Why Darkcoin is better and why we should all use it

[turtoro]

Xmr is better, and I dont even hold any alts right now.

[1714754646]

1714754646

[1714754646]

1714754646

[1714754646]

1714754646

[1714754646]

1714754646

[1714754646]

1714754646

[1714754646]

1714754646

[flipme]

Who care if those instamined coins was sold or not ? Instamine is still instamine.

What's worse is Evan's stubborness to insist on maintaining the Masternode concept even though it is severely flawed in nature and many better options have been presented to him by other developers. To me the whole Masternode concept is a ploy to further enrich large Dark holders by getting paid more Dark to cycle coins.

 Fair enough.

 Bitcoin was severly flawed until it became stable. Darkcoin was flawed and its now stable. When new upcoming features arrive, I expect DRK to undergo unstableness, until (at the speed of light) Evan fixes it making it stable again.

 I clearly see you no clue what the Masternode concept really is all about. Masternodes do not get payed to cycles coins. They're payed as Proof of Service, much in the same line as Proof of Stake.

What service(s) do Masternodes provide other than cycling/mixing coins?

They could replace the shit concept of PoW one day and secure the chain like nothing else.
They could hold collateral, provide liquidity, the applications for financial instruments are endless.

[toknormal]

What's worse is Evan's stubborness to insist on maintaining the Masternode concept even though it is severely flawed in nature and many better options have been presented to him by other developers. To me the whole Masternode concept is a ploy to further enrich large Dark holders by getting paid more Dark to cycle coins.

I think that, as time goes on, evidence is beginning to demonstrate that the reverse is actually true.

The 2-tier masternode approach is succeeding in all the areas it was intended to - not just technically but commercially as well. In particular it has allowed for an immense amount of realworld experience to inform ongoing design priorities without disrupting the front end blockchain interface, nor the 'backend' commercial interface.

At the same time, successive revisions to the revenue regime for the masternode network have ensured that its population keeps growing. Darkcoin now has a worldwide network of over 1200 masternodes and growing. This 2-tier approach is going to be hugely powerful going forward because it allows the network to decouple and articulate advanced, consolidated actions not suited to being run on an ad-hoc basis by end-user nodes.

For example, it's this approach that enabled the huge leap to be made from realtime to pre-emptive anonymisation. What this means in practice is that no matter what crazy fantastic algo's any other coin comes up with, the Darkcoin network will always provide a level of service that is multiple orders of magnitude more secure due to the massive redundancy it now implements. You don't even have to be making a transaction anymore for your funds to be anonymised because the entire online money supply is in a continual state of mixing.

The so called "flaws" alluded to in this post are now turning out to be strengths. They are in fact revealing the true flaws in the competition, namely:

 - anon is done in realtime, saved funds are static until transacted
 - they are mostly non Bitcoin-compliant commercial interfaces which need to be handled as exceptions by exchanges and commercial adopters
 - given Bitcoin's trading resilience against the altcoin competition over the last 18 months, the 'stock value' of anon coins which take an integrated approach (e.g. cryptonote ones) has plummeted. Bitcoin has prevailed and therefore Bitcoin compliant technologies are more amenable to adoption

[W32MYDOOM]

What's worse is Evan's stubborness to insist on maintaining the Masternode concept even though it is severely flawed in nature and many better options have been presented to him by other developers. To me the whole Masternode concept is a ploy to further enrich large Dark holders by getting paid more Dark to cycle coins.

I think that, as time goes on, evidence is beginning to demonstrate that the reverse is actually true.

The 2-tier masternode approach is succeeding in all the areas it was intended to - not just technically but commercially as well. In particular it has allowed for an immense amount of realworld experience to inform ongoing design priorities without disrupting the front end blockchain interface, nor the 'backend' commercial interface.

At the same time, successive revisions to the revenue regime for the masternode network have ensured that its population keeps growing. Darkcoin now has a worldwide network of over 1200 masternodes and growing. This 2-tier approach is going to be hugely powerful going forward because it allows the network to decouple and articulate advanced, consolidated actions not suited to being run on an ad-hoc basis by end-user nodes.

For example, it's this approach that enabled the huge leap to be made from realtime to pre-emptive anonymisation. What this means in practice is that no matter what crazy fantastic algo's any other coin comes up with, the Darkcoin network will always provide a level of service that is multiple orders of magnitude more secure due to the massive redundancy it now implements. You don't even have to be making a transaction anymore for your funds to be anonymised because the entire online money supply is in a continual state of mixing.

The so called "flaws" alluded to in this post are now turning out to be strengths. They are in fact revealing the true flaws in the competition, namely:

 - anon is done in realtime, saved funds are static until transacted
 - they are mostly non Bitcoin-compliant commercial interfaces which need to be handled as exceptions by exchanges and commercial adopters
 - given Bitcoin's trading resilience against the altcoin competition over the last 18 months, the 'stock value' of anon coins which take an integrated approach (e.g. cryptonote ones) has plummeted. Bitcoin has prevailed and therefore Bitcoin compliant technologies are more amenable to adoption

Quoted for truth.

[Febo]

Why Darkcoin is no better then Bitcoin:
https://i.imgur.com/evtcybH.gif

[illodin]

Why Darkcoin is no better then Bitcoin:
https://i.imgur.com/evtcybH.gif

Surely it's better, you can't draw that conclusion from that gif animation.

There is a statement, that says "if these Masternodes are compromised by a malicious actor, then the anonymity can be broken".

Compromising 100% of the masternodes is no easy feat, and if you're dealing with an adversary that can accomplish that, then they are powerful enough they can surely just simply compromise your personal computer and save a lot of time and money.

And, let's even assume that they compromise 100% of the nodes for a while - they could only spy on the pre-mixing that happens during that time. They can't break anonymous transfers that have already happened, and they can't break anonymous transfers that happen if the coins have already been anonymized previously. Trying to take over the whole masternode network would just be a lot of effort for questionable gains.

[uvt9]

Maybe because of the 2 million instamined coins?

You have a lot of DRKs, ok we get it .

Maybe you should quit using bitcoin too: "Satoshi certainly has a lot of funds. Bitcoin security consultant Sergio Lerner's oft-cited analysis puts the figure at around 1m BTC, based on the early mining that he or she did."
http://www.coindesk.com/dangerous-satoshi-nakamoto/

That old instamined fud is so old and diluted it makes you sound as if you just crawled out of a cave after a year.....all of these coins have been bought and sold so many times over now this is not a problem....nice try though...

Satoshi didn't mine 2 million coins within first day of Bitcoin. It has been 10 months since Darkcoin went live, 10 months and you get roughly 50% of total available coin mined only in first day !! Seems legit, huh ?

This can be verified in blockchain, so it's not fud, it's FACT. 1,625,000 DRK was mined from 3:54 to 11:22 of January 19th.

Who care if those instamined coins was sold or not ? Instamine is still instamine.

You are still spreading the old FUD. en?
"Satoshi" didn't mine 2 million coins in , let's say, one day, in YOUR way. But nearly two years later, Bitcoin started to be known by the public. During these two years, most of the coins was mined by very few people(let's say the satoshies). According to your logic, if the period is long enough, no matter whether it is known by the public at the beginning or months/years/ later, It's OK?
Compare to the release of Darkcoin and Bitcoin. Now you still thing that Darkcoin's distribution is worse than Bitcoin?

This is poor argument by claiming there was few people mining Bitcoin during that first two years.

Don't you know that people around the world was mining Bitcoin like crazy using GPUs in 2011 (2 years after Bitcoin release) ?. Checkout Mining section of this forum and learn more !!

It's funny DRK boys can't say anything about instamine beside typical argument like "Satoshi did the same" or "You're late to the party and you're jealous".

[sl@ppy]

If Darkcoin wants to have an traction, they need to seed their core. Had it a few days now and not 1 connection to start a download

[poncom]

What if someone does not want anonymous transactions? Is it possible to send non-anonymous transactions using dark coin?

[espressodelisi]

What if someone does not want anonymous transactions? Is it possible to send non-anonymous transactions using dark coin?

Yes

[nsimmons]

If Darkcoin wants to have an traction, they need to seed their core. Had it a few days now and not 1 connection to start a download

Are you kidding? With 1200 masternodes on vps dark is the fasting syncing coin I've seen. I can download the entire block chain in maybe 15 minutes. Unlike god damn monero taking days and bricking my laptop in the process.