Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 4741. (Read 9723844 times)

Ahh, I see where your hangup is now. You misunderstand how MNs work.

The masternode doesn't leave a trace on the transactions, there is no way to determine whether a tx was related to a masternode or not.

Essentially you are sending a 1 DRK output from a tainted address and get 1 DRK back to a different address, however it is in your wallet (but your wallet only exists in your client, it is not public, and old keys can be deleted). The masternode simply facilitates this transfer.

Hope he doesn't decide to take it upon himself to Open Source it against Evan's will...

Of course, that's why it's called casual...

Casual == Plausible, and nothing stops a government, especially one already operating under the premise, to substitute Plausible Cause for Probable Cause.

I still think that my red chunks example still applies... Since I can differentiate between an MN and a Client by noting that one doesn't ever perform a TX and one does, there really is no mixing... Thus, I can aggregate the signatures that match each other to find the total value of the TX.

Then, I wait for it to come out the other end. Even if I have to use a different metric to find the aggregate value, I can still do it... Even if it's not a certainty, I can still use it as a plausible excuse to kill people and get away with it if I'm wearing a Badge and Uniform. Sure, it's Plausible Deniability. But it's also Plausible Cause, which used to be called Probable Cause. If they know you're into cryptocurrency, they want you dead anyway, so it's just the excuse they need... Say it was another crazy with child pron "barricaded in the residence." Once you're dead, they can make up any story they want...

Even outside of this, we're only faux-mixing to 0.001... That's a unique quantity of 1xxxxx Duffs that hangs around like a fingerprint forever... I realize you can't mix every Duff, but it needs to be a less unique number...

When they arrive at their destination, they get automagically laundered into zero-history addresses there too, is my possibly erroneous understanding. At least, they do before they get sent onwards. Fractions are denominated down to 0.001 I think eltito said and the dust is fed to miners.

As long as nobody has access to your wallet.dat (and hopefully it will be password/PIN protected anyway in RC4) you're good, excepting the dark hole and rusty pliers scenario.

No causal link is provable except by your own admission, either voluntary or coerced.

I think that this will be an issue with any currency that uses a blockchain. You'll always be able to scan addresses at different points in time and try to make a match.

Each of those units from which the 150 aggregate is made looks like this:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+10+10+10+10+10+10... You get the idea. It adds up to the 150.

But, each one was either signed or TXed, wasn't it?

So, I can pick out, using that metric, where those individual chunks came from:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5+10+10+10+10+10+10...

So, it's not a blind 150 input! They had to prove to the network that they had a claim to those chunks they sent in, right? Otherwise anyone could just spend all the coin they wanted! They sign it. I can sign every message I post on this forum with my PGP key. Every sig will look different, but PGP will tell YOU that they match my pubkey, which I gave you. It's a pubkey...

We can tell that ever red chunk belongs to the same sender. Aggregate the red chunks, we have the total value.

We wait for X blocks, ignoring the mix altogether.

There will be a future TX in which we can aggregate this value again, and it'll also be going to a common pubkey/address which we can find the same way! The address has to be put in the blockchain, doesn't it? It doesn't stay unknown to the network AFTER it gets used, that'd unravel the whole game...

Currently, we know it will be 8 cycles or less, so that makes it way easier to find than if we had no idea.

I'm suggesting a way to blur that. Whether my idea for blurring that be a good one or not, I don't know. I just know it needs to be blurred.

I think I'll live with that one thanks (just before people start suggesting that the receiver gets "a different number of coins" than was sent in order to obfuscate the transaction completely     )

Back.

Alright camo, you're missing the point.  Let me illustrate it:

Person A: 100 DRK balance wants to send 32 DRK to Person B.

For example, Person A has a wallet made up of one single transaction, a 100 DRK output. This single output will be denominated into multiple outputs, each with their own pub/priv address. It is still possible to link transactions at this point.

Next, each of these denominated outputs are put into the MN cycle. You do not get the same input back, someone else does. Now, you get 100 DRK back which has no relationship to your previous balance, in denominated form and a bunch of pub/priv keys. The wallet takes care of all that for you, you still see the balance of 100 DRK, the wallet abstracts the fact that this may be made up of hundreds of different addresses and pub/priv keys.

Ideally, this process happens over time, not the moment you want to send the money. And based on mix depth, it may cycles through many times.

So now I want to send the money. I send 32 DRK to person B. In constructing the transaction, my wallet will put together a mix of the now numerous outputs which makes up my wallet and creates a transaction with those outputs acting as the inputs, which is sent to the network, and now those coins are attributed to person B as one single output.

At this point, a and b cannot be linked. If, however, you had a balance of 37.5456 coins, anonymized them to a bunch of addresses, and then sent the whole lot of them to a new address, a causal link could then be made.

The last one who did that to me learned not a damn thing from it; the dead don't learn.

When the thugs kick you door down and put a gun to your head, whatever cryptography you've employed is irrelevant, you're screwed unless you have dirt on someone important.

Darkcoin/Darksend is just one tool in the box, no one tool is going to save you.

'They' don't need any proof to stick you in a hole forever. They just declare you an enemy of the state and disappear you, then the pliers come out and you'll give them everything they want to know in seconds.

So tool up, with lots of different tools...  

What I'm saying is that if 150 DRK from different sources goes in at hop 1, unless the exact same amount goes back out at hop 3/4/5/6/7, I'm not sure I understand how they can be associated.  You'd have non-associated inputs at hop 2, 3, 4, 5 and outputs which may or may not be associated at 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.  Actually, even if 150 DRK did go back out at hop 7, given the other inputs at different mixing depths input at 2/3/4/5, how could you prove that it wasn't a coincidental permutation of some combination of inputs from hops 1,2,3,4 and 5?

$500/drk, no begging necessary.

Can I have some of what your taking?

It isn't, initially.

You have to de-focus from the process and look at it as a historical recording; which the blockchain is.

It breaks the single-metric method of forming the aggregate. You have to use one method to find the number on the sigs, then another in the txes... But the aggregate still matches up close enough for a no-knock warrant.

And, it's also not guaranteed to be accurate. But, "close enough" for those applying the scrutiny... You paid for the flashbang they'll use on you... No concern of theirs... If they take your kids and force you to reveal your private keys under threat of killing them, then the anon isn't good enough, is it? Anon has to be good enough to keep it from coming to that. I have no wish to troll on DRK. I know of only a handful of people who are hodling more of it than I am. I want it to be the best it can be, and when I see what I think is a hole, I want to talk about it...

The fuckers get desperate enough, you're a fool to think they won't go that far. Building Code is already designed to make the home into a weapon against it's occupants; especially those too stupid to realize it's the opposite of keeping you safe... Much better houses can be built literally from dirt for almost free... Notice your Home Owners' Insurance says that you house is a Class 4 Fire Hazard... I know that's a bit off topic, but it speaks to the mentality of the people in government, they're fucking evil beyond mortal description. They're already using your loved ones to extort you. What's one more step?

I think your missing the point with the EU thing.

Currency like the Euro are going to collapse. Bitcoin Darkcoin will replace these relics once the reset comes. Governments will have to beg us for money, as they can't just take it anymore. (Optimistic) maybe, but perfectly plausible

Camo, would the aggregate correlation method you have detailed rely on a single transaction per block scenario?
Ie if there are multiple individual transactions all mixed in each block in blockchain how would any meaningful correlation from TX to RX be possible?

I'm also looking...

Almost there...

Are you saying that there is actually only one TX involved?

A sig MN1 sig MN2 sig MN3 tx B?
or
A tx MN2 sig MN2 sig MN3 sig B?

That is certainly foggier, but it still seems an aggregate correlation can occur... I just have to mix metrics in the middle. Use sig aggregation at the sig entry or exit to find aggregate total, look at the total tx... Hmm... I like where this is going...

Once the process is finished, the blockain is essentially static for that TX. If you use one metric to find the sig aggregate, and another metric to find the tx aggregate, you still have an aggregate that matches.

I do agree that it's not absolute proof that A sent X to B. But it's damn close enough for government work... If they find that much, they'll find a way to take that money you're not giving them when they change the laws to give themselves more of what's your's again...

It may not be a crime to save money today, but as we see from the EU, it's on the menu...

It doesn't matter if you look at it from the font end or back end. It doesn't matter if you DON'T use the same metric on both ends... If the aggregate aggregates, close enough; flashbang through your bedroom window at 3am.

Even he agrees there's no mathematical proof to it, but that's not really the point.