

Fair point (other than the assumption that they do not already run a % of current MNs; which they could quite easily or equally not) what I am trying to understand is how we came to the conclusion that it is cheaper to crack encryption algos v.s. buying up enough MN to decrypt x% of TXs.

You cannot buy enough darkcoin to jeopardize the network.

1200ish MN's exist, if you wanted 50% of the MN network you'd need another 1,200,000 Darkcoins!

Buying this amount over any time period will have significant effect on the spot price.

As the buyer is clearly buying, sell walls would be removed and people become bullish. The price of Darkcoin would go so high the incentive for investors to set up new masternodes becomes more attractive, bringing more masternodes to the network that are not "Gov" owned.

If the government wanted to buy 1,200,000 darkcoin, it would send the market cap into the billions.