Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 4744. (Read 9723832 times)

In your previous post you said, "There's too much information." Sure, there's all the information you can shake a stick at and it all looks exactly the same. You can see a bunch of denominated amounts shifting about but there's no way of knowing which particular chunk belongs to which particular transaction.

No way to know how much was sent, how much was received, except for the parties concerned. Any observer is presented with a whole load of identical fuck-all happening between a bunch of zero-history addresses. 

The ones that could help you relocate I think would be Evan and team, this is a very recent announcement the other posters don’t have enough information to address your concerns.  I guess we will have to wait a bit but you are asking interesting questions I am taking notes for future reference.

You won't be able to tell that the change addresses from which A sends belong to A. So you'll see that B received X coins, but there's no way to link A and B. When you open your wallet, your DRK will be sent ,in denominated amounts, to change addresses you control. Because there are a large number of coins involved, and the amounts are like, external observers won't be able to tie the change to your old address.

That doesn't appear to be true from where I am standing.

If I am standing in the wrong place, help me relocate.

An outside observer will have no idea whatsoever of the amount being transacted, because ALL transactions will use denominated amounts. It's just one big sea of zero useful information.

I'm saying that the send can be correlated to the receive. The nature of it, who knows.

I'm saying that it's too much information. The blockchain is still transparent, and always should be. Information always adds up. Put as little correlative data out there as possible. The same script that correlates BTC could still correlate DRK.

It's less information, but it's still enough for a 3rd party to gather that A sent X to B.

Thanks for your responses.  I'm probably not conveying my concern very well.

I'm a big fan of Darkcoin's anonymity features and I agree with Minotaur26 that even after RC4, a blockchain explorer can still be used to confirm a specific payment took place.  My worry is that, if there is no way to shield certain coins in your wallet from automatic premixing, RC4 will actually go a step too far in removing the benefits of a public accounting ledger from the coin's features.  There are many common everyday uses of the blockchain explorer to prove to others the history of coins that you currently control, and these are sometimes quite useful in the real world.  Pre-RC4 (if I am not mistaken) these were all available to Darkcoin, since using Darksend was just an optional choice -- as an individual user you COULD mix your coins, but you didn't HAVE to.  

Thus, pre-RC4, Darkcoin let you keep certain coins entirely outside the mixing process, and you could use a blockchain explorer to, say, prove the date you mined or acquired your coins for tax purposes (e.g. U.S. long-term capital gains), or prove that you haven't moved or spent coins you are holding on behalf of someone else (e.g., escrow), or prove how coins sent to a donation address were spent (i.e., allow an audit).  My concern is that, if RC4 forces pre-mixing of all coins, these uses of the blockchain as an accounting ledger become harder, and the paths to Darkcoin adoption narrow.   I see this as a bad outcome -- while I want Darkcoin to be a form of anonymous ecash, I also want it to be able to function as a full-fledged cryptocurrency.  Perhaps your vision is different.

TLDR: Should background mixing be opt-out so Darkcoin can still function as a full-fledged cryptocurrency even while providing anonymous transactions?

Donation or no donation it does not matter.
People can easily see that adding 8 MNs for a transaction gives easy/clean anonymity level.

When something is obvious and easy to understand, review should not take much of his time

GREAT WORK Evan and dev team!

Do you mean that the nature of the transaction could be identified simply from the amount being transacted ?

I'd expect end of august.

Start 16:00

Maybe evolution ;(

I think this is the very thing I'm taking issue with... Being "virgin" is the very thing that creates the problem I see.

The quantity going in and out of the mix is still obvious. Maybe it can't be tied to me with IP obfuscation, but block timing will still give away too much info, and that is essentially the same problem BTC has that DRK is supposed to be solving.

If I'm wrong, help me understand.

The MNs might be a fog, but that actually makes it even more obvious when a non-denominated send goes in, and the 10 block cycle shows a denominated stack of exactly the same size coming back out in a single block. The variability of the mix depth doesn't really help, because it's all in at one block, all out at another. It could be 20 blocks. Or 1000. Doesn't make a difference.

It's still at issue. The clock isn't the timing that matters. It's block pattern. X goes into the fog, X comes out of the fog. Even with IP obfuscation, we still can follow X because it wasn't denominated the same way and occurred at an observable interval. It could take 3 weeks and it wouldn't matter. X went in, X came out, and it happened on 1 block for each. How far apart they are doesn't matter.

If X went in on 4 different blocks, and the MNs peeled it off a little at a time... What we really have is X, Y, and Z go in at different blocks, and come out at potentially even more points as B, C D, E, F and G, all on different block heights. Nothing adds up.

No one can force you to denominate your coins though, so the rich list can be alive and well if its participants want it to be so. (if anyone is thinking the client could always do it without your permission, it really can't; there's no way to enforce it, besides having the clients discard addresses holding non-homogeneous coins after a certain period, which seems a *bit* harsh)

Great to hear another update from the darkcoin team!


I'm all for taking the time needed to do it right, but, ugh.  Does that mean no RC4 in late July as originally planned, then?  Don't know how much more of this price slide I can stomach.

I think it's this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohiCNDT7W08

I don't believe you. Link ? 

(oh shit, I just confronted El Presidente! I may be shot any second !!! )

Ah I see. Got hung up on the timing thing I see now how that point is moot. Thanks.

To me, what you're suggesting (requesting?) basically requires zerocoin/cash-type opaqueness; it goes beyond simple anonymity. In the new DRK, the blockchain is still very transparent, there's just *hopefully* no useful information to be gleaned from it.

IP obfuscation is a separate and still very real vector that needs addressing.

Kristov Atlas said DarkSend+ is Revolutionary Coinjoin Approch.

If everyone's wallet will now contain nothing but 100,50,25,10,5,1 etc. amounts all in randomly generated addresses, this is the problem well and truly fucking solved, timing analysis becomes impossible.

Want more anonymity than this? Start shopping for wigs and sunglasses.

It's going to make rich-list bragging pretty hard though. The whole blockchain is going to look like homogenous heat death.

Ahahahaha, fucking brilliant.