【Truth or FUD???】DarkCoin – The Next Big Thing, or Just Another Pump and Dump?

[Ozziecoin]

Clearly this is about you feeling your IP has been exploited. I think it was a genuine error and no one is trying to use your name or CoinJoin to promote anything. The Darkcoin devs were merely trying to communicate that the coinmixing was done by a decentralised network of masternodes. If you want acknowledgement, then I'm sure they would be more than happy to acknowledge your valuable work.

Look, we can keep going but it's pretty clear to me what is happening here. You feel pissed. Perhaps rightly so but this could've been handled very differently. I'm not going to waste more energy on this negative stuff.

[gmaxwell]

DarkSend does not use blind signing, and, if I remember correctly, the reason is that the implementation had DOS issues and the attacker could get away with it. So given that the node knows what it signs, the next alternative was

Right, this is a centralized approach... a central server can deanonymize people. There may be many of these servers, but you're still trusting them to not be bad.  It may be acceptable— it's probably better than nothing at all.  But things like this is precisely what Ozziecoin is slamming.  Ironically, because the CJ thread post 5 describes how you can deal with the dos attacks while actually being private for everyone:  If the transaction fails, everyone deanonymizes their attempt, and anyone who fails to deanonymize (or is directly shown to be the party refusing to sign) is banned. It's a PITA to actually implement, I agree.

If it was part of Bitcoin, it wouldn't require Dark Wallet, would it?

Having something in the protocol doesn't mean that there is an interface to it. I was doing CoinJoins back in 2011-2012, in public too— https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139581.0 ... no software was required for it once the raw transaction interface made it into a release. The point here being that none of this needs an altcoin, yes it may need all sorts of client software and such, but there is no need to invoke another currency except to Make Money Fast.

What's the point of opensourcing it while the specifications are not yet finalized?[/quote[What the point of releasing it at all and hyping it up with a bunch of claims that no one can verify?

How is a trusted solution (due to the accumulator) better?

I suspect you may be confusing zerocoin and zerocash there I suspect, since it was zerocoin with the accumulator with the trusted initialization.  ZeroCash is an entirely different design, though with its own trusted component— a ZKP, the only accumulator in zerocash is just a regular unspent txout tree.  In both cases the trust is unrelated to privacy, however, the privacy is perfect even if the tcrustfulness assumptions are violated.  (In ZeroCash compromise of the zero-knowledge proof CRS yields unbounded undetectable inflation for the attacker, in ZeroCoin it would let someone empty the accumulator). As I mentioned here, I'm not super fond of the security assumptions— I like the design used by the bytecoin things better, though the privacy is not quite as strong but they also have the benefit of being already deployed and involve no trust or novel cryptographic assumptions.

[eltito]

DarkSend does not use blind signing, and, if I remember correctly, the reason is that the implementation had DOS issues and the attacker could get away with it. So given that the node knows what it signs, the next alternative was

Right, this is a centralized approach... a central server can deanonymize people. There may be many of these servers, but you're still trusting them to not be bad.  It may be acceptable— it's probably better than nothing at all.  But things like this is precisely what Ozziecoin is slamming.  Ironically, because the CJ thread post 5 describes how you can deal with the dos attacks while actually being private for everyone:  If the transaction fails, everyone deanonymizes their attempt, and anyone who fails to deanonymize (or is directly shown to be the party refusing to sign) is banned. It's a PITA to actually implement, I agree.

I feel like I'm making semi-witty quips to myself here .

PS, masternode centralization in the future doesn't cause any problems for darkcoin. I have 2 possible solutions to evaluate for V2 of darksend (ring signatures and encrypted system where the users themselves do the joining relayed through the masternodes.) . Both of these make the masternodes unaware of who is sending money to whom, so centralization isn't an issue at that point.

He's since announced that he's not implementing ring sigs due to bloat issues.  RC4 is slated to include significant improvements to anonymity, so take from that what you will.

[4420866]

During the first 15 hours, between

block 1  http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?000007d91d1254d60e2dd1ae580383070a4ddffa4c64c2eeb4a2f9ecc0414343.htm and

block 4000 http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?00000000fc0ee07e47609bae8d5fe5d774193c71d518c56dfe8faaf7d780a03f.htm  



approximately 1.75m darkcoins were generated.
The result? Darkcoin is currently at 80,000 blocks, but there’s only 4.3m DRK out there. Five months later, the 1.75m generated during those first 4200 blocks still represents 40% of all DRK in existence.

[gmaxwell]

If you want acknowledgement, then I'm sure they would be more than happy to acknowledge your valuable work.

No, in fact I already previously _demanded_ they stop promoting it with my name, which they were doing initially.

but it's pretty clear to me what is happening here

Yes, you came and trolled all over the CoinJoin thread in a desperate attempt to convince people of your untrue comparative claims wrt darkcoin. While I'm normally content to more or less ignore this hive of scum and villainy that is the altcoin subforum, when it spills over and interrupts discussion elsewhere, pinging my email with report-to-mod hits, it gets my attention.  So… you have my attention now. Lucky you.

[Parazyd]

There is some profit, but it's still FUD. Would never invest in altcoins like these. You can have them

[Ozziecoin]

DarkSend does not use blind signing, and, if I remember correctly, the reason is that the implementation had DOS issues and the attacker could get away with it. So given that the node knows what it signs, the next alternative was

Right, this is a centralized approach... a central server can deanonymize people. There may be many of these servers, but you're still trusting them to not be bad.  It may be acceptable— it's probably better than nothing at all.  But things like this is precisely what Ozziecoin is slamming.  Ironically, because the CJ thread post 5 describes how you can deal with the dos attacks while actually being private for everyone:  If the transaction fails, everyone deanonymizes their attempt, and anyone who fails to deanonymize (or is directly shown to be the party refusing to sign) is banned. It's a PITA to actually implement, I agree.

If it was part of Bitcoin, it wouldn't require Dark Wallet, would it?

Having something in the protocol doesn't mean that there is an interface to it. I was doing CoinJoins back in 2011-2012, in public too— https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139581.0 ... no software was required for it once the raw transaction interface made it into a release. The point here being that none of this needs an altcoin, yes it may need all sorts of client software and such, but there is no need to invoke another currency except to Make Money Fast.

I think you're jumping to conclusions and judging everyone. In the case of Darkcoin, the devs barely made much money for 4 months. Then they provided a tech solution that the market needed because privacy was not being implemented in bitcoin; hence why the coin value jumped. To imply that this is a pump and dump - frankly, that stuff should be beneath you.  I for one did not buy darkcoin to pump it up. I do however believe it is fundamentally more valuable than bitcoin and litecoin because it appears to my eyes to have a functioning privacy layer, which is sadly lacking in the other coins.

[illodin]

I think altcoins are generally inadvisable, and in the long term I have plans that should remove all reasons for having them. I think the promotion or opposition to these things based on profit motives is incredibly sleazy.

Sounds nice... for the few who got on the BTC train early. Sounds like profit motives, incredibly sleazy.

If you want acknowledgement, then I'm sure they would be more than happy to acknowledge your valuable work.

No, in fact I already previously _demanded_ they stop promoting it with my name, which they were doing initially.

Out of curiosity, if they never mentioned your name at all, what would've you demanded then?

[gmaxwell]

It's interesting that you lash out at others for making claims about closed source (for now) code, then turn around and do the exact same thing, just with a different slant.

I can't figure out what you're saying here. Is the idea that I can't say anything at all about something thats closed?

Thats not my position at all. My position is that that a closed source cryptographic currency is inherently centralized (via control of the source), and that experience suggests that most such systems are snake oil (they don't deliver the things they claim to) if not being outright trojans.  Indeed, you can't tell— maybe it's actually great, but great things usually don't need to hide in the shadows. The safe assumption is that they're not great at all.

Sounds nice... for the few who got on the BTC train early. Sounds like profit motives, incredibly sleazy.

I've never been involved in Bitcoin to make a profit. If I add up the tips and such I've received for hard technical work I've done it would be well below minimum wage. I've been involved a long time— since before it was worth much of anything, and seemed like an insane dream that it ever would be— because the technology is interesting and important. I've also sold most of my Bitcoins since long ago— was never looking to win the lottery. And yes, I feel completely comfortable looking down my nose at people who showed up late rabid with dreams of effortless profit, at least when they go around promoting zero-sum trades to enrich themselves— not pointing any particular fingers here... I assume the people I'm talking about know who they are.

Out of curiosity, if they never mentioned your name at all, what would've you demanded then?

I'd do mostly what I did anyways— say nothing and see if anything interesting happened. I only piped up recently because of what I perceive to be misinformed heavy handed promotional efforts spilling out into threads where they are off-topic.

[Ozziecoin]

If you want acknowledgement, then I'm sure they would be more than happy to acknowledge your valuable work.

No, in fact I already previously _demanded_ they stop promoting it with my name, which they were doing initially.

but it's pretty clear to me what is happening here

Yes, you came and trolled all over the CoinJoin thread in a desperate attempt to convince people of your untrue comparative claims wrt darkcoin. While I'm normally content to more or less ignore this hive of scum and villainy that is the altcoin subforum, when it spills over and interrupts discussion elsewhere, pinging my email with report-to-mod hits, it gets my attention.  So… you have my attention now. Lucky you.

Thanks for your attention. See, I think you're just an arrogant dude who thinks that all altcoins are pumps and dumps. This is not something deficient with respect to altcoins but rather your attitude because the altcoin space is the boiler room for tech improvements that the bitcoin team are unwilling or unable to develop.

[4420866]

If you want acknowledgement, then I'm sure they would be more than happy to acknowledge your valuable work.

No, in fact I already previously _demanded_ they stop promoting it with my name, which they were doing initially.

but it's pretty clear to me what is happening here

Yes, you came and trolled all over the CoinJoin thread in a desperate attempt to convince people of your untrue comparative claims wrt darkcoin. While I'm normally content to more or less ignore this hive of scum and villainy that is the altcoin subforum, when it spills over and interrupts discussion elsewhere, pinging my email with report-to-mod hits, it gets my attention.  So… you have my attention now. Lucky you.

keep pumping and pumping...because Dark dev team have controled most of the darkcoins now...

they can even sell them at the price 1 Drk= 1BTC.....and they will buy at this price by themself, and attract some new comer buy at that price...

 

[Propulsion]

It's interesting that you lash out at others for making claims about closed source (for now) code, then turn around and do the exact same thing, just with a different slant.

I can't figure out what you're saying here. Is the idea that I can't say anything at all about something thats closed?

Thats not my position at all. My position is that that a closed source cryptographic currency is inherently centralized (via control of the source), and that experience suggests that most such systems are snake oil (they don't deliver the things they claim to) if not being outright trojans.  Indeed, you can't tell— maybe it's actually great, but great things usually don't need to hide in the shadows. The safe assumption is that they're not great at all.

Ok Greg, this thread has your attention, good.

Darkcoin is open source except for the anonymity for now. https://github.com/darkcoinproject/darkcoin/commits/forkfix
Look in the altcoin section. Notice the flavor of the month? This is because of Darkcoin. If it was open sourced from the get go, it would never stand a chance.

When Darkcoin is completed, it will be vetted by a respected Developer and if no issues are found open sourced.
You created coinjoin. Darkcoin is created from coinjoin. Would you be interested in vetting the code? 

[luckygenough56]

it's not fud when it's true.

[gmaxwell]

but rather your attitude because the altcoin space is the boiler room for tech improvements that the bitcoin team are unwilling or unable to develop.

There is very little technology development in the altcoin space... but there sure is a lot of deceptive hype from people eager to separate people from their money, no surprise when many of the people creating altcoins hardly know how to work a compiler. Most of the time when there are non-strings changes at all, it's just another worthless ill-considered proof of work variant that hasn't seen a drop of peer review (and which is compromised, e.g. failing to meet its "cpu only" promises, the moment someone does review it). In the rare event that there is interesting technological development that I'm aware of— I credit it— which is why I brought up the bytecoin&forks in the context of privacy technology, even though I think creating an altcoin for it is not a good idea and I'm not involved with its development.

When Darkcoin is completed, it will be vetted by a respected Developer and if no issues are found open sourced.
You created coinjoin. Darkcoin is created from coinjoin. Would you be interested in vetting the code?

I review many interesting looking things as I have time available, but only if they are open source. I am uninterested in handling anyone's private code, however.

It's getting a little late. This system was created month and months ago, but there is still nothing for me to look at... and now aggressive promoters are spilling into other threads and degrading other efforts that are already delivering or are at least out in the open.  I hope you can understand how this creates a very negative impression from my position.

[Taurenchief]

DarkSend does not use blind signing, and, if I remember correctly, the reason is that the implementation had DOS issues and the attacker could get away with it. So given that the node knows what it signs, the next alternative was

Right, this is a centralized approach... a central server can deanonymize people. There may be many of these servers, but you're still trusting them to not be bad.  It may be acceptable— it's probably better than nothing at all.  But things like this is precisely what Ozziecoin is slamming.  Ironically, because the CJ thread post 5 describes how you can deal with the dos attacks while actually being private for everyone:  If the transaction fails, everyone deanonymizes their attempt, and anyone who fails to deanonymize (or is directly shown to be the party refusing to sign) is banned. It's a PITA to actually implement, I agree.

If it was part of Bitcoin, it wouldn't require Dark Wallet, would it?

Having something in the protocol doesn't mean that there is an interface to it. I was doing CoinJoins back in 2011-2012, in public too— https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=139581.0 ... no software was required for it once the raw transaction interface made it into a release. The point here being that none of this needs an altcoin, yes it may need all sorts of client software and such, but there is no need to invoke another currency except to Make Money Fast.

I think you're jumping to conclusions and judging everyone. In the case of Darkcoin, the devs barely made much money for 4 months. Then they provided a tech solution that the market needed because privacy was not being implemented in bitcoin; hence why the coin value jumped. To imply that this is a pump and dump - frankly, that stuff should be beneath you.  I for one did not buy darkcoin to pump it up. I do however believe it is fundamentally more valuable than bitcoin and litecoin because it appears to my eyes to have a functioning privacy layer, which is sadly lacking in the other coins.

How could you justify this. There is 1.7 million coins premined, at an average price of 0.001 btc, that would be 1700 btc. If he sells half of it, it will be 850 btc.
You are just talking bare lies that 1700 btc or 850 btc is bare zero money.

A question comes, ozziocoin, who are you, how do you know the developer of DRK make bare zero money? I suppose you have some possibility to be the developer.

Also, you are talking the PoW/PoS coins such as Cinni have very short PoW time as "instantmined", however, do you understand what is instantmined? Instantmine is defined as at the early stage of PoW stage of a coin, the mined coins accounts for a large amount of the total PoW stage. DO NOT LINK your instantmined DRK with us, ok?

Now it is very clear, DRK is instantmined by a single person before others could use the qt and miner. Because the developer hold 40% of coins, he is trying to do whatever he want.

I would also trust gmaxwell, because he has pointed out the clear scam. Please don/t try to hide anymore.

[illodin]

Now it is very clear, DRK is instantmined by a single person before others could use the qt and miner. Because the developer hold 40% of coins, he is trying to do whatever he want.

Now it is very clear, you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

[Ozziecoin]

I think the thread speaks for itself. I'm leaving now. gmaxwell, good luck to you mate. I've never seen a more "determined" person. You have certainly covered yourself in glory today.

[Bitcycle]

I don't care about DRK one way or the other, but this thread is quickly leaving me with the impression gmaxwell is just another coin developer who feels his particular coin is the One True Coin, and so he slams all others.  

[gmaxwell]

I would also trust gmaxwell, because he has pointed out the clear scam. Please don/t try to hide anymore.

Things can be unfair or a bad deal, or simply a failed offering without being a scam.  I too might too easily lapse into the language of "scam" around here, — and there is no shortage of actual ill motivation in the altcoin space— but I do think more of it is really people getting in over their heads.  Cryptosystem work is very difficult, and Bitcoin seems to have resulted in people thinking that creating this stuff is no big deal since they can just copy the code... but in a cryptosystem the details matter, greatly... a single line changed can have subtle effects that ruin the security properties completely.

I don't care about DRK one way or the other, but this thread is quickly leaving me with the impression gmaxwell is just another coin developer who feels his particular coin is the One True Coin, and so he slams all others.  

Hm?  Thats pretty weird, considering that I've said nothing positive about Bitcoin here, and only positive things about cryptocoins (and proposed cryptocoins) that I have had basically nothing to do with.

[AlexGR]

How could you justify this. There is 1.7 million coins premined, at an average price of 0.001 btc, that would be 1700 btc. If he sells half of it, it will be 850 btc.
You are just talking bare lies that 1700 btc or 850 btc is bare zero money.

1.7mn DRKs had a cost of 42.5 BTC in january.

You are applying retroactive logic (current valuation to the circumstances of the past) of the kind "oh those idiots who bought the 10.000 BTC pizza, now would be millionaires". Yeah, well, nobody knew. Same with DRK... 100k DRKs = 2.5 BTC. In some cases even 2 BTC.

Also, you are talking the PoW/PoS coins such as Cinni have very short PoW time as "instantmined", however, do you understand what is instantmined? Instantmine is defined as at the early stage of PoW stage of a coin, the mined coins accounts for a large amount of the total PoW stage. DO NOT LINK your instantmined DRK with us, ok?

All pow/pos coins are instamined since future miners cannot mine them at all. Contrast this to DRK where 2 were instamined and another 20 could be mined later. Which is fairer to late miners? The one where you have to buy it from the bagholders (no mining possible), or the one that you can actually mine it too? It's hypocritical to argue about fairness to late miners when you are supporting any pow/pos 100% instamined hybrid.

Now it is very clear, DRK is instantmined by a single person before others could use the qt and miner. Because the developer hold 40% of coins, he is trying to do whatever he want.

Most miners use linux.