This message was too old and has been purged

[GingerAle]

The Monero team should really focus on developing their coin, rather than being envious of others.  I said around 4 months ago that I'll put money into Monero the second I see a coin that I can actually use (Stable database+GUI). How much longer must I wait?

https://getmonero.org/home

check the latest news.

glad we're all on topic.

[1714774573]

1714774573

[1714774573]

1714774573

[smooth]

It's also rather lame that you continue to respond to criticism of DRK not on its merits but by attacking another coin

What you've promoted are not "criticisms" they're simply person preferences - a very different thing.

A valid technical "criticism" is where you point out areas that the project doesn't meet it's design specifications or market priorities - not *your* design specifications or priorities.

I said criticisms, not technical criticisms. I have both.

As for design goals, it is stated quite clearly that darkcoin aims to allow you to remain anonymous. It is not stated that it allows you remain anonymous as long as masternodes aren't spying on you or themselves being spied upon, something which can never be verified, and can't rationally be blindly trusted.

I criticize this as technically weak, at such a fundamental and profound level such that it makes the entire core mission of the system a sham.

If you want throw meaningful anonymity overboard and focus on things like market cap, API compatibility with BTC, etc. be my guest, but as far as I know the stated core mission still includes anonymity.

That's what's disingenuous of your entire repertoire here and the only reason it came to my attention was because of your blatant arrogance over other aspects such as your dismissal of the dev's competence and nonsense about "fake marketcaps".

LOL, nice way to dismiss the fact that both enormous concentration of ownership (likely but difficult to prove) and blatant manipulation of supply in the form of enormously cut to available new supply (which has inarguably occurred), a) matter, b) can affect market cap, and c) make the whole thing look like some kind of penny stock joke.

Really I don't think any of the market caps matter very much though, as they are all trivially small. We'll see what happens if and when that isn't the case.

[GingerAle]

yeah, market discussion in these threads drives me bonkers. By these lines of reason paycoin is still a winner!

[AlexGR]

So then why would a developer purposely change their coin's emission rate on their own accord, as well as the total coin supply?(Which is what Darkcoin's developer did several times). The very "social contract" has been violated, since the coin's parameters have been severely changed after conception. That means Darkcoin is not a decentralized cryptocurrency, but a centralized pennystock.

I think you are missing some key elements of history where the community has debated these issues in the DRK-thread / DRK-forum or participated in off-DRK-thread polls by eduffield, for issues regarding inflation / emission, total number of coins, fixing initial distribution through an airdrop of new coins, masternode payments etc.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525093
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=559932

(I think there are a couple of threads like this around btctalk and darkcointalk).

Thus you make it sound quite dictatorial, in a sense, when things are not at all like this.

[Hueristic]

Hello? There are at least 5 usable wallets. Its something that is being quite adequately addressed by third parties so we've reduced its priority in favor of focusing on the core....

Are there any vids of these wallets in operation? I think that would go along way on this front.

[smooth]

Hello? There are at least 5 usable wallets. Its something that is being quite adequately addressed by third parties so we've reduced its priority in favor of focusing on the core....

Are there any vids of these wallets in operation? I think that would go along way on this front.

Not that I know of but that is a good suggestion, I will pass it on.

[AlexGR]

LOL, nice way to dismiss the fact that both enormous concentration of ownership (likely but difficult to prove) and blatant manipulation of supply in the form of enormously cut to available new supply (which has inarguably occurred), a) matter, b) can affect market cap, and c) make the whole thing look like some kind of penny stock joke.

Really I don't think any of the market caps matter very much though, as they are all trivially small. We'll see what happens if and when that isn't the case.

Regarding "blatant manipulation" see what I wrote above to celestio.

Regarding market caps, high marketcaps tend to spread coin ownership. Darkcoins costing 17$ each at its high, do not leave much space for the instamine argument. People who get coins for nothing do not usually appreciate them. That's what happened at the launch and why people were selling batches of 10k DRKs for 0.25 BTC. A few months later, why would an instaminer ...hold at 17$ a coin? Market dynamics and market behavior indicates that he would sell a lot of his coins as the price rose. And that's precisely what happened all the way from 0.0000x BTC per DRK, to 0.000x BTC per DRK, to 0.002 BTC per DRK, to 0.028 BTC per DRK, with waves of market reshuffling.

Things like mintpal going down and scammers getting wallets like 400k DRKs and then dumping them at frequent batches were more of an actual factor compared to the instamine non-issue (for the last year or so and in relation to the market). The instamine is only brought up to increase the FUD-vector... "DRK instamine... DRK not secure... DRK forks... blah blah blah" etc.

As for DRK / NSA PRISM 2.0 analogy, I mean please... it's Bitcoin code with mixing on top. Open source stuff. Too much FUD

[stealth923]

LOL, nice way to dismiss the fact that both enormous concentration of ownership (likely but difficult to prove) and blatant manipulation of supply in the form of enormously cut to available new supply (which has inarguably occurred), a) matter, b) can affect market cap, and c) make the whole thing look like some kind of penny stock joke.

Really I don't think any of the market caps matter very much though, as they are all trivially small. We'll see what happens if and when that isn't the case.

Regarding "blatant manipulation" see what I wrote above to celestio.

Regarding market caps, high marketcaps tend to spread coin ownership. Darkcoins costing 17$ each at its high, do not leave much space for the instamine argument. People who get coins for nothing do not usually appreciate them. That's what happened at the launch and why people were selling batches of 10k DRKs for 0.25 BTC. A few months later, why would an instaminer ...hold at 17$ a coin? Market dynamics and market behavior indicates that he would sell a lot of his coins as the price rose. And that's precisely what happened all the way from 0.0000x BTC per DRK, to 0.000x BTC per DRK, to 0.002 BTC per DRK, to 0.028 BTC per DRK, with waves of market reshuffling.

Things like mintpal going down and scammers getting wallets like 400k DRKs and then dumping them at frequent batches were more of an actual factor compared to the instamine non-issue (for the last year or so and in relation to the market). The instamine is only brought up to increase the FUD-vector... "DRK instamine... DRK not secure... DRK forks... blah blah blah" etc.

As for DRK / NSA PRISM 2.0 analogy, I mean please... it's Bitcoin code with mixing on top. Open source stuff. Too much FUD

Its quite sad when one of the Monero team is considered one of the biggest trolls - NSA Prism = LOL

Re-launch Darkcoin LOL

DRK Marketcap fake LOL

[smooth]

As for DRK / NSA PRISM 2.0 analogy, I mean please... it's Bitcoin code with mixing on top. Open source stuff. Too much FUD

No that is not true at all. You as a user can verify that you are using Bitcoin code or whatever code you want to use. If it were peer-to-peer like bitcoin that could be enough. But it isn't. It is peer-to-masternode(s)-to-peer.

You can't and never will be able to verify what masternodes are doing, as long as they appear to be doing what they are supposed to. But what else they are doing you have no idea. At all.

[AlexGR]

As for DRK / NSA PRISM 2.0 analogy, I mean please... it's Bitcoin code with mixing on top. Open source stuff. Too much FUD

No that is not true at all. You as a user can verify that you are using Bitcoin code or whatever code you want to use. If it were peer-to-peer like bitcoin that could be enough. But it isn't. It is peer-to-masternode(s)-to-peer.

You can't and never will be able to verify what masternodes are doing, as long as they appear to be doing what they are supposed to. But what else they are doing you have no idea. At all.

The elegance of DRK (prior to MN blinding) is that it assumes the worst of the nodes (=that they are corrupt in a high percentage) and works around the issue by multiple rounds of mixing, thus getting very low probabilities of identification even with controlled nodes. You know someone has a FUD vector when he cites the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000x % probability as a definite loss of privacy or "real danger" or "not anonymous" etc etc.

The fact that it also takes a loooot of money to buy all the nodes, which would make the price reach astronomical levels if done by a single entity like the NSA, also helps from a Game Theory perspective so that it can't really happen as the acquisition cost multiplies while an NSA-like player tries tries to obtain the remaining percentages of the MN network.

I think it's about time all the FUDstorm is buried with the masternode blinding where the MNs don't even know what they transact.

[smooth]

As for DRK / NSA PRISM 2.0 analogy, I mean please... it's Bitcoin code with mixing on top. Open source stuff. Too much FUD

No that is not true at all. You as a user can verify that you are using Bitcoin code or whatever code you want to use. If it were peer-to-peer like bitcoin that could be enough. But it isn't. It is peer-to-masternode(s)-to-peer.

You can't and never will be able to verify what masternodes are doing, as long as they appear to be doing what they are supposed to. But what else they are doing you have no idea. At all.

The elegance of DRK (prior to MN blinding) is that it assumes the worst of the nodes (=that they are corrupt in a high percentage) and works around the issue by multiple rounds of mixing, thus getting very low probabilities of identification even with controlled nodes. You know someone has a FUD vector when he cites the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000x % probability as a definite loss of privacy.

No, I simply disagree with the math and find that number implausible. I believe that most masternodes will ultimately be compromised, either directly or via VPS or other back doors. If you have one or a few out of 2000 masternodes compromised, yes multiple rounds reduces the risk to nearly nothing. But if you have say 80-90% of masternodes compromised, the number of rounds and the cost of the system to achieve high confidence becomes costly and impractical. And for that matter you can't rationally rule out 99% or even 100% being compromised eventually. I expect that in fact.

The fact that it also takes a loooot of money to buy all the nodes, which would make the price reach astronomical levels if done by a single entity like the NSA, also helps from a Game Theory perspective so that it can't really happen as the acquisition cost multiplies while an NSA-like player tries tries to obtain the remaining percentages of the MN network.

That's false an assumes only that someone attempts to buy all the nodes very quickly and drives up the price. In fact what is more plausible is for someone buy the nodes slowly and/or attack competing nodes to make them less profitable to encourage node abandonment.

Furthermore I don't really expect nodes being bought to be the primary mode attack, thought that could certainly happen over time too. It will be a combination of legal and quasi-legal attacks (i.e. PRISM) against the node operators themselves and/or VPS operators, and/or flat out compromises via VPS and other back doors. The NSA didn't have to buy all the IT companies, they just got them do the work of collecting the data.

[GingerAle]

The fact that it also takes a loooot of money to buy all the nodes, which would make the price reach astronomical levels if done by a single entity like the NSA, also helps from a Game Theory perspective so that it can't really happen as the acquisition cost multiplies while an NSA-like player tries tries to obtain the remaining percentages of the MN network.

I think it's about time all the FUDstorm is buried with the masternode blinding where the MNs don't even know what they transact.

yes, we all want to see evil-k break the blinded testnet masternode thing.

a looooooooot of money. Aren't we in a world.... where.... the governments.... can just print money..... to buy.... masternodes?


I was hoping the DRK dev's ventures to bitcointalk would get him to comment on the intrinsic connection between network privacy and currency valuation that I discuss in the XMR v DRK thread, but I guess that concern still sits there, waiting.

Anyhoo, for those that are still interested in the original post subject (and are just coming into the conversation because this has been bumped like cah razy). I've compiled it here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=979315.0

[AlexGR]

No, I simply disagree with the math and find that number implausible. I believe that most masternodes will ultimately be compromised, either directly or via VPS or other back doors.

When you deal with entire eco-systems, then you simply have to try your best at the area of your expertise.

Our own PCs might be compromised. HDD firmware, processors, network equipment firmware, software backdoors, RNG fixing, etc etc. And then the entire Internet might be controlled, thus someone like NSA can see the whole network flow in a "transparent" way. If we take such hypotheses as somewhat probable, then no coin will ever be private or anonymous. We (all people involved in anon projects) might as well throw the towel and go home.

[smooth]

No, I simply disagree with the math and find that number implausible. I believe that most masternodes will ultimately be compromised, either directly or via VPS or other back doors.

When you deal with entire eco-systems, then you simply have to try your best at the area of your expertise.

Our own PCs might be compromised. HDD firmware, processors, network equipment firmware, software backdoors, RNG fixing, etc etc. And then the entire Internet might be controlled, thus someone like NSA can see the whole network flow in a "transparent" way. If we take such hypotheses as somewhat probable, then no coin will ever be private or anonymous. We (all people involved in anon projects) might as well throw the towel and go home.

You're incorrect. Even full (as in 100%) network flow for example, does not deanonomize Monero transactions. It does identify Monero users (which is why we are adding i2p to obscure it) but not the flow of coins.

As long as there is some piece of hardware, under your own control that you can use to sign transactions properly, the rest need not be trusted. That's a much lower and more plausible expectation of trust than some nodes operating mostly in VPS hosting centers.

[AlexGR]

No, I simply disagree with the math and find that number implausible. I believe that most masternodes will ultimately be compromised, either directly or via VPS or other back doors.

When you deal with entire eco-systems, then you simply have to try your best at the area of your expertise.

Our own PCs might be compromised. HDD firmware, processors, network equipment firmware, software backdoors, RNG fixing, etc etc. And then the entire Internet might be controlled, thus someone like NSA can see the whole network flow in a "transparent" way. If we take such hypotheses as somewhat probable, then no coin will ever be private or anonymous. We (all people involved in anon projects) might as well throw the towel and go home.

You're incorrect. Even full (as in 100%) network flow for example, does not deanonomize Monero transactions. It does identify Monero users (which is why we are adding i2p to obscure it) but not the flow of coins.

As long as there is some piece of hardware, under your own control that you can use to sign transactions properly, the rest need not be trusted. That's a much lower and more plausible expectation of trust than some nodes operating mostly in VPS hosting centers.

If the nodes know not what they transact, what advantage does it give you to control the hosting company or the nodes?

[smooth]

No, I simply disagree with the math and find that number implausible. I believe that most masternodes will ultimately be compromised, either directly or via VPS or other back doors.

When you deal with entire eco-systems, then you simply have to try your best at the area of your expertise.

Our own PCs might be compromised. HDD firmware, processors, network equipment firmware, software backdoors, RNG fixing, etc etc. And then the entire Internet might be controlled, thus someone like NSA can see the whole network flow in a "transparent" way. If we take such hypotheses as somewhat probable, then no coin will ever be private or anonymous. We (all people involved in anon projects) might as well throw the towel and go home.

You're incorrect. Even full (as in 100%) network flow for example, does not deanonomize Monero transactions. It does identify Monero users (which is why we are adding i2p to obscure it) but not the flow of coins.

As long as there is some piece of hardware, under your own control that you can use to sign transactions properly, the rest need not be trusted. That's a much lower and more plausible expectation of trust than some nodes operating mostly in VPS hosting centers.

If the nodes know not what they transact, what advantage does it give you to control the hosting company or the nodes?

That's not how 'blinding' works. It just breaks up the transaction into more pieces so data from more nodes is needed to reconstruct it.

[g4q34g4qg47ww]

^ Astronomical increase in nodes needed. You are still sad by the way

[Kuriso]

No, I simply disagree with the math and find that number implausible. I believe that most masternodes will ultimately be compromised, either directly or via VPS or other back doors.

You simply disagree?  Really?  You are sitting here arguing about something that you 'simply disagree' on?  Sounds like a waste and a feeble attempt at spreading the on going FUD.  Have you done any calculations that can plausibly prove/support why you simply disagree?  If so, I'd like to see it.  If you can't, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that the math is wrong then you're just spreading FUD.  

I'll tell you right now that I haven't looked at the math.  I aint gots no time for that.

In other news... Google and your ISP is monitoring everything you do already.  Nothing you do is safe. AAHHH!!!!

[smooth]

No, I simply disagree with the math and find that number implausible. I believe that most masternodes will ultimately be compromised, either directly or via VPS or other back doors.

You simply disagree?  Really?  You are sitting here arguing about something that you 'simply disagree' on?  Sounds like a waste and a feeble attempt at spreading the on going FUD.  Have you done any calculations that can plausibly prove/support why you simply disagree?  If so, I'd like to see it.  If you can't, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove that the math is wrong then you're just spreading FUD.  

I'll tell you right now that I haven't looked at the math.  I aint gots no time for that.

In other news... Google and your ISP is monitoring everything you do already.  Nothing you do is safe. AAHHH!!!!

That's exactly why if you want anonymity or even some modest degree of privacy on the Internet you better be doing it with strong cryptography and not trusting "nodes"

Look I get that DRK was created before the cryptonote technology was released and arguably at the time it was the best we had to try to make Bitcoin more anonymous. Building that out was an admirable goal. It isn't any more.

And yes, I do have some idea of the math. It works against a few bad apples but falls apart if many of the masternodes are dishonest or compromised (with or without their knowledge). I'll take a closer look at blinding when it is release but from what I've seen so far I expect much the same.

[stealth923]

Look I get that DRK was created before the cryptonote technology was released and arguably at the time it was the best we had to try to make Bitcoin more anonymous. Building that out was an admirable goal. It isn't any more.

Do you have a solution to replace DRK?? If so please tell the world

Please dont say Monero - Adoption is Zero (0%), the problems that the coin has are at this point are not marketable (No official Wallet, Bloat, Inflation etc etc) and will never gain adoption because who in their right mind as a business would try and maintain and secure two different code bases. Bitcoin is having enough of a hard time trying to convince people to use it.

Looka at directbet.eu - they Took DRK over Monero..Why is that I wonder?