This message was too old and has been purged

[illodin]

I don't believe it can have any confidence of even doing that, because there is a reasonable probability that masternodes will ultimately be owned by corporations in the business of mining data for profit. The whole internet tracking and tracing industry didn't start out that way either, it happened over time because it was profitable. Many early pioneers on the internet were advocates for privacy and individual empowerment, but in reality the internet turned into a massive surveillance machine, not only for the NSA, but for business too. Masternodes are the same.

If you are an individual and have a masternode that is laying golden eggs for the rest of your lifetime, why would you give it up to some corporation?

That is the difference between the early pioneers on the internet who were advocates for privacy and individual empowerment and masternode owners. The former didn't have a golden goose and all the incentive they had was their enthusiasm.

[toknormal]

DRK's fundamentally and fatally flawed approach to anonymity

r.o.t.f.w.l.

You people just can't help yourselves. bitcreditscc was right - you're not 'cryptographers' your double glazing salesmen.

[illodin]

None of these coins is going much of anywhere anytime soon in terms of having any real impact on the world or achieving a really significant value by fiat standards, with the possible exception of Bitcoin and even that is at this moment quite a long shot. Everything about crypto and especially non-BTC crypto given today's reality is a very long term endeavor.

None of these coins are anywhere nor going anywhere anytime soon, and yet the fact that how many coins were mined in the first day, first week, or first year is such a decisive factor whether a coin should live or die. Again, let's follow your principles whenever it suits you best.

[smooth]

None of these coins is going much of anywhere anytime soon in terms of having any real impact on the world or achieving a really significant value by fiat standards, with the possible exception of Bitcoin and even that is at this moment quite a long shot. Everything about crypto and especially non-BTC crypto given today's reality is a very long term endeavor.

None of these coins are anywhere nor going anywhere anytime soon, and yet the fact that how many coins were mined in the first day, first week, or first year is such a decisive factor whether a coin should live or die. Again, let's follow your principles whenever it suits you best.

You're really going in circles on something we already discussed like 30 pages back. It isn't the the about where or when the coins were mined, it is about the the cloud of incompetence and/or fraud. That's why Bitcoin's "slow motion instamine" over two years is much less of big deal than DRKs instamine over two days. And even then some people still object to Bitcoin's. Given that how can you expect people to not object to DRK's which is clearly worse in every conceivable way.

[smooth]

I don't believe it can have any confidence of even doing that, because there is a reasonable probability that masternodes will ultimately be owned by corporations in the business of mining data for profit. The whole internet tracking and tracing industry didn't start out that way either, it happened over time because it was profitable. Many early pioneers on the internet were advocates for privacy and individual empowerment, but in reality the internet turned into a massive surveillance machine, not only for the NSA, but for business too. Masternodes are the same.

If you are an individual and have a masternode that is laying golden eggs for the rest of your lifetime, why would you give it up to some corporation?

Because that's how markets work. If it is more profitable for them then it is for you, and it will be, they buy it from you. Such a deal is good for you (price is higher than what you would make) and good for them (price is lower than what they will make).

[toknormal]

Because that's how markets work. If it is more profitable for them then it is for you, and it will be, they buy it from you. Such a deal is good of you (price is higher than what you would make) and good for them (price is lower than what they will make).

If I were you with your superior 'cryptographic' knowledge, I wouldn't waste another second in trying to break and fully de-anonymise a darksend transaction because that's what you've now staked your entire project's existence on.

Wake me up when your finished and I might put more of my money where your mouth is.

[smooth]

Because that's how markets work. If it is more profitable for them then it is for you, and it will be, they buy it from you. Such a deal is good of you (price is higher than what you would make) and good for them (price is lower than what they will make).

If I were you with your superior 'cryptographic' knowledge, I wouldn't waste another second in trying to break and fully de-anonymise a darksend transaction because that's what you've now staked your entire project's existence on.

Let me know when you've actually read what I wrote.

[illodin]

it is about the the cloud of incompetence and/or fraud.

A lot of coins mined in the beginning because the dev made a mistake in reward calculations and some people doubting whether it was intentional or not must still be better than having no doubt at all that a coin was started by scammers intending and partially succeeding to scam people, like monero was, correct?

[illodin]

I don't believe it can have any confidence of even doing that, because there is a reasonable probability that masternodes will ultimately be owned by corporations in the business of mining data for profit. The whole internet tracking and tracing industry didn't start out that way either, it happened over time because it was profitable. Many early pioneers on the internet were advocates for privacy and individual empowerment, but in reality the internet turned into a massive surveillance machine, not only for the NSA, but for business too. Masternodes are the same.

If you are an individual and have a masternode that is laying golden eggs for the rest of your lifetime, why would you give it up to some corporation?

Because that's how markets work. If it is more profitable for them then it is for you, and it will be, they buy it from you. Such a deal is good for you (price is higher than what you would make) and good for them (price is lower than what they will make).

Wow.. can't wait to become millionaire then. If you really believe that, you should buy a masternode right now.

[smooth]

it is about the the cloud of incompetence and/or fraud.

A lot of coins mined in the beginning because the dev made a mistake in reward calculations and some people doubting whether it was intentional or not must still be better than having no doubt at all that a coin was started by scammers intending and partially succeeding to scam people, like monero was, correct?

It certainly would be if the scammers were still involved. That's why they're not.

I think I said once that if all the original developers and other insiders involved with DRK and the instamine were to leave, it would become much less of an issue. Consider MtGox. Clearly an incompetently and/or fruadulently run operation, one of the worst. But if someone were to take over with new management, there would be no reason not to use it. If Karpeles were still running it...

[Lukas_Jackson]

In fact if you are basing your opinion of the team on the relative few of us who do post on bitcointalk at all you are probably getting a very misleading perception

And what perception should we be getting ? That you guys are prepared to let your project stand on its merits without getting stuck into tribal flamewars or maligning the technical competence of other devs, or "recommending that competing coins be ditched" ?

But as I said you should make up your own mind about which coin(s) to support if any.

Really ? That remark's a bit difficult to square with the propaganda factory of the last few pages such as:

In reality I talk to a lot of people who are considering getting involved with Monero and a few who are evaluating both Monero and DRK, and in practice there is a lot more concern about the DRK instamine

Wrong. There's practically zero concern about the so called "DRK instamine" otherwise it would never have sustained its success and reached a number 5 marketcap more than a year after it was launched. Nor would it have consistently widened its gap over Monero from a factor of 3 a few months ago to nearly 6 now.

When I post on these things I do so as a long-term cryptocurrency enthusiast whose interests go beyond just Monero.

So are we all and believe it or not many of us actually appreciate diversity and the fact that the anonymous 'bandwagon' has several strings to its bow. But the tactics you guys use much of the time don't remotely do justice to that sentiment or the positions your hold within your own project. There doesn't seem to be any other reason for that other than the fact that you've got chips on your shoulders the size of houses over your market recognition deficit.

Like g4q34g4qg47ww, I suggest you try getting on with the job, let the market take care of itself and find some footsoldiers to do your mud-slinging at the competition for you.

They are ''software developers'', ''cryptographers'', ''coders'' and what not, that only ''code'' in English here on bitcointalk all day long

[smooth]

I don't believe it can have any confidence of even doing that, because there is a reasonable probability that masternodes will ultimately be owned by corporations in the business of mining data for profit. The whole internet tracking and tracing industry didn't start out that way either, it happened over time because it was profitable. Many early pioneers on the internet were advocates for privacy and individual empowerment, but in reality the internet turned into a massive surveillance machine, not only for the NSA, but for business too. Masternodes are the same.

If you are an individual and have a masternode that is laying golden eggs for the rest of your lifetime, why would you give it up to some corporation?

Because that's how markets work. If it is more profitable for them then it is for you, and it will be, they buy it from you. Such a deal is good for you (price is higher than what you would make) and good for them (price is lower than what they will make).

Wow.. can't wait to become millionaire then. If you really believe that, you should buy a masternode right now.

You don't really understand economic reasoning very well. If the scenario plays out his way and leads to failure, then it won't play out this way. Its' called backward induction. People will see that corporations taking over masternodes would (or at least could) lead to privacy failure, and flee for a solution that doesn't lead to this failure. Now its possible people could be ignorant or fooled though, and I never said DRK can't be pumped a lot higher. It might very well be a great investment. Technology wise, no, I don't think so.

[Lukas_Jackson]

History is being made and all you guys want to do is fight. Why not fucking work together for a change so we can get crypto out to the world faster? We sure as fuck need it out there.

I'll agree with you on that. I'd in fact like to see DRK succeed rather than having nothing succeed I suppose, but frankly the DRK technology scares me to some extent because it is NSA PRISM 2.0 in my opinion. I'd rather see something, anything, without "nodes" succeed, whether I have a stake in it or not.

So if you turn bitcoin wallet on, does it become a node?

[toknormal]

People will see that corporations taking over masternodes would (or at least could) lead to privacy failure,

Your the one who doesn't "understand economic reasoning very well" with idle scaremongering remarks like that.

For that to happen, corporations would also have to overtake the coin supply which would simply be equivalent to comprehensive buying out of any cryptocurrency. From the perspective of 'security' a masternode isn't a PC, it's a portion of the coin supply.

[smooth]

History is being made and all you guys want to do is fight. Why not fucking work together for a change so we can get crypto out to the world faster? We sure as fuck need it out there.

I'll agree with you on that. I'd in fact like to see DRK succeed rather than having nothing succeed I suppose, but frankly the DRK technology scares me to some extent because it is NSA PRISM 2.0 in my opinion. I'd rather see something, anything, without "nodes" succeed, whether I have a stake in it or not.

So if you turn bitcoin wallet on, does it become a node?

Yes that was obviously a bit too literal saying there should be no nodes at all. Rather silly you would focus on that. What I obviously meant is nodes that others rely on for their privacy.

[smooth]

People will see that corporations taking over masternodes would (or at least could) lead to privacy failure,

Your the one who doesn't "understand economic reasoning very well" with idle scaremongering remarks like that.

For that to happen, corporations would also have to overtake the coin supply which would simply be equivalent to comprehensive buying out of any cryptocurrency. From the perspective of 'security' a masternode isn't a PC, it's a portion of the coin supply.

Masternodes are profit-making businesses. There is no other reason to own one (other than idealism, which I discount in the long term).

Yes it requires a portion of the currency and if that's what it requires, that's what will happen. The argument about it being more profitable for them than to you still applies. If they can pay 1000 DRK and get a real return of say 1% while you only make a real return of 0% or -1% they will find it attractive to run a node while you will find it more attractive to cash out your DRK and go buy an island or something. So same effect.

[Lukas_Jackson]

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?

Directbet now take more bets in DRK than they do in BTC and indeed in any other currency, by value or volume.

Satoshibet adopted Darkcoin last week.

DRK adoption is happening.

Which makes it yet another, highly potential, negitive, media timebomb. Especially in regards to the mass adoption of CRYPTO related currency.

MN are not a viable option, in fact, i think its fair to say its a fools errand for both developers and investors. I predict that it will be busted wide open within the next 10 years with devastating effects to the anon space and CRYPTO trust in general.

The US Justice Department is trying to expand federal powers to search and seize digital data.  

These proposals are never going to stop and the uses for darkcoin are only ever going to strengthen their cases towards allowing such an act to take place by the US and any country. So why build something to compete with, and fuel that. Hence it being a fools errand and far from future proof. Thats my argument anyway.

What left for you, is to lay down on the floor and cry?
Don't be so pessimistic and exhausted

[stonehedge]

Smooth, aren't you a core dev for a coin?  Havent you got more important things to be doing than talking trash on here?

[Lukas_Jackson]

I don't believe it can have any confidence of even doing that, because there is a reasonable probability that masternodes will ultimately be owned by corporations in the business of mining data for profit. The whole internet tracking and tracing industry didn't start out that way either, it happened over time because it was profitable. Many early pioneers on the internet were advocates for privacy and individual empowerment, but in reality the internet turned into a massive surveillance machine, not only for the NSA, but for business too. Masternodes are the same.

If you are an individual and have a masternode that is laying golden eggs for the rest of your lifetime, why would you give it up to some corporation?

Because that's how markets work. If it is more profitable for them then it is for you, and it will be, they buy it from you. Such a deal is good for you (price is higher than what you would make) and good for them (price is lower than what they will make).

Wow.. can't wait to become millionaire then. If you really believe that, you should buy a masternode right now.

You don't really understand economic reasoning very well. If the scenario plays out his way and leads to failure, then it won't play out this way. Its' called backward induction. People will see that corporations taking over masternodes would (or at least could) lead to privacy failure, and flee for a solution that doesn't lead to this failure. Now its possible people could be ignorant or fooled though, and I never said DRK can't be pumped a lot higher. It might very well be a great investment. Technology wise, no, I don't think so.

What a viper. In almost every post you are trying to cut drk head to feel a bit taller.

The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.

[Lukas_Jackson]

History is being made and all you guys want to do is fight. Why not fucking work together for a change so we can get crypto out to the world faster? We sure as fuck need it out there.

I'll agree with you on that. I'd in fact like to see DRK succeed rather than having nothing succeed I suppose, but frankly the DRK technology scares me to some extent because it is NSA PRISM 2.0 in my opinion. I'd rather see something, anything, without "nodes" succeed, whether I have a stake in it or not.

So if you turn bitcoin wallet on, does it become a node?

Yes that was obviously a bit too literal saying there should be no nodes at all. Rather silly you would focus on that. What I obviously meant is nodes that others rely on for their privacy.

Others don't rely on this, yet. Darkcoin is one year old...in heavy development.
Do you see wide adoption already? where?
It is only people who see something big happening and take the risk.
In a few years from now, you will be still here ''coding'' at bitcointalk