Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 4827. (Read 9723776 times)

Quote from: eduffield on July 10, 2014, 03:18:18 PM

Quote from: HinnomTX on July 10, 2014, 04:58:17 PM

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

If your money is already on multiple anonymous addresses... It's pre-privatised. Essentially it's dark sent before darksending it.

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

After every transaction though money will be darksend+ed. So same amount of mixing goes on. But your transaction speed doesn't suffer. Every wallet premixing. There will be plenty to go round.

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Quote from: eduffield on July 10, 2014, 03:18:18 PM

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

If your money is already on multiple anonymous addresses... It's pre-privatised. Essentially it's dark sent before darksending it.

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

I think the point is that you don't need to 'use darksend' - the masternodes will be kept busy anonymising everyone's coin as an ongoing process, so you'll only ever be sending already untraceable coin.

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

Quote from: camosoul on July 10, 2014, 04:55:12 PM

Serious question here......

What happens if a person Solo-Mining finds a Block?
Do MN payments come out of the Solo Block found?
Or - are all DRK retained by the Solo-Miner?

They're using an up-to-date client, right?

Question answers itself...

Yes - the Client would be up-to-date.

So - I assume that you mean that MN payment would come out?
Then delivered randomly to any one of the many MN's ......?

Voted upon and included in the proof hash...

HinnomTX

hero member

Activity: 525

Merit: 500

Quote from: eduffield on July 10, 2014, 03:18:18 PM

Quote from: coins101 on July 10, 2014, 04:55:26 PM

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

If your money is already on multiple anonymous addresses... It's pre-privatised. Essentially it's dark sent before darksending it.

But you don't want to make Darksend a rare, one-time event for your money. You want it mixed with others money always to enable anonymization of new money. Otherwise you get a chicken and egg scenario (i.e. awesome Darksend network build out with nobody feeling like they need to Darksend because they sterilized already, so new money has to wait a long time to be Darksent). Everybody should be using the Darksend format to keep liquidity up.

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

Quote from: camosoul on July 10, 2014, 04:47:33 PM

Oh man, I need a kleenex...

Better get an ice pack on your head before you do yourself an injury or keel over just as the party is starting.

Nah, this is my natural state... :-p It's all the other times that I need help...

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

The sell side on cryptsy is getting weaker and weaker. Just look at the market depth.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: camosoul on July 10, 2014, 04:47:33 PM

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy and uniform as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

Would it be possible if the client asked the MN if there are "enough" darksend transactions in the pool waiting to be mixed, and if there are, send normal transaction without darksend, and if there aren't, use darksend?

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

I had the same thought. If "background mixing" and "actual sends" go through the same process... Oh man, I need a kleenex...

Your post rate / second is hotting up.

Talk of man love, being blown by DRK, needing to go find the DRK ladies and reaching for the kleenex.

You're getting a little excited. Better get an ice pack on your head before you do yourself an injury or keel over just as the party is starting.

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

Serious question here......

What happens if a person Solo-Mining finds a Block?
Do MN payments come out of the Solo Block found?
Or - are all DRK retained by the Solo-Miner?

They're using an up-to-date client, right?

Question answers itself...

eltito

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 105

Quote from: eduffield on July 10, 2014, 03:18:18 PM

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

If your money is already on multiple annoymous addresses... It's pre-privatised. Essentially it's dark sent before darksending it.

I believe he's questioning the available liquidity for pre-mixing. But, there's nothing that says your wallet can only be mixed once, and any money that changes hands will need to be re-mixed.

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

Quote from: eduffield on July 10, 2014, 03:18:18 PM

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

If your money is already on multiple anonymous addresses... It's pre-privatised. Essentially it's dark sent before darksending it.

EDIT: At least that's how I'm reading it

Yes, but there is a lot to be said for making every TX look like the same TX pattern...

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

Quote from: eduffield on July 10, 2014, 03:18:18 PM

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy and uniform as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

Who said your funds only go out for mixing once?

I brought an assortment, take your pick...

atavacron

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing

salmion

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: eduffield on July 10, 2014, 03:18:18 PM

...

Darkcoin suffers from a bad methodology to achieve anonymity and it's put everything into this one basket.

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be anonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

If your money is already on multiple anonymous addresses... It's pre-privatised. Essentially it's dark sent before darksending it.

EDIT: At least that's how I'm reading it

thenorb

member

Activity: 62

Merit: 10

TheNorb.com

We are holding a weekly giveaway for our active miners and if you want to have a chance to win stop by TheNorb.com and signup and point your miners to our pool and you will be entered into the drawing automatically!!

We are finding blocks and paying masternodes, so come join us and help push DarkCoin and Nutcoin further!

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

Quote from: eduffield on July 10, 2014, 03:18:18 PM

Sorry to hear you lost faith in the project. Also, sorry you're going to be getting out at a horrible time (right before I announce I have EVERYTHING figured out to make Darkcoin mainstream?).

Over the past couple of days, I've made huge leaps in the Darksend technology. In fact, RC4 will be the final solution to Darkcoin's anonymity. The client will automatically look at all of your funds and it will be able to tell which funds are not anonymized, if it finds non-anonymous outputs it will run them through a darksend with other clients. After that process, users can send without Darksend using the anonymous outputs for instant transactions without waiting for other nodes (with no upper limit on transaction sizes).

The other thing you're missing is that there is a reason I forked Bitcoin. Adoption for Darkcoin will be MUCH faster and easier for vendors, because all of the APIs are the same.

Expect more news in a few days. I have lots of work to do, but soon we can start testing all of this new functionality.

This seems great at first blush, but won't there will be an issue with Darksend transaction liquidity over time? I mean, all transactions should be Darksent even if they don't need it so that there is the highest Darksend related activity on the blockchain. You want to maximize those confusing redenominated transactions flying around to make things as foggy as possible. Enabling a one-time sterilization process is bad because it makes it harder from a liquidity perspective for other (especially larger) transactions to be deanonymized. The proposed RC4 diagrams from a few days back (i.e. two stage masternode transactions) seemed dialed in just right. Am I missing something?

I had the same thought. If "background mixing" and "actual sends" go through the same process... Oh man, I need a kleenex...

I'm not sorry at all, good riddance to bad garbage.

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

Quote from: doubleredrolex on July 10, 2014, 04:45:13 PM

Im ready for the storm!

Yeah, I hope there's lots of wind (wait for it) I wanna get blown by DRK!

HinnomTX

hero member

Activity: 525

Merit: 500

Quote from: eduffield on July 10, 2014, 03:18:18 PM