Denomination should ALWAYS be
5
2
1
1
[1]
and the last 1
split into
5
2
1
1
[1]
and so on.
and you just give a depth.
//explanation
you dakrsend 100DRK with a depth of 3:
50, 20, 10, 10, 5, 2, 1, 1, 0.5, 0.2, 0.1, 0.1
wich meens your funds will be mixed with the 50ts and twentys and tens of the guy who darksends his 1000DRK.
no more "i m mixing 1000DRK, can somebody please do the same"
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 3541. (Read 9723733 times)
November 11, 2014, 02:18:28 AM
November 11, 2014, 01:01:49 AM
Sorry to interrupt this awesome display of DRK-itude but THIS is the short-term bottom.
0.0073 within 12 hours, 0.0079 within 24 hours.
Carry on.
JL
0.0073 within 12 hours, 0.0079 within 24 hours.
Carry on.
JL
Well, we bounced off the 50% fibonacci retracement of the move from .0048, so I agree with you here.
November 11, 2014, 12:59:13 AM
solution 3 is fine with me, just dont reference to it as ''subscriptions'' as i really dont like to see Darkcoin get pushed into some kind
of subscription model .. locking people in and possibly driving people away from Darkcoin.
Instead see them for what they are, costs in the form of fees to keep our system secure and safe.
of subscription model .. locking people in and possibly driving people away from Darkcoin.
Instead see them for what they are, costs in the form of fees to keep our system secure and safe.
November 11, 2014, 12:58:18 AM
I would say that we are trending towards a Solution #3 consensus :-D
I've been following this closely waiting to see if the aspect of this I don't understand gets answered; but it hasn't so I'll ask now:
Quote
Pay per round of Darksend, in a separate transaction, paid directly to the miners as a fee. The masternodes would hold on to them and publish them later on. To double spend attack this, you would need to pay the miners more fees, so it's impossible to double spend against and it's timing attack resistant.
What does "paid directly to the miners as a fee" practically involve? By that I mean miners are using their hash to solve blocks. The network then automatically allocates 25% to a masternode (that enforcement has now tightened up very well). What's involved in masternodes sending these DarkSend fees to miners? Would there be a reverse process to the one that sees MNs collecting 25% so that now miners are arbitrarily selected (via their known wallet addresses) and the fees are evenly distributed? If "masternodes would hold on to them and publish them later on" is there random and varying amounts of time between the user undertaking a DarkSend denom and the MN that performed the work "publishing"?
I'd like to get further understanding of how all this is envisaged. I'd think there's potential for further difficulties or anomalies in this area (and if miners start expecting a certain amount of payments every few days we'll have a similar challenges with them claiming they're not getting their fair share of fees as we've had with MN owners).
November 11, 2014, 12:49:58 AM
DRK Team Tips - Crowd Funding
Over the last few months I've realised how much hard work goes into development and testing by the Dark team and prominent members of the community. In many cases, lots of personal time and financial resources are contributed to testing and infrastructure of this project.
I'm running a crowd funding exercise for 1 week, as follows:
8th November 2014 - 15th November 2014
DRK Donation Address: Xcd1fuEWooU8QAHDQnpnapqkF9ri8KopNj
At the end of the week, I will be sending the funds to Fernando (Darkcoin Foundation Member) to distribute amongst the team and the community.
So if you would like to show your appreciation for the fantastic work that's being done within the Darkcoin project, please send our unsung heroes a beer or two, I'll get the ball rolling with 25 DRK.
Thanks in advance and feel free to bump this often
Over the last few months I've realised how much hard work goes into development and testing by the Dark team and prominent members of the community. In many cases, lots of personal time and financial resources are contributed to testing and infrastructure of this project.
I'm running a crowd funding exercise for 1 week, as follows:
8th November 2014 - 15th November 2014
DRK Donation Address: Xcd1fuEWooU8QAHDQnpnapqkF9ri8KopNj
At the end of the week, I will be sending the funds to Fernando (Darkcoin Foundation Member) to distribute amongst the team and the community.
So if you would like to show your appreciation for the fantastic work that's being done within the Darkcoin project, please send our unsung heroes a beer or two, I'll get the ball rolling with 25 DRK.
Thanks in advance and feel free to bump this often
We are at 129 DRK, lets keep this wonderful momentum going!
129 ... come on guys, we can do better than that !
that is only 1 Beer + 1 Shot per Dev Team member,
i think they are much more thirsty than that !!!
...>
Bumpity
November 11, 2014, 12:03:19 AM
I'm not 100% against the idea of subscriptions, i guess the foundation can do its bit and get some T&Cs together and limit the network's liability to the fee - you would have to agree to the T&Cs before you could use the service.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
The "subscription" could be paid to the miners. In that case, you're paying the mining fees, just all at once. That gets us pretty close to how it works currently.
Solution 3:
Pay per round of Darksend, in a separate transaction, paid directly to the miners as a fee. The masternodes would hold on to them and publish them later on. To double spend attack this, you would need to pay the miners more fees, so it's impossible to double spend against and it's timing attack resistant.
I like the solution #3.
As long as it's called ANYTHING except "subscription". Regulators, Trolls, NaySayers will have a field day with that term.
November 10, 2014, 11:46:00 PM
I'm not 100% against the idea of subscriptions, i guess the foundation can do its bit and get some T&Cs together and limit the network's liability to the fee - you would have to agree to the T&Cs before you could use the service.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
The "subscription" could be paid to the miners. In that case, you're paying the mining fees, just all at once. That gets us pretty close to how it works currently.
Solution 3:
Pay per round of Darksend, in a separate transaction, paid directly to the miners as a fee. The masternodes would hold on to them and publish them later on. To double spend attack this, you would need to pay the miners more fees, so it's impossible to double spend against and it's timing attack resistant.
I like the solution #3.
November 10, 2014, 11:40:18 PM
Except wave 4 shouldn't penetrate the termination of wave 1.
Numbers are simply reference points, not Elliott Wave. November 10, 2014, 11:38:42 PM
Except wave 4 shouldn't penetrate the termination of wave 1.
November 10, 2014, 11:33:17 PM
****REFERENCE THIS POST 1 WEEK FROM TODAY****
Chart on top is a very small snippet from another asset's chart where I have seen this pattern DRK is in before. DRK chart for last 24 hours or so is on bottom. The referencing chart on top isn't to be used as a direct perfect picture of the future but is a general guideline.
And in general it's saying that we've got a little more rally left but are going to do a short-term top in the lower-.008 region in the next 24-48 hours and then proceed to consolidate, perhaps in a triangular pattern for 2-5 days before.....
All I'll say is I've just sent in a bunch of fiat and have locked in these soon-to-be-ridiculously low prices.
I might post the next small snippet next week. We'll see.
JL
Chart on top is a very small snippet from another asset's chart where I have seen this pattern DRK is in before. DRK chart for last 24 hours or so is on bottom. The referencing chart on top isn't to be used as a direct perfect picture of the future but is a general guideline.
And in general it's saying that we've got a little more rally left but are going to do a short-term top in the lower-.008 region in the next 24-48 hours and then proceed to consolidate, perhaps in a triangular pattern for 2-5 days before.....
All I'll say is I've just sent in a bunch of fiat and have locked in these soon-to-be-ridiculously low prices.
I might post the next small snippet next week. We'll see.
JL
We're now about halfway between those first two vertical gray time-lines, which means we have one more good rally ahead of us, probably to .0084 is my guess.
Don't think we've seen short-term top yet before 2-5 day consolidation begins.
JL
.0084 reached...Short term top in, or just about to be in within next 12-24 hours is my guess. 10% down and overall consolidation for next couple days now?
JL
Another short-term top anyone? (Perhaps the 'final' short-term one before a pullback?)
Buy all dips, folks. Trust me, I'll post what happens next in the above chart and a doubling of price after this consolidation isn't far-fetched.
Edit: just saw that bobsurplus is here now, so there's your pumper. They're basically going to be buying quietly here over the next couple days.
JL
Short-term bottom could be in place. Next target according to above chart would be 0.008 before heading back down here and then........
Time to update this graph...this time showing DRK's price large and the 'mystery asset' chart small.
We are at Point 4 on DRK/BTC and in the mystery asset.
=
Bottom now
Don't know how else to spell this shit out better than this.
JL
November 10, 2014, 11:29:43 PM
Sorry to interrupt this awesome display of DRK-itude but THIS is the short-term bottom.
0.0073 within 12 hours, 0.0079 within 24 hours.
Carry on.
JL
Oh Re-e-e-e-al-l-l-l-ly!? (already 0.0067) 0.0073 within 12 hours, 0.0079 within 24 hours.
Carry on.
JL
Mmm...yes, we haven't had any announcement that Evan's cracked cold fusion AND faster than the speed of light travel today so the price is coming off the boil. I've seen fickle investment sentiment in various markets in my time but crypto is ridiculous! Unless there's something earth shattering every few hours people lose interest and go off to look for new more dazzling flashing lights somewhere else.
November 10, 2014, 11:15:08 PM
Sorry to interrupt this awesome display of DRK-itude but THIS is the short-term bottom.
0.0073 within 12 hours, 0.0079 within 24 hours.
Carry on.
JL
Oh Re-e-e-e-al-l-l-l-ly!? (already 0.0067) 0.0073 within 12 hours, 0.0079 within 24 hours.
Carry on.
JL
November 10, 2014, 11:08:18 PM
Sorry to interrupt this awesome display of DRK-itude but THIS is the short-term bottom.
0.0073 within 12 hours, 0.0079 within 24 hours.
Carry on.
JL
0.0073 within 12 hours, 0.0079 within 24 hours.
Carry on.
JL
November 10, 2014, 11:04:34 PM
I'm not 100% against the idea of subscriptions, i guess the foundation can do its bit and get some T&Cs together and limit the network's liability to the fee - you would have to agree to the T&Cs before you could use the service.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
The "subscription" could be paid to the miners. In that case, you're paying the mining fees, just all at once. That gets us pretty close to how it works currently.
Solution 3:
Pay per round of Darksend, in a separate transaction, paid directly to the miners as a fee. The masternodes would hold on to them and publish them later on. To double spend attack this, you would need to pay the miners more fees, so it's impossible to double spend against and it's timing attack resistant.
Bingo - Happy with this solution! - all you had to do was step away from the keyboard for a bit
November 10, 2014, 10:31:03 PM
I'm not 100% against the idea of subscriptions, i guess the foundation can do its bit and get some T&Cs together and limit the network's liability to the fee - you would have to agree to the T&Cs before you could use the service.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
The "subscription" could be paid to the miners. In that case, you're paying the mining fees, just all at once. That gets us pretty close to how it works currently.
Solution 3:
Pay per round of Darksend, in a separate transaction, paid directly to the miners as a fee. The masternodes would hold on to them and publish them later on. To double spend attack this, you would need to pay the miners more fees, so it's impossible to double spend against and it's timing attack resistant.
This sounds awesome.
November 10, 2014, 10:16:31 PM
I'm not 100% against the idea of subscriptions, i guess the foundation can do its bit and get some T&Cs together and limit the network's liability to the fee - you would have to agree to the T&Cs before you could use the service.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
But, its moving away from the idea of cash and into the concept of banking.
The "subscription" could be paid to the miners. In that case, you're paying the mining fees, just all at once. That gets us pretty close to how it works currently.
Solution 3:
Pay per round of Darksend, in a separate transaction, paid directly to the miners as a fee. The masternodes would hold on to them and publish them later on. To double spend attack this, you would need to pay the miners more fees, so it's impossible to double spend against and it's timing attack resistant.
November 10, 2014, 10:14:34 PM
Fees for Darksend time seem less useful than fees for Darksend amounts. Depending on how many people are anonymising their DRK, 24hrs may or may not be enough, but if you could pay a fixed fee upfront to anonymise a fixed amount of DRK, that would be better IMO.
Solution 1: Fixed Fee Session Model
You enter how many DRK you wish to anonymize and it calculates the fee and will give you access to the masternode network until your set amount of DRK has been anonymized to your requested number of rounds. After that you are locked out and need to pay the fee again to access the masternodes based on how many DRK you want to mix.
This way its a guaranteed delivery of service. However I think it has a major drawback...There might be a way that the fixed fee could be tracked to your mixing input (as its fixed and needs to be tied with your input signature) and compromise your anonymity.
Solution 2: Subscription Model
As I see it the subscription model will just give you a "token" to say you can mix whatever you want for X period of time and not tie your inputs to that subscription hence upholding anonymity. Drawback here is if there isnt enough liquidity during the time period you have been granted, you risk not matching inputs and spending 0.1DRK for nothing. Although talking with Evan the liquidity will solve itself over time as more users mix.
Not sure if ive been smoking too much but let me know if im way off
Solution 1: How do you prove you haven't been other mixes anonymously? I don't think you can.
November 10, 2014, 10:13:17 PM
A fringe idea thrown in here.
What if someone else
is randomly chosen to pay for your darksend fee?
So you the recipient would owe this guy some money, but he wouldn't know who it is that he payed the first darksend-round-fee for?
And somehow this guy will get his fee payed back after the other guy finished the darksend mixing process?
What if someone else
is randomly chosen to pay for your darksend fee?So you the recipient would owe this guy some money, but he wouldn't know who it is that he payed the first darksend-round-fee for?
And somehow this guy will get his fee payed back after the other guy finished the darksend mixing process?
1 of the 3 participants could pay everyone's fees (not sure if you could game that though) or the masternode could pay the fees.
November 10, 2014, 10:11:30 PM
Hmm I wonder if there is a way to use transaction locking to help with randomizing the fees. Have the number of blocks that the fees are frozen for be a randomized number between 3 and 8. The fee is not spendable anymore and will be deducted, but the transaction is off chain until the randomized amount of time? My brain hurts.
You could still monitor the lock messages, and doing a timing attack. But that data wouldn't be in the blockchain. It's a bit better, but it's still attackable.
November 10, 2014, 10:03:06 PM
Hmm I wonder if there is a way to use transaction locking to help with randomizing the fees. Have the number of blocks that the fees are frozen for be a randomized number between 3 and 8. The fee is not spendable anymore and will be deducted, but the transaction is off chain until the randomized amount of time? My brain hurts.
Very interesting idea...
Jump to: