Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 4900. (Read 9723748 times)

This was an oversight on my part.  I'll work on getting the stratum update information distributed as soon as possible.

Can we get some more cross posts going, please?

This is really frustrating. So many good things going on, but behind closed doors. Yes I have an account on darkcointalk. But people new to DRK don't. Tell me, who are the ones that hold DRK and those that are potential DRK buyers?

All we are asking for is a centralized area with some information regarding this change-- like so some one can Twitter me a link and say "DO THIS" -- we will always do that-- but we've been hunting this information down for like 2 days, with no clear answers. Hell even the other multipool guy didn't know he had to update his stratum-- a lot of the pools don't -- I spoke with them yesterday.

People are just contacting us from your communities telling us to update the wallets and nothing else-- which we have done. We don't follow DarkCoin, we don't know the intricacies of your currency, or what magic joojoo it takes to run. Just send us some clear info, and we will comply, if we can't have that info then we delist because otherwise we're made out to be some fraudsters.

I'm not attacking your community, I have no beef with your coin, or how you guys and your developers chose to run it. But whether you like it or not, pools and multipools are a big part of your ecosystem, and help keep your blockchain secure and moving transactions. Please just give us 1 forum post or a link to a dev saying "for payments to work, you will need to do this, this and this in these methods and or functions and or configs, or you would need to write something that does this specific action." That's it, I don't think it's asking for much.

To the guy with the airline analogy, if some regulation changed with an airline, there would be some sort of instructions that followed, to help airports comply. I don't feel we have received that information, or that information is not in an easily accessible place.

Edit: it was a travel agency, not an airport.

Wow.  The guy spelled out everything pretty straight forward and it's obvious that he is trying to "Comply" with the "Directives".  He has valid points regarding the update procedure and lack of consideration for pools like his that run customized software.  Then you come on here and accuse the guy of cheating people out of masternode payments intentionally.

You're a shining example of what the DRK community has turned into.

Well, yes, but the difference is that with a traditional hard fork, if you wanted to revert you had to get everyone to update their clients (again).  With a spork, the added functionality can simply be switched off remotely if it's causing problems.

Personnaly at this time i think your a bad actor.
Im wrong ?
Refund all missing masternode fees, then we can said we are wrong about you.  

Well the second step of a spork IS a hard-fork! So it's not going to solve all fundamental problems of hard forking.

Personnaly at this time i think your a bad actor.
Im wrong ?
Refund all missing masternode fees, then we can said we are wrong about you.  

Well the second step of a spork IS a hard-fork! So it's not going to solve all fundamental problems of hard forking.

Privacy is extremely hard to come by on the Internet. Bitcoin itself is not very private right now.

Publication of the owner of a single Bitcoin address can yield an incredible amount of personal financial information, information that cannot be put ‘back in the box’ – it will be available forever, encoded into the blockchain. This is the sort of information that law enforcement agencies would typically need to subpoena a bank for; instead right now we offer it to the entire Internet.

We haven’t yet seen significant involvement from consumer privacy agencies at the Foundation, but I believe they will be horrified when they understand just how much private financial data is being broadcast and permanently recorded.

This information directly impacts citizens living under repressive governments. It could cause physical harm to a woman whose finances are controlled by her pimp or her kidnapper. The knowledge of transactions can be combined with violence to limit any human’s fundamental right to transact economically.

It seems therefore critical that we do everything we can to support efforts that enhance this privacy from global inspection. Technological efforts like trustless sharing and ZeroCoin/ZeroCash have potential to improve the privacy guarantees available to those using Bitcoin.

Not everyone will want this kind of privacy to be available.  In some jurisdictions, concerns over money laundering are brought up as the reason why such privacy should not be available.

I believe that these concerns are real and valid, and pragmatically, that a balance needs to be struck. We don’t yet know exactly how to balance the risks to different parties; on the one hand direct violence, control of individuals and financial risks borne by citizens with hyper-inflationary money supply are real harms being borne by human beings around the world right now. On the other hand there are real and more generalized harms to society that money laundering enables.

Right now, I believe the most reasonable regulatory approach is to encourage anti-money-laundering and know-your-customer rules that can be implemented at the ‘endpoints’, Bitcoin exchanges or money transmittal businesses. These businesses already have clear regulation and operations rules and understand how to identify money laundering, and what to do about it when they see it.

At the same time, we need to do better protecting those who have no other safe way to transact economically, and the Foundation will be providing support for a variety of proposals as a way to let the broader community engage with them and assess what would be useful.

I'm implementing I2P into the masternodes. We're going to have our own private network just for DarkSend.

I've had some substantial progress on DarkSend and have figured out how to make our existing system as secure as ring signatures. Vastly improved security, no bloat (from the ring signatures) and without actually having to trust new cryptography (it hasn't been extensively tested like what DarkSend uses) . So I think it'll give us a HUGE advantage in the coming months. More to come soon, I'm going to start implementing this tomorrow.

With this launch, we introduced a new soft-fork method, which some users have affectionately dubbed the “spork”. As clients update, new features - Masternode payments, in this case - are implemented and available, though not strictly enforced by the network. After almost all users are updated, the fork can be remotely activated, which would enforce the new feature rules. If successful, the new feature(s) would be permanently activated and enforced. If unsuccessful, enforcement can be deactivated remotely for the whole network without the need for users to update their clients. In the latter case, a checkpoint would be added to put the whole network back on the same chain.

This allows us to test higher risk, innovative features in mainnet without having to hard fork the network and without the risk of a live rollback where all users must update.

LTC chose not to fork because their 'devs' haven't actually ever actually dev'd much, certainly not recently, and a lot of them had already sunk very large sums into scrypt ASIC preorders.

Litecoin won't avoid ASICS because of the risks of a hard fork, so they've decided to do nothing about it.

damn this is gonna be a soap opera this month

What hostility ? Check again Oo Moreover the "lazy coding" part (by flound1129) was hostile so you stfu thx.

The reality is that any coin, using any algo, can change anyway if the will is there to avoid ASICs. LTC had the chance and made the wrong choice, BTC still could but never will for a whole host of reasons.

DRK, with Evan + team, *is* willing and able to adapt as neccessary.

Sporking might make it easier for other coins, but it's nothing they couldn't have done anyway.