jiggytom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1068
Merit: 1020
|
|
December 01, 2014, 10:48:40 PM |
|
well that just happened on my first bet on 19. My lucky numbers are 10 and 19....10 came out when I was playing odds/even...so I'm like...what the heck...let's see if 19 comes out next. Put in a 1DRK bet and won! Too bad I didn't have more balls to do higher haha.
|
BTC: 174MGp3R5prNbuen31Kx5G5XuyuAXu9jye LBC: bWYN8NXGKWsgEAd6tQnJ5YRo2Z4r6PjxBH
|
|
|
thelonecrouton
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 01, 2014, 11:08:16 PM |
|
well that just happened on my first bet on 19. My lucky numbers are 10 and 19....10 came out when I was playing odds/even...so I'm like...what the heck...let's see if 19 comes out next. Put in a 1DRK bet and won! Too bad I didn't have more balls to do higher haha. Is that roulette with a standard 36+0 layout? Because at 100-1 payout I see a viable system...
|
|
|
|
jiggytom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1068
Merit: 1020
|
|
December 01, 2014, 11:08:25 PM |
|
at the same time, I got hit with 2 "Darksend Split up Large Inputs" (.501DRK each) and a .101 Darksend collateral payment to the address I sent to at Directbet...I saw this popup on the forum 2 weeks ago ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9605470#msg9605470). I was not using darksend at all (this is in the hot client of my masternode, not touching the original 1000DRK). What's going on?
|
BTC: 174MGp3R5prNbuen31Kx5G5XuyuAXu9jye LBC: bWYN8NXGKWsgEAd6tQnJ5YRo2Z4r6PjxBH
|
|
|
jiggytom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1068
Merit: 1020
|
|
December 01, 2014, 11:09:11 PM |
|
well that just happened on my first bet on 19. My lucky numbers are 10 and 19....10 came out when I was playing odds/even...so I'm like...what the heck...let's see if 19 comes out next. Put in a 1DRK bet and won! Too bad I didn't have more balls to do higher haha. Is that roulette with a standard 36+0 layout? Because at 100-1 payout I see a viable system... It's a dice game, 0 to 100.
|
BTC: 174MGp3R5prNbuen31Kx5G5XuyuAXu9jye LBC: bWYN8NXGKWsgEAd6tQnJ5YRo2Z4r6PjxBH
|
|
|
patrolman
|
|
December 01, 2014, 11:12:25 PM |
|
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 agree. Anyone who's spent hours or even days waiting for funds to be anonymised should see how much sense this makes. I understand to mixing inputs are to be changed with the intention of speeding up the process, but especially now that the anonymisation no longer has a charge per round, the default should be to mix the funds for a predetermined number of rounds. As long its possible for users to change the settings, I don't think it would be a problem.
|
|
|
|
coins101
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1456
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 01, 2014, 11:13:16 PM |
|
at the same time, I got hit with 2 "Darksend Split up Large Inputs" (.501DRK each) and a .101 Darksend collateral payment to the address I sent to at Directbet...I saw this popup on the forum 2 weeks ago ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9605470#msg9605470). I was not using darksend at all (this is in the hot client of my masternode, not touching the original 1000DRK). What's going on? get your log and send it to the man ( evan@darkcoin.io) or something like that
|
|
|
|
jiggytom
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1068
Merit: 1020
|
|
December 01, 2014, 11:17:52 PM |
|
at the same time, I got hit with 2 "Darksend Split up Large Inputs" (.501DRK each) and a .101 Darksend collateral payment to the address I sent to at Directbet...I saw this popup on the forum 2 weeks ago ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg9605470#msg9605470). I was not using darksend at all (this is in the hot client of my masternode, not touching the original 1000DRK). What's going on? get your log and send it to the man ( evan@darkcoin.io) or something like that done...with screenshots.
|
BTC: 174MGp3R5prNbuen31Kx5G5XuyuAXu9jye LBC: bWYN8NXGKWsgEAd6tQnJ5YRo2Z4r6PjxBH
|
|
|
child_harold
|
|
December 01, 2014, 11:19:30 PM |
|
What are the cons (if any, besides time) to increasing min amount of MN's forming an anon chain? Clearly the default of 2 is not enough given medium paranoia settings* Why not 8 as default?
*10%-20% of MN run by bad actors
|
|
|
|
splawik21
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1005
DASH is the future of crypto payments!
|
|
December 01, 2014, 11:57:33 PM |
|
What are the cons (if any, besides time) to increasing min amount of MN's forming an anon chain? Clearly the default of 2 is not enough given medium paranoia settings* Why not 8 as default?
*10%-20% of MN run by bad actors
Are you trolling here or what? Get good info, 92,3 % of all MNs are on the right wallet version and are legit, 99.27% of pools are legit too....
|
BE SMART, USE DASH ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
|
|
|
Minotaur26
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
|
|
December 01, 2014, 11:57:44 PM |
|
What are the cons (if any, besides time) to increasing min amount of MN's forming an anon chain? Clearly the default of 2 is not enough given medium paranoia settings* Why not 8 as default?
*10%-20% of MN run by bad actors
There are not cons that I can see in this current version. It used to be, because in older versions there was a direct fee per round. Now fees are charged randomly in the network for increased anonymity as fees are no longer related directly to the mixing process. In general terms the Darksend process is now cheaper for users and people should be able to go 8 rounds for a minimum cost.
|
|
|
|
child_harold
|
|
December 02, 2014, 12:02:45 AM Last edit: December 02, 2014, 12:17:09 AM by child_harold |
|
What are the cons (if any, besides time) to increasing min amount of MN's forming an anon chain? Clearly the default of 2 is not enough given medium paranoia settings* Why not 8 as default?
*10%-20% of MN run by bad actors
Are you trolling here or what? Get good info, 92,3 % of all MNs are on the right wallet version and are legit, 99.27% of pools are legit too.... No. I'm asking a simple question. Are there any cons to using 8 MN's in the anon chain vs 2? Based on the maths provided 2 MN's do not provide enough anon given my arbitrary hypothesis that 10-20% of MN's are being run by a bad actor (leading to a 1%-4.5% chance of de-anonymizing transactions). AT THE VERY LEAST i feel it should be gleamed from this that anybody really wanting anon should specify an 8 chain mix. (remembering ofc most "dumb" users don't look at settings. thus it should be default if possible)
|
|
|
|
TaoOfSaatoshi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1014
Dash Nation Founder | CATV Host
|
|
December 02, 2014, 12:05:09 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Auxi
|
|
December 02, 2014, 12:12:59 AM |
|
Are there instagram account for darkpics and gifs?
|
|
|
|
tungfa
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1023
|
|
December 02, 2014, 12:17:14 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
illodin
|
|
December 02, 2014, 12:42:48 AM |
|
Are there any cons to using 8 MN's in the anon chain vs 2?
It takes longer to mix, more transaction fees, more traffic to masternodes, more transactions for the blockchain to store.
|
|
|
|
tungfa
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1023
|
|
December 02, 2014, 12:53:30 AM |
|
Bump this (and yes this is the dummest and most complicated system EVER) ...>>
|
|
|
|
tungfa
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1834
Merit: 1023
|
|
December 02, 2014, 12:55:49 AM |
|
Are there instagram account for darkpics and gifs?
no there is not ! I was thinking about that too , is there interest ? should I set one up ?!? T
|
|
|
|
splawik21
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1005
DASH is the future of crypto payments!
|
|
December 02, 2014, 12:57:31 AM |
|
What are the cons (if any, besides time) to increasing min amount of MN's forming an anon chain? Clearly the default of 2 is not enough given medium paranoia settings* Why not 8 as default?
*10%-20% of MN run by bad actors
Are you trolling here or what? Get good info, 92,3 % of all MNs are on the right wallet version and are legit, 99.27% of pools are legit too.... No. I'm asking a simple question. Are there any cons to using 8 MN's in the anon chain vs 2? Based on the maths provided 2 MN's do not provide enough anon given my arbitrary hypothesis that 10-20% of MN's are being run by a bad actor (leading to a 1%-4.5% chance of de-anonymizing transactions). AT THE VERY LEAST i feel it should be gleamed from this that anybody really wanting anon should specify an 8 chain mix. (remembering ofc most "dumb" users don't look at settings. thus it should be default if possible) ahh sorry I understood your question wrongly
|
BE SMART, USE DASH ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
|
|
|
child_harold
|
|
December 02, 2014, 12:57:44 AM |
|
Are there any cons to using 8 MN's in the anon chain vs 2?
It takes longer to mix, more transaction fees, more traffic to masternodes, more transactions for the blockchain to store. thanks illodin 1) so it takes 4x as long to mix? (how long is that btw?) 2) and tx fees maybe are 4x? (iirc a DS payment costs ~$0.11, so would this mean $0.44?) 3) blockchain bloat? I thought MN mixes occurred off-blockchain, no? EDIT: Thank you to all those fielding these Q's
|
|
|
|
illodin
|
|
December 02, 2014, 01:07:06 AM |
|
1) so it takes 4x as long to mix? (how long is that?)
Depends on how many people are currently also anonymizing, how many coins you are mixing, etc. The more people there are using it the faster it is. Could take couple of hours, or could take a day. The denomination sizes will be changed (larger denom sizes will be removed) so I think it will make the mixing faster. 2) and tx fees maybe are 4x? (iirc a DS payment costs ~$0.11, so would this mean $0.44?)
Fees are random (this changed just recently), and I guess depend on how many coins you are mixing as well. Maybe someone else will know this one for sure. But obviously you're more likely to hit a fee in 8 tries than just 2. 3) blockchain bloat? I thought MN mixes occurred off-blockchain, no?
Currently it has to store the transactions after each mixing round. Haven't seen any discussion about this but I think it's because people can close their wallets after mixing some rounds while there are still more rounds to go. If the transactions weren't recorded after each round, you'd have to start all over from the beginning (and also those mixing with you) if you close the wallet before it has gone through all desired rounds. This could be something where more optimization can be done in the future (i.e. mix using 4 masternodes and then record the tx's, and then mix with yet another 4) when the mixing liquidity is there.
|
|
|
|
|