Not even 5 masternodes on the available listed sell side (of mintpal's orderbook).
and???
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 4063. (Read 9723787 times)
September 16, 2014, 06:00:55 PM
and???
September 16, 2014, 05:55:45 PM
Code review looking positive
September 16, 2014, 05:55:36 PM
Ahhh Evan I`m not a gey 
but I love you 
RC5 - Spork Ahead!
Development has been moving along consistently and we’re almost ready to launch. We’re going to be launching RC5 on the 22nd (Next Monday).
Instant Transactions
We’re working on a paper describing the instant transaction system, expect that on Friday. We’ll also have more announcements and very detailed development update coming later this week.
What's included and what's the plan?
RC5 has a basic version of enforcement built into it that when activated will guarantee masternode payments are present in a block. So far, testing has proven the code is working and we're in the process of working out some of the final issues with it. The code is very simple and when activated the network will simply reject blocks from pools that have not updated.
Open Source
Darksend will be open sourced one week after RC5 has been released, September 29th. This will allow updates if needed before the code is released.
What's Next?
Darksend is working really nicely with no pressing issues presently. I would like to take some time and implement the Instant Transaction system immediately following release or RC5.
-Evan
but I love you RC5 - Spork Ahead!
Development has been moving along consistently and we’re almost ready to launch. We’re going to be launching RC5 on the 22nd (Next Monday).
Instant Transactions
We’re working on a paper describing the instant transaction system, expect that on Friday. We’ll also have more announcements and very detailed development update coming later this week.
What's included and what's the plan?
RC5 has a basic version of enforcement built into it that when activated will guarantee masternode payments are present in a block. So far, testing has proven the code is working and we're in the process of working out some of the final issues with it. The code is very simple and when activated the network will simply reject blocks from pools that have not updated.
Open Source
Darksend will be open sourced one week after RC5 has been released, September 29th. This will allow updates if needed before the code is released.
What's Next?
Darksend is working really nicely with no pressing issues presently. I would like to take some time and implement the Instant Transaction system immediately following release or RC5.
-Evan
September 16, 2014, 05:46:19 PM
Not even 5 masternodes on the available listed sell side (of mintpal's orderbook).
September 16, 2014, 05:44:28 PM
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launching-september-22nd.2382/
RC5 - Spork Ahead!
Development has been moving along consistently and we’re almost ready to launch. We’re going to be launching RC5 on the 22nd (Next Monday).
Instant Transactions
We’re working on a paper describing the instant transaction system, expect that on Friday. We’ll also have more announcements and very detailed development update coming later this week.
What's included and what's the plan?
RC5 has a basic version of enforcement built into it that when activated will guarantee masternode payments are present in a block. So far, testing has proven the code is working and we're in the process of working out some of the final issues with it. The code is very simple and when activated the network will simply reject blocks from pools that have not updated.
Open Source
Darksend will be open sourced one week after RC5 has been released, September 29th. This will allow updates if needed before the code is released.
What's Next?
Darksend is working really nicely with no pressing issues presently. I would like to take some time and implement the Instant Transaction system immediately following release or RC5.
-Evan
RC5 - Spork Ahead!
Development has been moving along consistently and we’re almost ready to launch. We’re going to be launching RC5 on the 22nd (Next Monday).
Instant Transactions
We’re working on a paper describing the instant transaction system, expect that on Friday. We’ll also have more announcements and very detailed development update coming later this week.
What's included and what's the plan?
RC5 has a basic version of enforcement built into it that when activated will guarantee masternode payments are present in a block. So far, testing has proven the code is working and we're in the process of working out some of the final issues with it. The code is very simple and when activated the network will simply reject blocks from pools that have not updated.
Open Source
Darksend will be open sourced one week after RC5 has been released, September 29th. This will allow updates if needed before the code is released.
What's Next?
Darksend is working really nicely with no pressing issues presently. I would like to take some time and implement the Instant Transaction system immediately following release or RC5.
-Evan
Great news! Thank you so much!
Darkcoin has got great Devs and a wonderful community.
We're the best!
September 16, 2014, 05:43:21 PM
How is using a name such as Darkmix any different from Coinjoin... they are synonyms (mix and join).
I'm not referring to DarkMix, explicitly.
Collecting multiples coins of the same denominations and mixing them is not a concept within CoinJoin specifically. This implementation is specific to Darkcoin. So we are allowing CoinJoin to be credited with something it never considered.....
CoinJoin refers more to joining transactions as they are being spent. There is no reference to the network of master nodes, or incentives to establish those nodes from the mining process, etc.
The whole thing needs a conceptually wrapper - no single aspect works without the whole picture being framed around a concept.
Again, we are not in any sort of disagreement here.
September 16, 2014, 05:39:31 PM
How is using a name such as Darkmix any different from Coinjoin... they are synonyms (mix and join).
I'm not referring to DarkMix, explicitly.
Collecting multiple coins of the same denominations and mixing them is not a concept within CoinJoin specifically. This implementation is specific to Darkcoin. So we are allowing CoinJoin to be credited with something it never considered.....
CoinJoin refers more to joining transactions as they are being spent. There is no reference to the network of master nodes, or incentives to establish those nodes from the mining process, etc.
The whole thing needs a conceptually wrapper - no single aspect works without the whole picture being framed around a concept.
edit
Crytonote uses mixing too. Yet conceptually, that is not CoinJoin, why?
September 16, 2014, 05:31:45 PM
I won't clutter up much more.
Just be careful of those that will label Darkcoin an implementation of CoinJoin, someone else's idea. That removes Darkcoin from the equation.
Mull that over when all the clones are busy erasing Darkcoin's contributions from history, in the same way they have removed the historic links to X11 and DGW.
This ain't about point scoring, this is trying to find some way to retain value when you can't use IPR or Patent laws.
Just be careful of those that will label Darkcoin an implementation of CoinJoin, someone else's idea. That removes Darkcoin from the equation.
Mull that over when all the clones are busy erasing Darkcoin's contributions from history, in the same way they have removed the historic links to X11 and DGW.
This ain't about point scoring, this is trying to find some way to retain value when you can't use IPR or Patent laws.
No one is arguing with you that Darksend =/= coinjoin. We are arguing the idea behind changing the name that still represents the process of private transfers. While we know it is a form of mixing, these coins are being mixed in common numbers by users sending their coins. Darksend still can be representative of this process. How is using a name such as Darkmix any different from Coinjoin... they are synonyms (mix and join).
September 16, 2014, 05:26:28 PM
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launching-september-22nd.2382/
RC5 - Spork Ahead!
Development has been moving along consistently and we’re almost ready to launch. We’re going to be launching RC5 on the 22nd (Next Monday).
Instant Transactions
We’re working on a paper describing the instant transaction system, expect that on Friday. We’ll also have more announcements and very detailed development update coming later this week.
What's included and what's the plan?
RC5 has a basic version of enforcement built into it that when activated will guarantee masternode payments are present in a block. So far, testing has proven the code is working and we're in the process of working out some of the final issues with it. The code is very simple and when activated the network will simply reject blocks from pools that have not updated.
Open Source
Darksend will be open sourced one week after RC5 has been released, September 29th. This will allow updates if needed before the code is released.
What's Next?
Darksend is working really nicely with no pressing issues presently. I would like to take some time and implement the Instant Transaction system immediately following release or RC5.
-Evan
RC5 - Spork Ahead!
Development has been moving along consistently and we’re almost ready to launch. We’re going to be launching RC5 on the 22nd (Next Monday).
Instant Transactions
We’re working on a paper describing the instant transaction system, expect that on Friday. We’ll also have more announcements and very detailed development update coming later this week.
What's included and what's the plan?
RC5 has a basic version of enforcement built into it that when activated will guarantee masternode payments are present in a block. So far, testing has proven the code is working and we're in the process of working out some of the final issues with it. The code is very simple and when activated the network will simply reject blocks from pools that have not updated.
Open Source
Darksend will be open sourced one week after RC5 has been released, September 29th. This will allow updates if needed before the code is released.
What's Next?
Darksend is working really nicely with no pressing issues presently. I would like to take some time and implement the Instant Transaction system immediately following release or RC5.
-Evan
September 16, 2014, 05:24:08 PM
DarkSend is a good name and explains what the overall concept is very well.
It's fine as a name. But it doesn't explain the concept.
Try explaining it to someone without using the words CoinJoin - a concept which doesn't work
...yet the denomination process is users sending coins of common denominations to one another, round after round.
I won't clutter up much more.
Just be careful of those that will label Darkcoin an implementation of CoinJoin, someone else's idea. That removes Darkcoin from the equation.
Mull that over when all the clones are busy erasing Darkcoin's contributions from history, in the same way they have removed the historic links to X11 and DGW.
This ain't about point scoring, this is trying to find some way to retain value when you can't use IPR or Patent laws.
September 16, 2014, 05:18:39 PM
Awesome news 
September 16, 2014, 05:12:14 PM
I've updated the post with information about future plans, enforcement and open sourcing:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launching-september-22nd.2382/
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launching-september-22nd.2382/
Yeehaw!
Open source Sept. 29th.
September 16, 2014, 05:11:07 PM
DarkSend is a good name and explains what the overall concept is very well.
It's fine as a name. But it doesn't explain the concept.
Try explaining it to someone without using the words CoinJoin - a concept which doesn't work
...yet the denomination process is users sending coins of common denominations to one another, round after round.
September 16, 2014, 05:08:50 PM
I've updated the post with information about future plans, enforcement and open sourcing:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launching-september-22nd.2382/
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launching-september-22nd.2382/
And there you have it.
September 16, 2014, 05:07:38 PM
DarkSend is a good name and explains what the overall concept is very well.
It's fine as a name. But it doesn't explain the concept.
Try explaining it to someone without using the words CoinJoin - a concept which doesn't work
...yet the denomination process is users sending coins of common denominations to one another, round after round.
September 16, 2014, 05:06:26 PM
I've updated the post with information about future plans, enforcement and open sourcing:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launching-september-22nd.2382/
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc5-launching-september-22nd.2382/
September 16, 2014, 05:03:58 PM
DarkSend is a good name and explains what the overall concept is very well.
It's fine as a name. But it doesn't explain the concept.
Try explaining it to someone without using the words CoinJoin - a concept which doesn't work
September 16, 2014, 05:01:28 PM
Just one more reason to give it a name that actually describes it... By it's very name, DarkSend is feeding the trolls exactly what they need to undermine it.
I disagree. I'm sure many on here have read your passionate argument for changing the name of DarkSend because you feel it doesn't describe what it actually is and does, however, to then make a jump to a conclusion that the name DarkSend is feeding trolls is a conclusion I don't think is correct or provable.
I think the name DarkSend is perfectly valid, has been in use for a considerable period of time now (in the scheme of things) and, to me, conveys exactly what this is all about. It's for sending money "darkly", invisibly, anonymously, privately. The fact that there are some steps to achieving the goal of sending money "darkly" (i.e. you mix first then choose to use those coins later when you want to make an anonymous payment) I think is irrelevant. DarkSend covers the whole ground of what DarkCoin is about and what it offers. I honestly think you're bringing confusion and doubt into the discussion because you're so besotted on the need for DarkSend's name to be changed to attempt to explain the mixing process followed by the send process but it's just not necessary Camo. We all understand what you're getting at but it's a brand name, it doesn't have to explain itself to a specific level of function and process any more than Apple had to initially explain that iTunes was not a collection of midi files of your favourite pieces of recorded music, it's actually the music in MP3 and covers everything from pop music to classical to audio podcasts; a whole lot more than "tunes".
Many people on here have said this (DarkSend name change) needs to be dropped but you're now pushing a continual line that it's a big problem and FUDers are going to leverage off it. I really think you need to consider what your true motive is and why you just can't accept what the majority think is the best course of action. Is it because you're just "so much more intelligent" than the majority? You bring many good points to this discussion but you're also one of the most obnoxious self-centred arrogant and pig-headed individuals on this thread. On this DarkSend naming question, I think you need to hold your tongue.
I still think we should have three terms to denote a three-step process:
DarkSplit--Denomination Phase
DarkMix--Mixing Process
DarkSend--Sending money to others
It's too confusing....
Taking my iTunes analogy a little further, there's no way Apple would have split that up into:
iTuneLibrary
iTuneSync
iTunePay
yet iTunes has a number of functions within it that are catered for in different ways. The ultimate purpose of it is to provide a platform and ecosystem for delivery of content in a manner that users of the service find useful across many devices and that Apple makes a large profit from.
DarkSend is a good name and explains what the overall concept is very well.
September 16, 2014, 04:59:25 PM
Just one more reason to give it a name that actually describes it... By it's very name, DarkSend is feeding the trolls exactly what they need to undermine it.
I think you need to hold your tongue.Yeah, good luck with that.
Darksend is written into the code. It won't be changed.
Conceptually, CoinJoin doesn't work.
The only way to make it work is to extend out to a decentralised group of mixers and to mix when people least need to carry out transactions - which is probably 80% of the time. This is a concept that is way beyond what was originally considered, and never put into practice because it doesn't work.
Darkcoin privacy ain't CoinJoin.
So, conceptually, what is it?
September 16, 2014, 04:54:52 PM
Just one more reason to give it a name that actually describes it... By it's very name, DarkSend is feeding the trolls exactly what they need to undermine it.
I disagree. I'm sure many on here have read your passionate argument for changing the name of DarkSend because you feel it doesn't describe what it actually is and does, however, to then make a jump to a conclusion that the name DarkSend is feeding trolls is a conclusion I don't think is correct or provable.
I think the name DarkSend is perfectly valid, has been in use for a considerable period of time now (in the scheme of things) and, to me, conveys exactly what this is all about. It's for sending money "darkly", invisibly, anonymously, privately. The fact that there are some steps to achieving the goal of sending money "darkly" (i.e. you mix first then choose to use those coins later when you want to make an anonymous payment) I think is irrelevant. DarkSend covers the whole ground of what DarkCoin is about and what it offers. I honestly think you're bringing confusion and doubt into the discussion because you're so besotted on the need for DarkSend's name to be changed to attempt to explain the mixing process followed by the send process but it's just not necessary Camo. We all understand what you're getting at but it's a brand name, it doesn't have to explain itself to a specific level of function and process any more than Apple had to initially explain that iTunes was not a collection of midi files of your favourite pieces of recorded music, it's actually the music in MP3 and covers everything from pop music to classical to audio podcasts; a whole lot more than "tunes".
Many people on here have said this (DarkSend name change) needs to be dropped but you're now pushing a continual line that it's a big problem and FUDers are going to leverage off it. I really think you need to consider what your true motive is and why you just can't accept what the majority think is the best course of action. Is it because you're just "so much more intelligent" than the majority? You bring many good points to this discussion but you're also one of the most obnoxious self-centred arrogant and pig-headed individuals on this thread. On this DarkSend naming question, I think you need to hold your tongue.
I still think we should have three terms to denote a three-step process:
DarkSplit--Denomination Phase
DarkMix--Mixing Process
DarkSend--Sending money to others
Jump to: