Pros and Cons to Anon coins, Including Darkcoin / Cloakcoin, lets discuss them.

[burner2014]

Does anyone know if Kristov is planning on working with the CloakCoin Devs to do the same?

I approached him via email right after I read the thing in this thread. He is exactly the person I am looking for as a neutral consultant to investigate the Cloakcoin specifications. But here I have to say it again, one person can not make a coin legit. I prefer to have at least 2-3 people investigating a coin to get a good view of the technical specifications and to suspend any fears of bias.

I know it will not be easy but I hope I can get this off in the next months if Cloakcoin is still existing. ( )

[1715158916]

1715158916

[1715158916]

1715158916

[1715158916]

1715158916

[1715158916]

1715158916

[1715158916]

1715158916

[1715158916]

1715158916

[FreedomCoin]

Does anyone know if Kristov is planning on working with the CloakCoin Devs to do the same?

I approached him via email right after I read the thing in this thread. He is exactly the person I am looking for as a neutral consultant to investigate the Cloakcoin specifications. But here I have to say it again, one person can not make a coin legit. I prefer to have at least 2-3 people investigating a coin to get a good view of the technical specifications and to suspend any fears of bias.

I know it will not be easy but I hope I can get this off in the next months if Cloakcoin is still existing. ( )

Agreed, one person saying "its good" does not make it good. In a perfect world both Dark and Cloak should open all their code to the public and allow the community to decide, not select players in the crypto or security world.

[burner2014]

Does anyone know if Kristov is planning on working with the CloakCoin Devs to do the same?

I approached him via email right after I read the thing in this thread. He is exactly the person I am looking for as a neutral consultant to investigate the Cloakcoin specifications. But here I have to say it again, one person can not make a coin legit. I prefer to have at least 2-3 people investigating a coin to get a good view of the technical specifications and to suspend any fears of bias.

I know it will not be easy but I hope I can get this off in the next months if Cloakcoin is still existing. ( )

Agreed, one person saying "its good" does not make it good. In a perfect world both Dark and Cloak should open all their code to the public and allow the community to decide, not select players in the crypto or security world.

Yes and no. Yes I like the move but I think this would bring a lot of people who have no idea about the technical part to say, I am professional, I saw that POSA or Masternode System is not working. Market reacts, fear , fear sell .. big boom. Saw it at Vootcoin, not that Voot is an as strong community as Dark or Cloak.

I more think about to have 3-5 people who show their expertise / trust  and then investigate a coin. Just at the beginning .. in long-term open source is maybe the way to go in Crypto World to get coins really started off.

[humanitee]

Does anyone know if Kristov is planning on working with the CloakCoin Devs to do the same?

I approached him via email right after I read the thing in this thread. He is exactly the person I am looking for as a neutral consultant to investigate the Cloakcoin specifications. But here I have to say it again, one person can not make a coin legit. I prefer to have at least 2-3 people investigating a coin to get a good view of the technical specifications and to suspend any fears of bias.

I know it will not be easy but I hope I can get this off in the next months if Cloakcoin is still existing. ( )

Agreed, one person saying "its good" does not make it good. In a perfect world both Dark and Cloak should open all their code to the public and allow the community to decide, not select players in the crypto or security world.

I know in DRK's case they are just using him to make sure there are no glaring issues in the code before releasing it. After that they are open sourcing it. That's not to say there won't be some crazy issue in the DRK source, but this step at least allows the minimization of bugs on a system that is already deployed. If the network wasn't running the closed source code currently, I doubt Kristov would even be needed. It could just be instantly open sourced.

[newuser01]

Why don't you include Monero?

[FreedomCoin]

1) Kristov Atlas is reviewing the code and design right now.
2) Wrong - this has been discussed in depth for over 6 months, why do you think its 2500 pages. People like anonymint have given the thumbs up even over Monero.
3) Software development to this scale and complexity is not a fool proof science, id like to see you try. At least he is full time and trying until he and the team succeeds.
4) & 5) Look here for things like collusion probability

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-15th.1788/
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-july-30th.1924/

fernando on the darkcointalk.org forums created a chart outlining the probability of unmasking a Darksend by way of Masternode collusion at depths of both 2 and 8 Masternode hops:

2 hops: http://goo.gl/g1dQ3C
8 hops: http://goo.gl/TcWoF0

1. Peer-reviews consist of multiple eyes on things, not a single person. Either way, let's see what comes out of that. At this stage I have my doubts about him being unbiased.

2. I know you're talking bullshit. Do you know you're talking bullshit? Here is AnonyMint's overview of anonymous cryptocurrencies. He lists many common "cons" among the coins (many of which are not credible threats at this juncture, if you want my personal opinion). He does, however, make a point of noting that Monero (and Boolberry, by extension) are "cryptographically unlinkable & untraceable", whereas he notes that DarkCoin is not as anonymous, as it suffers from "unlinkability Sybil attack on masternodes". The only thing AnonyMint says about Cloakcoin is that, in respects to DarkCoin, "this is the best CloakCoin's anonymity could improve to as it is similar conceptually in design".

3. Nobody is expecting fool-proof. Everyone is expect, at least, that an incredibly simple block reward formula in the whitepaper works in the code. That is not the case, and incompetence in one area almost always indicates incompetence elsewhere.

4. and 5. (no clue how this relates to 5) - collusion on its own is irrelevant. Of course it will be ineffectual. It would always be coupled with the compromise or the DDoSing of additional "masternodes". In such an event, the number of available masternodes is massively reduced, which means the the little Google spreadsheet is incorrect. Many hosts will null-route a dedicated server (even more so a VPS) if it is experiencing a DDoS. Other attacks such as a DDoS group constantly requesting a stream of blocks from a masternode would lead to its traffic exceeding normal use and massive traffic bills. Similarly, a DDoS group could broadcast thousands of bad blocks a second to a masternode, leading to it chewing through CPU cycles doing very heavy X11 verifications, ultimately leading to it becoming inaccessible or being killed by the oomkiller. Those are just off the top of my head, of course, and the attack stands regardless of whether these specific scenarios can be mitigated against.

1. Yes, we need more than one person to give us feedback on the code. Hopefully more will step in to audit the code or as stated before open it up for any coders that want to look over for us.

2. AnonyMint may have found flaws, but how many of them are realistic? I do not fully understand those attack vectors... but soo many have said Bitcoin has exploits like a 51% attack, or dishonest mining pools, but all of those have been proven not to work without throwing massive amounts of resources at them.. the question is, are these attacks feasible?

3. Thats why they have to test and release new revisions, look how many times the bitcoin wallet has been changed.

4. Time will tell, lets just hope it dosnt turn into a Vericoin fiasco.. doing a "shutter" rollback "shutter".

[synechist]

If you guys are up for discussing XCurrency too, here's a brief introduction to get the conversation started:

- XC is the only project with an already-implemented anonymity solution that is currently working.

- XC has a flexible and layered approach to privacy, which is to say there are several ways in which one can be private.
- This "layered" approach is important to make XC relevant for several use cases.

- Here are the functions that will be exposed to XC users:
     - conceal your address from the recipient (XC's equivalent of a stealth address)
     - conceal the amount sent/received (Multipath, i.e. splitting transactions into fragments and having them routed down separate paths through the network)
     - either send directly to recipient or use trustless mixing (that latter of which is a world first - a solution to the Byzantine Generals' problem for privacy-centric currencies)
     - conceal your IP address (The XC TOR Stick / embedded I2P-like node)

There are a lot of other aspects to XC, like mobile-centric development (fully functional staking mobile wallets) and blockchain 2.0 capabilities, but since DRK and CLOAK are anoncoins, the privacy-related stuff is relevant here.

[humanitee]

Why don't you include Monero?

Most likely due to the fact that the DRK thread has been filling up with CLOAK talk.

[FreedomCoin]

Why don't you include Monero?

Most likely due to the fact that the DRK thread has been filling up with CLOAK talk.

Regarding DRK, looks like they are getting closer to releasing RC4 with yesterday's release.

I am open to listing other coins, if someone can give me pros and cons with sources like in post #1.

And with these x11 and x13 coins, how are they handling difficulty adjustment... I heard if too many GPUs start mining the network can make it more difficult for them, while keeping CPU mining easier as long as then too many people do not CPU mine.

Does Dark, Cloak, XC and Monero have an advanced difficulty retargeting system?

[synechist]

Why don't you include Monero?

Most likely due to the fact that the DRK thread has been filling up with CLOAK talk.

Regarding DRK, looks like they are getting closer to releasing RC4 with yesterday's release.

I am open to listing other coins, if someone can give me pros and cons with sources like in post #1.

Sure.

[Sleepyx]

- XC is the only project with an already-implemented anonymity solution that is currently working.

Every coin says this. Nothing against xc but do coins not check if others have currently working anon?

[hoertest]

2 additional pro for XCurrency that are not anon related since Synechist covered that:

- known and reputable dev and Team, http://xc-official.com/the-xc-team/

- helpfull community spirit with dev taking the lead , btw XC is far ahead of reviewed coin:
   https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=695457.msg8092391#msg8092391

[illodin]

If you guys are up for discussing XCurrency too, here's a brief introduction to get the conversation started:

- XC is the only project with an already-implemented anonymity solution that is currently working.

Stopped reading right there.

[PowderMonkey]

If you guys are up for discussing XCurrency too, here's a brief introduction to get the conversation started:

- XC is the only project with an already-implemented anonymity solution that is currently working.

Stopped reading right there.

Illodin, you shouldn't need to read about XC, you've been in our thread plenty already.  

[illodin]

4. and 5. (no clue how this relates to 5) - collusion on its own is irrelevant. Of course it will be ineffectual. It would always be coupled with the compromise or the DDoSing of additional "masternodes". In such an event, the number of available masternodes is massively reduced, which means the the little Google spreadsheet is incorrect. Many hosts will null-route a dedicated server (even more so a VPS) if it is experiencing a DDoS. Other attacks such as a DDoS group constantly requesting a stream of blocks from a masternode would lead to its traffic exceeding normal use and massive traffic bills. Similarly, a DDoS group could broadcast thousands of bad blocks a second to a masternode, leading to it chewing through CPU cycles doing very heavy X11 verifications, ultimately leading to it becoming inaccessible or being killed by the oomkiller. Those are just off the top of my head, of course, and the attack stands regardless of whether these specific scenarios can be mitigated against.

Refreshing to read opinions of someone who actually has a clue instead of crypto noobs hyping their vapor buzzwords. I consider myself to be crypto noob as well, however:

What if the Darkcoin wallet was monitoring the state of the network, and if the running masternode count fell for example 50% in a short period of time, it would stop denominating funds (denomination is the anonymization process which runs in the background). This wouldn't affect people sending or receiving coins because they already have them denominated/anonymized. It would only prevent people from re-sending received funds during this ddos period.

Every other coin has to use nodes as well, and they can be ddos attacked which can halt the network for the duration of the attack. It's not only Darkcoin that is susceptible to ddos.

[illodin]

If you guys are up for discussing XCurrency too, here's a brief introduction to get the conversation started:

- XC is the only project with an already-implemented anonymity solution that is currently working.

Stopped reading right there.

Illodin, you shouldn't need to read about XC, you've been in our thread plenty already.  

lol got me. 

[synechist]

- XC is the only project with an already-implemented anonymity solution that is currently working.

Every coin says this. Nothing against xc but do coins not check if others have currently working anon?

Fair point. Maybe I haven't checked sufficiently. Who else has it?

Let me know and I might be able to qualify what I mean by "working" and "anonymity". ;-)

[PowderMonkey]

4. and 5. (no clue how this relates to 5) - collusion on its own is irrelevant. Of course it will be ineffectual. It would always be coupled with the compromise or the DDoSing of additional "masternodes". In such an event, the number of available masternodes is massively reduced, which means the the little Google spreadsheet is incorrect. Many hosts will null-route a dedicated server (even more so a VPS) if it is experiencing a DDoS. Other attacks such as a DDoS group constantly requesting a stream of blocks from a masternode would lead to its traffic exceeding normal use and massive traffic bills. Similarly, a DDoS group could broadcast thousands of bad blocks a second to a masternode, leading to it chewing through CPU cycles doing very heavy X11 verifications, ultimately leading to it becoming inaccessible or being killed by the oomkiller. Those are just off the top of my head, of course, and the attack stands regardless of whether these specific scenarios can be mitigated against.

Refreshing to read opinions of someone who actually has a clue instead of crypto noobs hyping their vapor buzzwords. I consider myself to be crypto noob as well, however:

What if the Darkcoin wallet was monitoring the state of the network, and if the running masternode count fell for example 50% in a short period of time, it would stop denominating funds (denomination is the anonymization process which runs in the background). This wouldn't affect people sending or receiving coins because they already have them denominated/anonymized. It would only prevent people from re-sending received funds during this ddos period.

Every other coin has to use nodes as well, and they can be ddos attacked which can halt the network for the duration of the attack. It's not only Darkcoin that is susceptible to ddos.

Glad to hear that Darkcoin has built-in protection for this attack vector, it's certainly a valid concern.

XC does also, in that every single wallet is a node.  Thus, there's no central point that can be targeted for a ddos.  

In addition, transactions are multisig so they require several parties to sign before they are processed.  If a bad node alters a transaction to steal funds, or refuses to sign, the transaction won't be processed, so you can't lose funds.  Also, since there are redundant connections between nodes that provide multiple pathways for funds, if a node fails to sign a transaction there are others ready to take its place.  This means that if there was a ddos attack, even though it's not really possible due to the completely decentralized nature of XC, you'd still be able to send and receive funds.  Pretty cool stuff, really.

[illodin]

Glad to hear that Darkcoin has built-in protection for this attack vector, it's certainly a valid concern.

It doesn't have that, it was just something I was suggesting in DRK thread earlier and asking what people's thoughts about it are. But if the idea is feasible and provides additional security, the implementation probably should be pretty straightforward.

XC does also, in that every single wallet is a node.  Thus, there's no central point that can be targeted for a ddos.

It's the same thing. XC node that participates in anonymization requires an open incoming TCP port, and the attacker can ddos those nodes just as well as drk masternodes.

In addition, transactions are multisig so they require several parties to sign before they are processed.  If a bad node alters a transaction to steal funds, or refuses to sign, the transaction won't be processed, so you can't lose funds.  Also, since there are redundant connections between nodes that provide multiple pathways for funds, if a node fails to sign a transaction there are others ready to take its place.  Pretty cool stuff, really.

The goal when ddos'ing nodes is to first set up many nodes yourself, then ddos the other nodes, so you can then have a control of big enough percentage of the nodes so you can spy the transactions with good enough success.

[rethink-your-strategy]

Every coin says this. Nothing against xc but do coins not check if others have currently working anon?

Fair point. Maybe I haven't checked sufficiently. Who else has it?

Let me know and I might be able to qualify what I mean by "working" and "anonymity". ;-)

All of the CryptoNote coins do (Monero, Boolberry, Bytecoin (BCN) etc.) They have working anonymity from their launch. If you take Bytecoin's claim at face value (it's pretty clear it's bullshit) they have been around for 2 years. Even knowing that it's likely a false claim meant to cover up their 82% premine, you still come face-to-face with an indisputable fact: Bytecoin's first commit to github was on 15 November 2013, and already then the code worked and provided cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable transactions. Monero, too, was launched (fairly) on 18 April 2014, before XC even came into existence.

As much as I think Bytecoin is a fail because of their premine, they are the ONLY ones that can lay claim to having the FIRST "working anonymity". Monero and the all the other CryptoNote coins can lay claim to being the ONLY cryptocurrencies that currently have a 100% working solution to cryptographically untraceable and unlinkable transactions.

If you don't believe me, pick any transaction on the Monero blockchain (eg. http://monerochain.info/tx/49ee290a4e65bc554382089d778c1ac26b20a5b6044d3fa4b1767780e2617546) and try figure out the address of the person that sent the coins, the address of the person they were sending to, and they amount. I'll gladly even setup two wallets and transfer between them and give you the transaction ID to give it a try. Oh and these transactions are instantaneous, no waiting for a mixing hop to finish or anything.