BTCD is no more

[$howmetheMoney]

Btw, this is how easy this 'CryptoNote' protocol is to implement.

https://cryptonotestarter.org/

Ring signatures bloat the blockchain insanely as well. Monero's is almost 1 gigabyte now and it was 100 megabytes 20 days ago.

However, I will give it to the developer; you perfected the initial distribution and PoW.

This coin will trump Monero (100%) because of that, plus since the network is supported by ASICS, the speeds will be faster.

But, again, this coin is no less, and no more anonymous than any other CryptoNote coin, Boolberry, Monero, Bytecoin.

Also ring signatures are not the same as stealth addresses, but they are VERY similar. It's like a stealth address collective, that the receiver signs with a one time key.

I chose BBR due to its superior code base to base pNXT on.
If you actually read my post about privacyServers, your will realize that ring signatures is just one possible means for anon tech. When zerocash comes out, it will be another. Also, you never know, I just might have my own method.
What happens if I am able to combine all of them?

So, please study my post on privacyServer and tell me how this is similar in ANY way to other cryptonotes. In ANY way??

James

Okay read.

So you push all the transactions through these centralized nodes; but its utilizing ring signatures, and possibly in the future other algorithms as well. It is a new concept I'll give you that, combining them that is, but it is a trusted system.

If you can figure a way to make the privacyServers trustless then this will be on par with the leading two anonymous coins. XCurrency, CloakCoin. They have trustless decentralized anon methods; they also have transactions speeds sub 5 minutes for fully washed funds.

I am confused. How can privacyServers be centralized, when anybody can set one up?
I thought that was sort of the definition of decentralization. Nobody controls who is allowed to setup a privacyServer and anybody can download source, recompile and run one.

So, yes, you do have to trust ONE privacyServer and if you cant find a vendor you trust, then can you trust yourself? If you cant trust yourself, then I think you have some serious trust issues

James

Lol you seem like a cool dude. I guess the problem lies in the fact that you have to opt in to run a server, so potential attackers could set then up. Truly Trustless would mean that everyone and anyone is automatically a privacyServer.

[daemonfox]

So, should I go offline for 48 hours and see what happens to the price?

James

DO IT! Enjoy some time off let us see what happens... my buys are set lol!

[jl777]

Btw, this is how easy this 'CryptoNote' protocol is to implement.

https://cryptonotestarter.org/

Ring signatures bloat the blockchain insanely as well. Monero's is almost 1 gigabyte now and it was 100 megabytes 20 days ago.

However, I will give it to the developer; you perfected the initial distribution and PoW.

This coin will trump Monero (100%) because of that, plus since the network is supported by ASICS, the speeds will be faster.

But, again, this coin is no less, and no more anonymous than any other CryptoNote coin, Boolberry, Monero, Bytecoin.

Also ring signatures are not the same as stealth addresses, but they are VERY similar. It's like a stealth address collective, that the receiver signs with a one time key.

I chose BBR due to its superior code base to base pNXT on.
If you actually read my post about privacyServers, your will realize that ring signatures is just one possible means for anon tech. When zerocash comes out, it will be another. Also, you never know, I just might have my own method.
What happens if I am able to combine all of them?

So, please study my post on privacyServer and tell me how this is similar in ANY way to other cryptonotes. In ANY way??

James

Okay read.

So you push all the transactions through these centralized nodes; but its utilizing ring signatures, and possibly in the future other algorithms as well. It is a new concept I'll give you that, combining them that is, but it is a trusted system.

If you can figure a way to make the privacyServers trustless then this will be on par with the leading two anonymous coins. XCurrency, CloakCoin. They have trustless decentralized anon methods; they also have transactions speeds sub 5 minutes for fully washed funds.

I am confused. How can privacyServers be centralized, when anybody can set one up?
I thought that was sort of the definition of decentralization. Nobody controls who is allowed to setup a privacyServer and anybody can download source, recompile and run one.

So, yes, you do have to trust ONE privacyServer and if you cant find a vendor you trust, then can you trust yourself? If you cant trust yourself, then I think you have some serious trust issues

James

Lol you seem like a cool dude.

I am just a simple C programmer
I dont like stuff that is complicated that I cant understand
I make mistakes, but I work hard until I cant find anymore mistakes
So, I am definitely open to feedback. I am sure whatever I do can be improved on. This I know because everyday I seem to have a lot of improving to do to my code!

Also, I dont care who has the right answer. If it is the right answer, I use it.

James

[qiwoman2]

Why are peeps dumping? I am holding strong..wish I had more btc to buy some zzzzzzzzzzz

[damiano]

Why are peeps dumping? I am holding strong..wish I had more btc to buy some zzzzzzzzzzz

No one dumped.  

There was a push downwards to have orders in the 116k-118k filled.

We will probably burst into 130k soon.

[jl777]

Btw, this is how easy this 'CryptoNote' protocol is to implement.

https://cryptonotestarter.org/

Ring signatures bloat the blockchain insanely as well. Monero's is almost 1 gigabyte now and it was 100 megabytes 20 days ago.

However, I will give it to the developer; you perfected the initial distribution and PoW.

This coin will trump Monero (100%) because of that, plus since the network is supported by ASICS, the speeds will be faster.

But, again, this coin is no less, and no more anonymous than any other CryptoNote coin, Boolberry, Monero, Bytecoin.

Also ring signatures are not the same as stealth addresses, but they are VERY similar. It's like a stealth address collective, that the receiver signs with a one time key.

I chose BBR due to its superior code base to base pNXT on.
If you actually read my post about privacyServers, your will realize that ring signatures is just one possible means for anon tech. When zerocash comes out, it will be another. Also, you never know, I just might have my own method.
What happens if I am able to combine all of them?

So, please study my post on privacyServer and tell me how this is similar in ANY way to other cryptonotes. In ANY way??

James

Okay read.

So you push all the transactions through these centralized nodes; but its utilizing ring signatures, and possibly in the future other algorithms as well. It is a new concept I'll give you that, combining them that is, but it is a trusted system.

If you can figure a way to make the privacyServers trustless then this will be on par with the leading two anonymous coins. XCurrency, CloakCoin. They have trustless decentralized anon methods; they also have transactions speeds sub 5 minutes for fully washed funds.

I am confused. How can privacyServers be centralized, when anybody can set one up?
I thought that was sort of the definition of decentralization. Nobody controls who is allowed to setup a privacyServer and anybody can download source, recompile and run one.

So, yes, you do have to trust ONE privacyServer and if you cant find a vendor you trust, then can you trust yourself? If you cant trust yourself, then I think you have some serious trust issues

James

Lol you seem like a cool dude. I guess the problem lies in the fact that you have to opt in to run a server, so potential attackers could set then up. Truly Trustless would mean that everyone and anyone is automatically a privacyServer.

That would just be a matter of setting the default install to make each node a privacyServer.
The problem is that not all nodes have decent bandwidth and the performance will suffer

OK, so lets say we have these attackers. What is the attack vector? deanonimization using info about who you are sending messages to? For that an additional onion layer would suffice, wouldnt it? They would know the intermediary you send it to, but just pick random intermediaries so there is no useful information gleaned

I will need to think carefully about the private acct #s. Maybe there is a way to hide it from your privacyServer. If I can do that, then there really is nothing you are trusting the privacyServer with other than routing packets.

[Mr.Joker]

Why are peeps dumping? I am holding strong..wish I had more btc to buy some zzzzzzzzzzz

No one dumped.  

There was a push downwards to have orders in the 116k-118k filled.

We will probably burst into 130k soon.

you mean 300k

[damiano]

Why are peeps dumping? I am holding strong..wish I had more btc to buy some zzzzzzzzzzz

No one dumped.  

There was a push downwards to have orders in the 116k-118k filled.

We will probably burst into 130k soon.

you mean 300k

yeah typo

300k

lol

[qiwoman2]

Why are peeps dumping? I am holding strong..wish I had more btc to buy some zzzzzzzzzzz

No one dumped.  

There was a push downwards to have orders in the 116k-118k filled.

We will probably burst into 130k soon.

you mean 300k

I am seeing it go down before my eyes..very easy to panic at this point but I don't wanna sell ..

[$howmetheMoney]

Btw, this is how easy this 'CryptoNote' protocol is to implement.

https://cryptonotestarter.org/

Ring signatures bloat the blockchain insanely as well. Monero's is almost 1 gigabyte now and it was 100 megabytes 20 days ago.

However, I will give it to the developer; you perfected the initial distribution and PoW.

This coin will trump Monero (100%) because of that, plus since the network is supported by ASICS, the speeds will be faster.

But, again, this coin is no less, and no more anonymous than any other CryptoNote coin, Boolberry, Monero, Bytecoin.

Also ring signatures are not the same as stealth addresses, but they are VERY similar. It's like a stealth address collective, that the receiver signs with a one time key.

I chose BBR due to its superior code base to base pNXT on.
If you actually read my post about privacyServers, your will realize that ring signatures is just one possible means for anon tech. When zerocash comes out, it will be another. Also, you never know, I just might have my own method.
What happens if I am able to combine all of them?

So, please study my post on privacyServer and tell me how this is similar in ANY way to other cryptonotes. In ANY way??

James

Okay read.

So you push all the transactions through these centralized nodes; but its utilizing ring signatures, and possibly in the future other algorithms as well. It is a new concept I'll give you that, combining them that is, but it is a trusted system.

If you can figure a way to make the privacyServers trustless then this will be on par with the leading two anonymous coins. XCurrency, CloakCoin. They have trustless decentralized anon methods; they also have transactions speeds sub 5 minutes for fully washed funds.

I am confused. How can privacyServers be centralized, when anybody can set one up?
I thought that was sort of the definition of decentralization. Nobody controls who is allowed to setup a privacyServer and anybody can download source, recompile and run one.

So, yes, you do have to trust ONE privacyServer and if you cant find a vendor you trust, then can you trust yourself? If you cant trust yourself, then I think you have some serious trust issues

James

Lol you seem like a cool dude. I guess the problem lies in the fact that you have to opt in to run a server, so potential attackers could set then up. Truly Trustless would mean that everyone and anyone is automatically a privacyServer.

That would just be a matter of setting the default install to make each node a privacyServer.
The problem is that not all nodes have decent bandwidth and the performance will suffer

OK, so lets say we have these attackers. What is the attack vector? deanonimization using info about who you are sending messages to? For that an additional onion layer would suffice, wouldnt it? They would know the intermediary you send it to, but just pick random intermediaries so there is no useful information gleaned

I will need to think carefully about the private acct #s. Maybe there is a way to hide it from your privacyServer. If I can do that, then there really is nothing you are trusting the privacyServer with other than routing packets.

I think performance is worth the full extent of anonymous protocol. An onion layer would help as well, but if you can conceal the private keys, that'd be best.

[qiwoman2]

I don't understand much the technical but I like this coin so thanks for dumping on me and I got 120 more..

[jl777]

When extreme privacy is needed, I have a slow but effective solution for that. If you are familiar with how bitmessage works, it is the same concept. I independently came up with the idea thinking it was so cool and it turned out it was already done, at least for emails.

So, it would be slow, but super secure. For this level of privacy, no trusting of anything other than the BTCD network routes packets.

One thing that is important to note. I cannot figure out a one size fits all method for privacy. There a blockchain bloat issues, response time issues and information sensitivity issues. Sort of a three dimensional matrix of tradeoffs. So, any single privacy algo is surely going to fail in some areas, eg. too slow or not secure enough.

Well, maybe someone a lot smarter than me can figure a universal solution, but for me, I just come up with the likely most popular use cases and make sure there is a privacy level that works for that use case and then combine them

I am no ivory tower guy. I like practical solutions, but I also like to use fancy magical algos with cool properties

James

[jl777]

I think performance is worth the full extent of anonymous protocol. An onion layer would help as well, but if you can conceal the private keys, that'd be best.

The "bitmessage" approach conceals all.
Each node would have a superprivate account that only it knows about. All tx from that account are via global broadcast, so there is no path analysis possible for the packet, since all nodes will get the packet.
Of course this method still needs a way to teleport the funds, but zeroknowledge proofs could do that, so either I wait for zerocash or if I have everything else done and they are not out, I can start experimenting with libsnark

As things come together, clearly the easier to implement stuff will be done first. I like incremental improvements, so BTCD will get better as time passes. I really dont understand litecoin. They could have been adding features all these years, but nope, always stays the same.

James

[frohlocke]

I think the recent dump is due to nxt multipool who mined a lot of btcd.
This will only be happen once if I am right.

[jl777]

I think performance is worth the full extent of anonymous protocol. An onion layer would help as well, but if you can conceal the private keys, that'd be best.

Wait!
Are you thinking the privacyServer has the private keys for your account??
Of course not!
The privacyServer has knowledge of your account number, that I think is a serious enough trust issue. No way that any node keeps another's private keys. Then it really is not a separate node as it controls that acct.

I am trying to minimize information leakage across the entire spectrum. One of the biggest leaks is that the privacyServer knows your private account number (not passwords) and also who you are sending messages to. The latter is solved by an additional onion layer. The former no solution yet, but not sure where it ranks in priority for solving

James

[paradigmflux]

I think the recent dump is due to nxt multipool who mined a lot of btcd.
This will only be happen once if I am right.

exactly
sorry to cause anyone alarm
I had to liquidate nearly 5000 BTCD, which is now completed, to pay out some miners.

[paradigmflux]

BTW, I only dumped on bittrex which is why cryptsy seems a bit more stable. All done for now though, so no more cause for alarm.

[bughunter]

I think the recent dump is due to nxt multipool who mined a lot of btcd.
This will only be happen once if I am right.

exactly
sorry to cause anyone alarm
I had to liquidate nearly 5000 BTCD, which is now completed, to pay out some miners.

So, now it goes up!
@jl777 I like your technical understanding and your postings! This thread is very interesting!!! (I am afraid of FUDs incoming since the value of BTCD is growing.)

[paradigmflux]

There isn't anything to FUD with this coin - this one is pretty much roses!

[salsacz]

thanks for a notice. Did you see your quote? http://www.coinssource.com/bitcoindark-transitions-from-pow-phase-pure-pos/