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

[child_harold]

I'd argue the min MN chain should be at least 4 long.

Assuming (with medium paranoia settings) that the "bad guy" has a handle on 10%-20% of MN's (100-250 nodes), then with a 2 MN chain length the above numbers predict between a 1%-4% chance of a de-anonymization. This is far too high IMO.

There should be no option to select rounds... it should be 8 minimum with those that want added mixing to go above that. With no fees per round, it makes sense not to have less anon'd coins (those in which the user chooses less than 8 rounds).

What are the drawbacks (if any) of increasing the number of rounds from a default of 2 to 8?

EDIT: I guess it'll take longer but will this be mitigated by InstantTX? For that matter will DarkSend and InstantTX be compatible/interoperable (used simultaneously)

[qwizzie]

oh oh, looks like we voted too early

[oblox]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855130.msg9711037#msg9711037

Please voice your opinion on having to vote via twitter/fb.

[thelonecrouton]

I'd argue the min MN chain should be at least 4 long.

Assuming (with medium paranoia settings) that the "bad guy" has a handle on 10%-20% of MN's (100-250 nodes), then with a 2 MN chain length the above numbers predict between a 1%-4% chance of a de-anonymization. This is far too high IMO.

There should be no option to select rounds... it should be 8 minimum with those that want added mixing to go above that. With no fees per round, it makes sense not to have less anon'd coins (those in which the user chooses less than 8 rounds).

What are the drawbacks (if any) of increasing the number of rounds from a default of 2 to 8?

EDIT: I guess it'll take longer but will this be mitigated by InstantTX? For that matter will DarkSend and InstantTX be compatible/interoperable (used simultaneously)

Darksend is the process of coin anonymisation. You anonymise your coins before sending them, if you choose to. It has nothing to do with InstanTX, you can IX anonymised coins, or non anonymised coins, or both. IX will not speed the Darksend anonymisation process.

[GhostPlayer]

I'd argue the min MN chain should be at least 4 long.

Assuming (with medium paranoia settings) that the "bad guy" has a handle on 10%-20% of MN's (100-250 nodes), then with a 2 MN chain length the above numbers predict between a 1%-4% chance of a de-anonymization. This is far too high IMO.

There should be no option to select rounds... it should be 8 minimum with those that want added mixing to go above that. With no fees per round, it makes sense not to have less anon'd coins (those in which the user chooses less than 8 rounds).

What are the drawbacks (if any) of increasing the number of rounds from a default of 2 to 8?

EDIT: I guess it'll take longer but will this be mitigated by InstantTX? For that matter will DarkSend and InstantTX be compatible/interoperable (used simultaneously)

Two totally distinct concepts. Darksend rounds will always take the time they will take. You can't InstantX rounds. But once your coins have been anonymised, the yes, you're free to InstantX them at will. InstantX Darksend or InstantX regular. At least, this is preliminary testnet findings.

The more the rounds, the deeper the anonymity. 2 rounds is already crazy good, 8 is like ultra-mode.

[oblox]

The more the rounds, the deeper the anonymity. 2 rounds is already crazy good, 8 is like ultra-mode.

I don't think you need to give people the option for less than 8 rounds. People anon'ing their coins won't care if it takes a bit longer to go the additional rounds if it cuts the percentage down by a ton. After all, this is a privacy-centric coin at heart. The difference between 3^2 and 3^8 is HUGE.

[defunctec]

The more the rounds, the deeper the anonymity. 2 rounds is already crazy good, 8 is like ultra-mode.

I don't think you need to give people the option for less than 8 rounds. People anon'ing their coins won't care if it takes a bit longer to go the additional rounds if it cuts the percentage down by a ton. After all, this is a privacy-centric coin at heart.

Thing is, you could pause darksend as it reach's 4 rounds, use coin control to select the coins with 4 rounds and send those.

Unless you made them undependable until they reach 8 rounds, which is bullshit anyway.

Users can asses the risk involved and make a sound judgment on how many rounds are appropriate.

I like the option of 1-8, infact why not 1-100?

[oblox]

The more the rounds, the deeper the anonymity. 2 rounds is already crazy good, 8 is like ultra-mode.

I don't think you need to give people the option for less than 8 rounds. People anon'ing their coins won't care if it takes a bit longer to go the additional rounds if it cuts the percentage down by a ton. After all, this is a privacy-centric coin at heart.

Thing is, you could pause darksend as it reach's 4 rounds, use coin control to select the coins with 4 rounds and send those.

Unless you made them undependable until they reach 8 rounds, which is bullshit anyway.

Users can asses the risk involved and make a sound judgment on how many rounds are appropriate.

I like the option of 1-8, infact why not 1-100?

1 is out of the question (3) and 100 is extreme (1.2676506e30). As for the rounds, you would remove the input factor leaving the start button. I see two viable pathways at this point, locks on the coins entering the round process to prevent them from being able to be spent (much like instantx locks coins) or disabling the ability to stop it once started. There is no reason why going 8 rounds has to take longer than a few hours assuming there are people darksending. I dream of a day when there is enough activity that 8 rounds would literally take 8 blocks.

If this is out of the question, simply putting a table underneath the option of rounds setting specifying the percentage might be enough to show people to go 8 rounds.

[thelonecrouton]

The more the rounds, the deeper the anonymity. 2 rounds is already crazy good, 8 is like ultra-mode.

I don't think you need to give people the option for less than 8 rounds. People anon'ing their coins won't care if it takes a bit longer to go the additional rounds if it cuts the percentage down by a ton. After all, this is a privacy-centric coin at heart.

Thing is, you could pause darksend as it reach's 4 rounds, use coin control to select the coins with 4 rounds and send those.

Unless you made them undependable until they reach 8 rounds, which is bullshit anyway.

Users can asses the risk involved and make a sound judgment on how many rounds are appropriate.

I like the option of 1-8, infact why not 1-100?

1 is out of the question (3) and 100 is extreme (1.2676506e30). As for the rounds, you would remove the input factor leaving the start button. I see two viable pathways at this point, locks on the coins entering the round process to prevent them from being able to be spent (much like instantx locks coins) or disabling the ability to stop it once started. There is no reason why going 8 rounds has to take longer than a few hours assuming there are people darksending. I dream of a day when there is enough activity that 8 rounds would literally take 8 blocks.

If this is out of the question, simply putting a table underneath the option of rounds setting specifying the percentage might be enough to show people to go 8 rounds.

I'd go one further - 8 automatic and mandatory rounds. You can't spend until your coins have been anonymised. It would speed up mixing hugely. 

[anonymousxx1503]

I just posted my Darkcoin Masternode payment summary to twitter - 6 Masternodes - 129.557 DRK for December is 305.75$ currently - 30$ in VPS fees @Vultr is 275.75$ profit (If I were to cash it out, which I'm not). How about you guys?

[oblox]

The more the rounds, the deeper the anonymity. 2 rounds is already crazy good, 8 is like ultra-mode.

I don't think you need to give people the option for less than 8 rounds. People anon'ing their coins won't care if it takes a bit longer to go the additional rounds if it cuts the percentage down by a ton. After all, this is a privacy-centric coin at heart.

Thing is, you could pause darksend as it reach's 4 rounds, use coin control to select the coins with 4 rounds and send those.

Unless you made them undependable until they reach 8 rounds, which is bullshit anyway.

Users can asses the risk involved and make a sound judgment on how many rounds are appropriate.

I like the option of 1-8, infact why not 1-100?

1 is out of the question (3) and 100 is extreme (1.2676506e30). As for the rounds, you would remove the input factor leaving the start button. I see two viable pathways at this point, locks on the coins entering the round process to prevent them from being able to be spent (much like instantx locks coins) or disabling the ability to stop it once started. There is no reason why going 8 rounds has to take longer than a few hours assuming there are people darksending. I dream of a day when there is enough activity that 8 rounds would literally take 8 blocks.

If this is out of the question, simply putting a table underneath the option of rounds setting specifying the percentage might be enough to show people to go 8 rounds.

I'd go one further - 8 automatic and mandatory rounds. You can't spend until your coins have been anonymised. It would speed up mixing hugely. 

I'd be for that but not sure how that would work with exchanges and pools.

[thelonecrouton]

I'd be for that but not sure how that would work with exchanges and pools.

QT client default ON, darkcoind default OFF.

edit: How much of a problem would it really be for exchanges anyway? Remember that exchanges have a disproportionate relevance in the speculative stage, which we're still in. They become less important as adoption and use increase. I don't see why exchanges shouldn't be anonymising their coins too, same as everyone else. All users would benefit.

And I don't care about centralised pools, they're just parasites. 

[oblox]

I'd be for that but not sure how that would work with exchanges and pools.

QT client default ON, darkcoind default OFF.

Then you wouldn't be able to say it's automatic or mandatory if there would still be an option for those to get around having to do it from the start.

[thelonecrouton]

I'd be for that but not sure how that would work with exchanges and pools.

QT client default ON, darkcoind default OFF.

Then you wouldn't be able to say it's automatic or mandatory if there would still be an option for those to get around having to do it from the start.

I think just having DS on by default in the QT client would greatly speed the mixing process. How many regular users are going to mess about with it or run the daemon instead? Why would they? DRK is a private coin, if you don't care about privacy there's BTC.

[qwizzie]

I'd be for that but not sure how that would work with exchanges and pools.

QT client default ON, darkcoind default OFF.

Then you wouldn't be able to say it's automatic or mandatory if there would still be an option for those to get around having to do it from the start.

I think just having DS on by default in the QT client would greatly speed the mixing process. How many regular users are going to mess about with it or run the daemon instead? Why would they? DRK is a private coin, if you don't care about privacy there's BTC.

i like to have choices and the way Darksend is setup right now it gives me choices. What yr proposing (or whats being proposed) is basicly converting Darksend into an Apple
rolemodel with very few choices... i dont like it.

[strix]

If I was strategy commander for Darkcoin (which I'm not by the way   ), I'd create some kind of contingency whereupon the mining majority could somehow protect the masternode majority in some kind of symbiotic dependency.

i.e. to subvert the masternode population you'd have to subvert the mining population as well.

You have that utterly arse backwards.

90% of mining goes through 5 pools. And you would need at most 3 of them to control or destroy the coin.

Mining provides exactly fuck all security.

I doubt it.

I realise that it's fashionable right now to be maligning the idea of pools because of their "potential" to threaten the network. But the reality is that pools are still aggregations of decentralised mining power, Its subscribers are generally actors in good faith. You can't just "buy up" that kind of mining power.

On the other hand, masternodes can be bought. I don't have enough technical understanding to know how much of a threat this poses to the network or even if it's a threat at all, but I've set up a masternode and could envisage how, overtime, a single player could monopolise the network.

Aggregated mining is not the same thing as "centralised" mining. Whereas if I bought up 50% of the masternodes that WOULD be centralised masternoding because I have control over all those masternodes myself - they can't "wander off" to another pool.

Toknormal, I have really enjoyed and learned much from your posts, but I am curious about your reasoning here. I have made no secret of agreeing with TheloneCrueton on this point, but freely acknowledge my limited understanding in all things crypto. On the other hand, I'd like to think that I can follow the logic and rhetoric of an argument. It seems to me that you keep missing the primary point of TLC's argument. We all recognize that there are thousands of individual miners out there, but if they all were to feed into one non-p2pool pool it is functionally only ONE miner. Furthermore, IF the servers of three to five of the largest pools were compromised or seized, the coin could be brought to its knees regardless of the good intentions of the thousands of individual miners feeding those pools, or their managers.

What am I misunderstanding here? I have yet to hear you address this argument, which leads me to believe you have either not heard it, or not understood it, or I am not understanding the relevance of your objection. Could you please help me to understand this? (I'm sorry if this is not a cogent explanation of what I am asking for :-(  ).

Peace to you,

Strix

[thelonecrouton]

I'd be for that but not sure how that would work with exchanges and pools.

QT client default ON, darkcoind default OFF.

Then you wouldn't be able to say it's automatic or mandatory if there would still be an option for those to get around having to do it from the start.

I think just having DS on by default in the QT client would greatly speed the mixing process. How many regular users are going to mess about with it or run the daemon instead? Why would they? DRK is a private coin, if you don't care about privacy there's BTC.

i like to have choices and the way Darksend is setup right now it gives me choices. What yr proposing (or whats being proposed) is basicly converting Darksend into an Apple
rolemodel with very few choices... i dont like it.

I understand your desire to have choices, but comparing DRK to Apple is fighting talk.  

Default on in the QT client benefits all DS users and doesn't do anyone any harm, if you want to use Darkcoin transparently (say you're just interested in IX and don't care about privacy) you could click a button and do so. Seems reasonable to me?

What seems odd to me is having it OFF by default. It suggests a lack of confidence in the process. Like buying a V10 Ferrari and having to go out of your way to fire up the other 9 cylinders.

[qwizzie]

2014 Proof of Honor (POH) Awards | It Has Begun, Vote Now!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855130.840

Voting Phase Update #1

To vote via social media, or to view your canadates page: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hcphJLfALJwqhpR_H3yxlYgmLShhr_6ahlt7Gq2Aj_k/edit?usp=sharing

All information regarding social media voting is provided in that google sheet.


Note: Bitcointalk votes will not be immediately credited towards the voting occuring over social media. Votes will be tallied possibly per week (Bitcointalk+social media). So the number of votes reflected on Coins Source may not be the actual count at any time.


Again for all specific Candidate URL pages: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hcphJLfALJwqhpR_H3yxlYgmLShhr_6ahlt7Gq2Aj_k/edit?usp=sharing



Edit: Bitcointalk voting is restricted to 250 Activity+ Full-Members/Senior-Members++ and beyond only. Information regarding how to vote on this thread is on page 42.


If you have any questions, feel free to post them here and we'll respond as soon as we can.


Happy voting everyone!

take special notice of the red highlighted info !! Any BTC member below 250 activity should choose alternative voting methode.
and any BTC member who voted before this exact page should vote again !!  --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=855130.msg9711411#msg9711411

edit : and yes.. this all pretty much sucks !!
edit : eh and yes, i'm done editing now

 
  
 

[Libertario]

I'd be for that but not sure how that would work with exchanges and pools.

QT client default ON, darkcoind default OFF.

Then you wouldn't be able to say it's automatic or mandatory if there would still be an option for those to get around having to do it from the start.

I think just having DS on by default in the QT client would greatly speed the mixing process. How many regular users are going to mess about with it or run the daemon instead? Why would they? DRK is a private coin, if you don't care about privacy there's BTC.

i like to have choices and the way Darksend is setup right now it gives me choices. What yr proposing (or whats being proposed) is basicly converting Darksend into an Apple
rolemodel with very few choices... i dont like it.

I understand your desire to have choices, but comparing DRK to Apple is fighting talk.  

I agree with precedent opinion!
For me, bitcoin:microsoft = darkcoin:apple
(the % of users is like this)
((sorry for my bad english))

[semajjames]

The more the rounds, the deeper the anonymity. 2 rounds is already crazy good, 8 is like ultra-mode.

I don't think you need to give people the option for less than 8 rounds. People anon'ing their coins won't care if it takes a bit longer to go the additional rounds if it cuts the percentage down by a ton. After all, this is a privacy-centric coin at heart.

Thing is, you could pause darksend as it reach's 4 rounds, use coin control to select the coins with 4 rounds and send those.

Unless you made them undependable until they reach 8 rounds, which is bullshit anyway.

Users can asses the risk involved and make a sound judgment on how many rounds are appropriate.

I like the option of 1-8, infact why not 1-100?

1 is out of the question (3) and 100 is extreme (1.2676506e30). As for the rounds, you would remove the input factor leaving the start button. I see two viable pathways at this point, locks on the coins entering the round process to prevent them from being able to be spent (much like instantx locks coins) or disabling the ability to stop it once started. There is no reason why going 8 rounds has to take longer than a few hours assuming there are people darksending. I dream of a day when there is enough activity that 8 rounds would literally take 8 blocks.

If this is out of the question, simply putting a table underneath the option of rounds setting specifying the percentage might be enough to show people to go 8 rounds.

I'd go one further - 8 automatic and mandatory rounds. You can't spend until your coins have been anonymised. It would speed up mixing hugely. 

I'd be for that but not sure how that would work with exchanges and pools.

Sounds normal to me ,,, I don't see why ppl should expect to be able to spend their coins whilst they are being anonymised

however disabling the stop seems a little intrusive