Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 4825. (Read 9723776 times)

HOT! Even the fees will be worth collecting on that block!

Just stop quoting and replying to his lame posts.
Even if you actually design and create a perfect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfection) such people would still find flaws that are not there.

They'd have to stop printing their own cash for this to even make sense. Anyone who says something like that is either a very bad troll unable to hide his trolling intents, or so magically stupid he'll forget to breathe and die on his own very shortly... Since he's still alive, the only remaining conclusion is that he's a shitbag troll.

+1
When i come here at the first time. I have the same feeling. What a GREAT Devteam&Community it is.

And now, i stayed~  

I guess it's lights out for bitcoin!
http://www.coindesk.com/isis-bitcoin-donations-fund-jihadist-movements/



Current DRK masternode distribution by operator: http://drk.poolhash.org/darksend.html

The reason for there being so many on Amazon is that the first step-by-step guide was written using Amazon as an example. This should change when more guides are written. And especially it would change if such a shut down for US based operators should happen. 



But CN coins must have nodes too so the clients can discover the network. They could be taken down as well, or what is it that makes taking down a CN node impossible and a DRK masternode possible?

The only point I'd like to add is that a send of a specific amount stands out. Mix-on-send should still exist just to make all TXes look the same. Peeling off change through multiple hops would be even better. It would take only a few transactions before all TXes looked like change going God knows where... Hidden in plain view, no need to trust a disposed key or encryption of any kind, negligible bloat, blockchain still transparent and audit-able for function by anyone who wants to look at it, you just can't see the people... This is why I went all in on this coin. I didn't know what it would look like, but I knew Evan wanted to keep away from the ideas that were compromising this model pretending to be "better" than something that hadn't even been done yet.

I bet on the logic. Which means precisely dick in cryptos... I just knew it was the right road, even if I was the only one taking it.

He is a waste of space.

But it never hurts to take the opportunity to remind people of what the point of DRK is all about. Privacy, eCash.

When he said it's lights out for DRK if the US government decides it doesn't like anonymity, I lol'd. It shows even less comprehension of decentralized crypto than I gave him credit for.

I would go so far as to say no Coinjoin at all, right? The denomination step only involves your coins, right?

If this is the final solution then I would say that DRK has moved away from Coinjoin to something better which is of Evan's own invention.

I love you man...

But, actually it does stem from that decoupling. The trick was finding a way to integrate the proof hash without putting an end to the decoupling. To keep the decoupling alive, but snuff the problem. And Evan pulled it off, instead of the "black and white" way of thinking that these arguments go, he invented a 3rd choice and made it work.

Still decoupled, and the merged nature of the proof hash didn't have to be tossed, and the decoupling didn't have to be tossed. It's a system that can also be extended to future as-of-yet-unthought-of features that might also need to be integrated into the block proof. Who knows what that might be. But the door is now opened...

I host a couple MNs in Iceland.  I'm not sure they care what the US Gov't thinks.

I still can't figure out why people are responding to this loser... There have been far more creative trolls... There isn't even damage control with this guy, he's a damn clown. Please stop quoting him. Stop responding to him. He's a waste of Oxygen and Bandwidth...

I'm not sure you haven't put your foot right in a great big technical cowpat here. You might know what your talking about and you might not have a clue but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

From a software engineering point of view though, integrating functional layers like your suggesting is sometimes a good thing and sometimes a complete disaster because you're creating a coupling that you'll be forced to live with for the rest of the coin's life. You would only ever do that if you were absolutely sure you never wanted to evolve those two layers independently of each other.

On the other hand, keeping them separate (the anonymity layer and the blockchain layer) has some huge advantages. In particular, as we've already seen, it allows the blockchain layer to retain legacy compliance and compatibility with commercial APIs while at the same time liberating the anonymity layer so it has the capacity to evolve rapidly in response to real world use. We've already seen this happening - we've seen how much flexibility there is having the functional layers decoupled.  If you weld them both together, your "stuck". You can't evolve the properties in one without being ball and chained by legacy interfaces in the other.

You say that the RC2 and RC3 forking issues belie a fundamental design problem i.e. the decoupled model. Again, I think you've made a very big mistake here.

I saw it the other way around - i.e. as evidence that something "real" and successful was going on in this project. The forking was nothing. Sure, it made a big splash and as the dev correctly expressed - was "unacceptable" but it does not - as you contend - stem from the decoupling of the anonymity layer from the blockchain layer. It's simple software development - original work being consolidated. If you don't want to see that kind of thing then pick a coin that's going to have the same features in 6 months time as it has today.

So in summary I don't think there's any basis for such a point blank appraisal. I think it's highly superficial, lacking in technical depth and not remotely thought through. In my opinion, DRK has got it right and the others are all heading straight up a cul-de-sac that's going to leave them like beached whales - having a reasonable anonymity model but with no audience.

In addition to all of that, the decoupling principle goes right back to the original Darkcoin mission statements - see section 3 ("Why is this approach the right one") here: https://medium.com/@simon/the-bright-side-of-darkcoin-a923facddc3c


Note the phrase "proven technology". Markets like "proven technology" but they also like leaders, so again the decoupled approach makes sense where the coupled one doesn't. This stuff has all been thought through in far more depth than most 5-second posters on here realise, with due consideration being given to optimising both technical and end-user (or "market") priorities.

Under these circumstances, you can't really blame the devs for sticking to the original "plan" and mission statement.

It was a good one then and it hasn't been bettered.

Do you know that you don't need anonymity? Because the information you leak using transparent blockchain during the years could be used in so many ways we can't even imagine yet. And yes, the retailer obviously should have my name and address if I'm going to buy something from them - but they shouldn't be able to see where else I've been shopping. So with DRK all they would know is my name and address, and that I sent them coins from an address they can't link to anything else.



They can "track"/see that the coins were sent from some address that they can't link to anything else (= anonymity) and sent to another address (their own). That's enough tracking they need to return the coins for example.

If the United States government gets a hint that a one cent of funds was transferred to any terrorist organization using the Darkcoin network it's lights out.  Plausible deniability doesn't mean a thing when Amazon and every other provider in the United States complies with a court order and shuts down the masternodes.  

I'm not promoting cryptonote coins as they have plenty of their own problems.  But they offer true P2P anonymity that isn't subject to having a masternode network shut down.

No Coinjoin mix on the second phase, correct.

Non-denominated funds are sent out automatically to a MN for denomination, then sent back to your wallet (this may or may not involve several MN hops, I haven't spoken to Evan about that for a day or two and he comes up with new ideas every 5 minutes).  

Once back in your wallet, they just sit there, all smug and anonymous until you decide to use them.  There's no real need for a need for a 2nd Coinjoin mix to occur after that.  When you send funds, your wallet automatically selects pre-anonymized denominations and sends them directly to your intended recipient.

Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, United States Department of the Treasury, confirms that financial privacy is a real and important aspect of all financial transactions.

The view on regulation is currently being considered in a similar light to Bitcoin. The Bank Secrecy Act and existing AML policies towards digital currency will still apply. In general, moving in and out of fiat requires the use of regulated entities.

Non disclosure of financial transactions on a blockchain ledger is not a reason to stop anonymity tools such as Darkcoin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7bbDpwlTws&feature=youtu.be&t=11m48s

~12mins

You seem to have missed the person who enforces the section of law you are quoting, saying anonymous crypto is OK.

The US government ain't shutting anything down.

Thanks for posting the article.  I agree that bitcoin does allow for snooping of financial transactions once you have the bitcoin address.  But instead of embracing Darkcoin I think businesses will just continue to conduct their financial transactions through normal banking channels.  Also, overstock.com generates a new btc address for each purchase so as long as businesses didn't just reuse the same address there wouldn't be an issue with being spied upon.

Wait, so in this case there isn't any Coinjoin?  The pre-denominated funds are directly send from A to B without using a masternode?

If you were the only address denominating funds on a single block, perhaps.  But what if the entire network was denominating funds automatically at a scheduled time (or pre-determined block)?