Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 4842. (Read 9723748 times)

Quote from: coins101 on July 09, 2014, 03:04:07 PM

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible. No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat. Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Well, the only problem I have with this is that it makes it more expensive (in relative terms) for normal people to use the best security possible, which I think runs counter to the objectives of the project.

Even if we made it so that the sender's wallet balance triggers higher fees, it's simple enough to move DRK around.

This all assumes, of course, that it would be selectable or optional in the first place, which, like I said, may or may not be the best way to do it.

Since the suggested fee is a function of added bloat, I think that the option of being paid to host that chain already incentivizes enough.... Not a direct correlation, but since the MN is already (potentially/proxy) being paid for the bloat/chain hosting, maybe it doesn't matter and is merely splitting hairs...

Being a masternode already implies that you aren't much good if you don't have the whole chain and I suspect that hosting the full chain will someday be a requirement for being a masternode. Would be a nice low-hanging-fruit to tackle right now before the blockchain is 35GB... Why wait?

Deep mixing has brought the matter to light. Why not?

Good point, I suppose. It's basically a secondary revenue incentive for MN creation without hitting miners. Sort of like a sales tax, your rate is proportional to your spending. I still don't like the idea of charging more for it, for the reasons I mention above. Maybe something like a sliding scale based on send amount would be ok. I'm not going to be spending 10k DRK anytime soon, but some rich dude might.

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible. No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat. Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Well, the only problem I have with this is that it makes it more expensive (in relative terms) for normal people to access the best security possible, which I think runs counter to the objectives of the project.

Even if we made it so that the sender's wallet balance triggers higher fees, it's simple enough to move DRK around.

This all assumes, of course, that it would be selectable or optional in the first place, which, like I said, may or may not be the best way to do it.

Monkey, makes money, makes the world go round.

Pay up for a quality service.

Hmm, I disagree with charging extra for something that's essentially expected core functionality. Like banks charging customers extra for every little thing that should really come free as part of the package.

I'm sure there are tangential services that masternodes can provide that can be monetized, but an 'anonymous' currency should be anonymous for everyone IMHO.

Creating a some-of-us-are-more-equal-than-others setup will also be absolutely horrible PR.

slapper

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1100

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

I think we are talking fees at the duff levels and not extortion. It is fair just like miner fees.

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible. No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat. Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Well, the only problem I have with this is that it makes it more expensive (in relative terms) for normal people to access the best security possible, which I think runs counter to the objectives of the project.

Even if we made it so that the sender's wallet balance triggers higher fees, it's simple enough to move DRK around.

This all assumes, of course, that it would be selectable or optional in the first place, which, like I said, may or may not be the best way to do it.

Monkey, makes money, makes the world go round.

Pay up for a quality service.

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI
MN = 6 ; OMGWTFBBQDEFAULT

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible. No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat. Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Well, the only problem I have with this is that it makes it more expensive (in relative terms) for normal people to use the best security possible, which I think runs counter to the objectives of the project.

Even if we made it so that the sender's wallet balance triggers higher fees, it's simple enough to move DRK around.

This all assumes, of course, that it would be selectable or optional in the first place, which, like I said, may or may not be the best way to do it.

Since the suggested fee is a function of added bloat, I think that the option of being paid to host that chain already incentivizes enough.... Not a direct correlation, but since the MN is already (potentially/proxy) being paid for the bloat/chain hosting, maybe it doesn't matter and is merely splitting hairs...

Being a masternode already implies that you aren't much good if you don't have the whole chain and I suspect that hosting the full chain will someday be a requirement for being a masternode. Would be a nice low-hanging-fruit to tackle right now before the blockchain is 35GB... Why wait?

Deep mixing has brought the matter to light. Why not?

eltito

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 105

Quote from: hartvercoint on July 09, 2014, 02:15:05 PM

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible. No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat. Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Well, the only problem I have with this is that it makes it more expensive (in relative terms) for normal people to access the best security possible, which I think runs counter to the objectives of the project.

Even if we made it so that the sender's wallet balance triggers higher fees, it's simple enough to move DRK around.

This all assumes, of course, that it would be selectable or optional in the first place, which, like I said, may or may not be the best way to do it.

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

One node knows the source of coins, one knows the destination, but neither knows both.

Hope I unnested this correctly...

TOR uses 3 hops. That way the nodes don't even know which part of the line they are... Each bundle of sticks comes from unknown source, to unknown destination, if any. Only the exit nodes have kind of a clue, and they're 2 hops away with no hope... Since we're dealing with a 2.5min mem pool, timing analysis becomes utterly hopeless. DRK is fuckin' beautiful.

humanitee

hero member

Activity: 1302

Merit: 502

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Might as well say it beats the hell out of fairy magic at this point. Cheesy

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

Quote from: thelonecrouton on July 09, 2014, 02:51:09 PM

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible. No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat. Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

humanitee

hero member

Activity: 1302

Merit: 502

Sorry to lower the elevated tone of the thread with mere miner talk, but if anyone hasn't tried it, PIMP with the 14.6 drivers is pretty sweet.

Finally got intertubes connected to my combined armoury/gym/mining basement today after the house move, feels good to be hashing again. Plus it was kind of chilly down there.

Congrats! Moving SUCKS.

thelonecrouton

legendary

Activity: 966

Merit: 1000

Sorry to lower the elevated tone of the thread with mere miner talk, but if anyone hasn't tried it, PIMP with the 14.6 drivers is pretty sweet.

Finally got intertubes connected to my combined armoury/gym/mining basement today after the house move, feels good to be hashing again. Plus it was kind of chilly down there.

humanitee

hero member

Activity: 1302

Merit: 502

Quote from: camosoul on July 09, 2014, 02:32:20 PM

Quote from: humanitee on July 09, 2014, 10:43:48 AM

The only weakness is that if you own both masternodes, you can trace the payments because you are seeing realtime what clients belong to denominationed units and where those units end up.

And this is why multi-entry "fat stack" masternodes are a GOOD THING. There won't be any legitimate reason to run more than one masternode. The only possible use for running more than one masternode will be specifically to do this.

Too bad it's impossible to link masternodes together. They all look separate to the network.

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: splawik21 on July 08, 2014, 04:40:00 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: crackfoo on July 08, 2014, 12:05:22 PM

Quote from: goodluckpool on July 08, 2014, 11:57:03 AM

Quote from: GhostPlayer on July 08, 2014, 11:06:43 AM

MineP.it, apparently, are in the process of updating their pool !! Big round to them, thank you Dan!

Pool Police stats update tonight.

Currently this pool has 91 GH/s !! and the biggest piece of the pie in terms of hashrate. I Think they're chinese
Usee google translator to help navigate

http://x11.ltc1btc.com/

here is the link to the contact form. (will not work under google translate thought)

http://x11.ltc1btc.com/index.php?page=contactform

Please send them a friendly notice to update! The fork is eminent, and they'll have 100% orphaned blocks. These guys are the biggest anchor right now we have! Send them this link please. Be nice about it, no need to antagonise!

http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/Important

Lets get this show on the road folk!

This is a multipool paying out BTC, LTC or CNY, so they will sell the darkcoins they mine instantly, with 90G hash rate and 30% of the blocks today.... go figure why the price is down.

Bring over some more miners to www.xpool.ca and we'll start buying it back up!

+1

Sent again in their language Wink

請更新您的darkcoin池軟件。
這裡是鏈接的二進制文件：https://github.com/darkcoinproject
如果你有一些問題，請寫信至：chaeplin上bitcointalk.org
黑暗的團隊社區

The price of LTC is now moving with DRK. We are supporting LTC, bastards.

eltito

full member

Activity: 322

Merit: 105

Quote from: humanitee on July 09, 2014, 02:32:15 PM

Quote from: hartvercoint on July 09, 2014, 02:15:05 PM

Quote from: humanitee on July 09, 2014, 02:05:25 PM

Quote from: coins101 on July 09, 2014, 02:03:22 PM

If you can string two master nodes together, you can string any number together. There is a minimum of two involved. Wink

Now that really rocks.

But why not just do multiple DarkSends? Seems redundant to me since you must always have the coin owners sign the transactions. I probably haven't thought about it enough (is 10 minutes enough? lol) but I can't see a benefit to it.

One node knows the source of coins, one knows the destination, but neither knows both.

That's not what I mean.

Beyond two, what's the point? Having more than one is obviously beneficial. There's really only two things you do when you spend, and that is to denominate and then spend. Looks like we have all bases covered. You could denominate again, or spend again, but why not just do two rounds of DarkSends instead of one?

Decreases the chance of hitting compromised or bad actor MNs in collusion with one another.

rygamble

full member

Activity: 160

Merit: 100

Quote from: camosoul on July 09, 2014, 02:40:35 PM

Quote from: rygamble on July 09, 2014, 02:34:22 PM

Quote from: camosoul on July 09, 2014, 02:32:20 PM

Quote from: humanitee on July 09, 2014, 10:43:48 AM

The only weakness is that if you own both masternodes, you can trace the payments because you are seeing realtime what clients belong to denominationed units and where those units end up.

And this is why multi-entry "fat stack" masternodes are a GOOD THING. There won't be any legitimate reason to run more than one masternode. The only possible use for running more than one masternode will be specifically to do this.

The fees seem like a good reason to run more than one.

Did you even read what I wrote? Or do you not know how masternodes work? Or do you not know how the multi-entry system will work once implemented?

Actually totally misread what you said. I quit crypto for the day haha

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: slapper on July 09, 2014, 02:37:46 PM

Quote from: coins101 on July 09, 2014, 02:30:42 PM

Quote from: eltito on July 09, 2014, 02:25:19 PM

Quote from: rygamble on July 09, 2014, 02:34:22 PM

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible. No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat. Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Oh no worries, we're just talking possibilities

. But yeah routing through multiple MNs is doable. User selectable...well maybe, but it might not be the best way go about it from a security (or user-friendliness) standpoint.

Charge the rich bastards with plenty of money and lots of reasons for extra privacy insurance to tumble through minimum of 2 + X MN's.

Might be a waste of fees, but that's what life insurance is: lots of regular payments for money to be paid out for the benefit of others, so you can sleep well at night, if you end up sleeping permanently.

Still, would get more master nodes on the network.

B I N G O

I do love a good Slapper Grin

camosoul

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

www.OroCoin.co

Quote from: camosoul on July 09, 2014, 02:32:20 PM

Quote from: humanitee on July 09, 2014, 10:43:48 AM

The only weakness is that if you own both masternodes, you can trace the payments because you are seeing realtime what clients belong to denominationed units and where those units end up.

And this is why multi-entry "fat stack" masternodes are a GOOD THING. There won't be any legitimate reason to run more than one masternode. The only possible use for running more than one masternode will be specifically to do this.

The fees seem like a good reason to run more than one.

Did you even read what I wrote? Or do you not know how masternodes work? Or do you not know how the multi-entry system will work once implemented?

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: TanteStefana2 on July 09, 2014, 02:15:46 PM

Quote from: YourMother on July 09, 2014, 10:06:19 AM

Funny Fud

LOL, seriously? What kind of question is that?

There was a University of Cambridge exam question that went like this:

Q. Is this a question?

2 hours later.

A. If this is an answer.

Passed with first class honours.

What a complete waste of $200k in education fees at one of the worlds top universities. 3 years spent in the bar, with a final one line answer.

I guess he went to Cambridge.

slapper

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1100

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: coins101 on July 09, 2014, 02:30:42 PM

Quote from: eltito on July 09, 2014, 02:25:19 PM