me love you looooooong time... aaaahhh aahhhh.. - ignore list.
PS: Please do keep feeding the trolls. Just dont quote them please. I love to play with my own in privacy...
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 5506. (Read 9723733 times)
May 28, 2014, 08:54:49 AM
me love you looooooong time... aaaahhh aahhhh.. - ignore list.
PS: Please do keep feeding the trolls. Just dont quote them please. I love to play with my own in privacy...
May 28, 2014, 08:51:16 AM
Here are the key points I have collated from the XC developer over numerous posts so far:
The mixer technology will be multi-path across a cluster of xnodes which runs over the encrypted protocol, so it won't be a central server, it would be similar to a distributed cluster, and the data is encapsulated inside that encrypted tunnel to prevent off-the wire sniffing (or off-the-air* for the mobile platform)... DRK didn't "invent" supernodes or the concept, and while some of concepts are similar and/or overlap, we are on a different path than DRK and as we refine the platform, it will be clear why our design, implementation and infrastructure is superior as we will have autonomous supernodes using PKI that can scale up and out to become a distributed anonymous application platform
This is why the multi-path paradigm network I built back in 2005 still functions to do this day and scaled up to meet the demands of 2014... think back to 2005, granted we had the internet, but not the mobile technology - and that is a key part of my background is mobility that will be leveraged in the android anonymous POS wallet
(http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/385.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.3022.pdf)
(The principles for this concept come from a design that I originally leveraged back in 2005,[multi-path paradigm] the system still runs to do this day handling 50k to 100k users per day )
If your waiting for NSA proof anonymity - well that is the goal of our REV 2 release..
No, mixing is only part of it, XC now contains a completely new transaction protocol layer that is encrypted and will be leveraged as a platform for all sorts of concepts.... and it will leverage multi-path paradigm topology (which again is a custom developed concept based on dual-path paradigm)So mixing is just the first application to run on top of this new protocol........ Don't want this key point to get lost --- mixing is just the first application, the list is long and the potential is huge, and since the foundation has been built and deployed, it is now time to build on that foundation.... with some revolutionary concepts and idea's.....
Also the infrastructure for this will support numerous other applications, such as encrypted messaging, P2P exchange..etc granted we can only develop new features so fast, but we are putting the foundation for a multi-use, multi-purpose platform
Are you guys planning anything similar?
The mixer technology will be multi-path across a cluster of xnodes which runs over the encrypted protocol, so it won't be a central server, it would be similar to a distributed cluster, and the data is encapsulated inside that encrypted tunnel to prevent off-the wire sniffing (or off-the-air* for the mobile platform)... DRK didn't "invent" supernodes or the concept, and while some of concepts are similar and/or overlap, we are on a different path than DRK and as we refine the platform, it will be clear why our design, implementation and infrastructure is superior as we will have autonomous supernodes using PKI that can scale up and out to become a distributed anonymous application platform
This is why the multi-path paradigm network I built back in 2005 still functions to do this day and scaled up to meet the demands of 2014... think back to 2005, granted we had the internet, but not the mobile technology - and that is a key part of my background is mobility that will be leveraged in the android anonymous POS wallet
(http://eprint.iacr.org/2009/385.pdf
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.3022.pdf)
(The principles for this concept come from a design that I originally leveraged back in 2005,[multi-path paradigm] the system still runs to do this day handling 50k to 100k users per day )
If your waiting for NSA proof anonymity - well that is the goal of our REV 2 release..
No, mixing is only part of it, XC now contains a completely new transaction protocol layer that is encrypted and will be leveraged as a platform for all sorts of concepts.... and it will leverage multi-path paradigm topology (which again is a custom developed concept based on dual-path paradigm)So mixing is just the first application to run on top of this new protocol........ Don't want this key point to get lost --- mixing is just the first application, the list is long and the potential is huge, and since the foundation has been built and deployed, it is now time to build on that foundation.... with some revolutionary concepts and idea's.....
Also the infrastructure for this will support numerous other applications, such as encrypted messaging, P2P exchange..etc granted we can only develop new features so fast, but we are putting the foundation for a multi-use, multi-purpose platform
Are you guys planning anything similar?
May 28, 2014, 08:46:33 AM
Ok time for some gossip... I was over at the XLB thread (they were planning to implement anonymity) and IconicExpert left their ship. Now they say he is a scammer etc (he might be, I don't know him - BC guys probably do).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6979945
The interesting bit:
Official Statement regarding the event occurred today and the future of Libertycoin
....
Anonymity
Libertycoin Anonymity Development (past)
As you might now, we offered a bounty of 7 BTC and 30,000 XLB to implement any kind of anonymity in the Libertycoin protocol. Almost a week ago, Tranzium and others started developing it. A standalone version was set up here: http://cosmiclottery.com/libertycoin/
Around two days ago, we received an email from the team working on that implementation saying they could not finish the work because they were struggling to implement it into the wallet/daemon, so we keep waiting for them and finish it while finding someone else to do the job.
Libertycoin Anonymity Development (today)
Today Polzki contacted us with a possible solution. He says he knows the CEO of a programming company in China, so they can help us develop a new and innovative anonymity function for the Libertycoin protocol.
The website of the company: http://www.synv.com/
At 1:50 pm (China) he will be talking to the CEO of the company.
The CEO is his friend so he might make us a huge discount for it, but we will also support him with the bounty we raised if it is needed.
They will use Tranzium's code, so they won't start from zero.
Trying with devs => fail. Next step: Outsourcing anonymity development to Chinese companies...
I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6979945
The interesting bit:
Official Statement regarding the event occurred today and the future of Libertycoin
....
Anonymity
Libertycoin Anonymity Development (past)
As you might now, we offered a bounty of 7 BTC and 30,000 XLB to implement any kind of anonymity in the Libertycoin protocol. Almost a week ago, Tranzium and others started developing it. A standalone version was set up here: http://cosmiclottery.com/libertycoin/
Around two days ago, we received an email from the team working on that implementation saying they could not finish the work because they were struggling to implement it into the wallet/daemon, so we keep waiting for them and finish it while finding someone else to do the job.
Libertycoin Anonymity Development (today)
Today Polzki contacted us with a possible solution. He says he knows the CEO of a programming company in China, so they can help us develop a new and innovative anonymity function for the Libertycoin protocol.
The website of the company: http://www.synv.com/
At 1:50 pm (China) he will be talking to the CEO of the company.
The CEO is his friend so he might make us a huge discount for it, but we will also support him with the bounty we raised if it is needed.
They will use Tranzium's code, so they won't start from zero.
Trying with devs => fail. Next step: Outsourcing anonymity development to Chinese companies...
I mean, you can't make this stuff up. May 28, 2014, 08:41:18 AM
just FYI, your DRK is losing momentum... time to abandon the ship.
Thanks for the analysis, but just "FYI" "Time to abandon ship" is when price is high and nothing happening, not when price is low and tons happening.
What's losing momentum is parasitical FUD like this remark that doesn't stick
Keep it up though since we might start missing the attention otherwise.
May 28, 2014, 08:36:24 AM
Attention, every time ac2 and ymer write in this thread the price goes UP, get ready ...
May 28, 2014, 08:33:08 AM
just FYI, your DRK is losing momentum... time to abandon the ship.
May 28, 2014, 08:31:41 AM
bring on the hard forks....
as long as the quality of the coin needs it andd the earlier the better... Look at BTC LTC they can not hardfork anymore because they would scare there users to death and tousands and thousands would be on the wrong fork with stucked wallets etc etc... So the earlier the better... We need to maintain the lead over the other ano coins by making a first class product...And build a simple mechanism in the wallet to tell people that they need to upgrade the wallet !!! ASAP this would help a lot ai am shure
Evan, get in touch with Hiro on that highlighted bit. It would've solved half the problems! as long as the quality of the coin needs it andd the earlier the better... Look at BTC LTC they can not hardfork anymore because they would scare there users to death and tousands and thousands would be on the wrong fork with stucked wallets etc etc... So the earlier the better... We need to maintain the lead over the other ano coins by making a first class product...And build a simple mechanism in the wallet to tell people that they need to upgrade the wallet !!! ASAP this would help a lot ai am shure
May 28, 2014, 08:27:02 AM
What's up with Darkcointalk.org?
Yup... seems down. Its quite flattening to see so many targeted DDoS going around and coordinated 51% attack attempts etc, in the past few weeks... Testnet Masternodes went without a hick-up, but flip the switch and its total chaos... hmmmm ....
If that isn't a clear indicator of investment, I dont know what is
May 28, 2014, 08:22:06 AM
What's up with Darkcointalk.org?
May 28, 2014, 08:16:27 AM
The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right 
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
+1
Fitting development priorities to price is the road to disaster.
F*ck the price. If a change needs a hardfork then thats what it should get. I'm not saying that absolute maximum care should'nt be taken to make the disruption minimal, but design priorities and technical strategy should be done around quality, not markets.
And markets ultimately like quality
+1 Should be brought to Evan
He may not be writing due to time constraints, but I'm fairly confident he's reading.
Evan knows what brought us here - the recipe of success. Part innovation - part tweaking the financial model to certain parameters which are very favorable (targeting of the private market which will be huge, low inflation, scarcity, masternode mining and incentive to buy/hold, future prospects of a project with ongoing development etc).
If we change the balance to tweaking the financial model in order to compensate lack of innovation / stability to avoid forks => the recipe is changed and the "customers" may not like it.
You can't please everyone.
Some will say -"wtf? this is not serious for a coin of this size" and some will say "ok, and what does DRK offer now that the X,Y,Z coin does it PLUS something extra?"... so it's a choice of having the right people on board, preparing them that this coin is different. It's a development platform that can have a bumpy ride and that this is its essence that has made it a serious contender against dinosaurs. People here are buying prospect. Litecoin has no prospect to go anywhere. That's the thing. If you trade prospect for stability => you reduce the competitive advantage. I'm not saying to "break" the coin, just that development shouldn't be hampered by Evan avoiding hardforks.
May 28, 2014, 08:13:23 AM
XC run to DRK...
This is ridiculous and sad.
This is ridiculous and sad.
XC is preparing for a massive dump.
Each wonder for three days
. May 28, 2014, 08:12:03 AM
The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
+1
Fitting development priorities to price is the road to disaster.
F*ck the price. If a change needs a hardfork then thats what it should get. I'm not saying that absolute maximum care should'nt be taken to make the disruption minimal, but design priorities and technical strategy should be done around quality, not markets.
And markets ultimately like quality
+1 Should be brought to Evan
When AlexGR and I got started on this issue about 12 hours ago Evan was part of the discussion -- and now I suspect he is still in bed.
Let's see if we hear anything when he wakes up.
May 28, 2014, 08:10:55 AM
XC run to DRK...
This is ridiculous and sad.
Like MRO 5days ago, when it hit near 0.009 ... where it is actually ? This is ridiculous and sad.
May 28, 2014, 08:08:17 AM
XC run to DRK...
This is ridiculous and sad.
This is ridiculous and sad.
May 28, 2014, 08:06:08 AM
The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
+1
Fitting development priorities to price is the road to disaster.
F*ck the price. If a change needs a hardfork then thats what it should get. I'm not saying that absolute maximum care should'nt be taken to make the disruption minimal, but design priorities and technical strategy should be done around quality, not markets.
And markets ultimately like quality
+1 Should be brought to Evan
May 28, 2014, 08:05:03 AM
And when XC will be corrected, all the troll will go back to their forest cryin ... like for MRO 5days ago
May 28, 2014, 08:01:13 AM
The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
+1
Fitting development priorities to price is the road to disaster.
F*ck the price. If a change needs a hardfork then thats what it should get. I'm not saying that absolute maximum care should'nt be taken to make the disruption minimal, but design priorities and technical strategy should be done around quality, not markets.
And markets ultimately like quality
May 28, 2014, 07:57:25 AM
The whole thing to appease investors with "ok guys no hard forks" and bagholders of masternodes with "ok guys you'll get 20%" is sketchy. I know I'm harsh but I like things to go right
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
Price is price. It'll go up, down, sideways etc. Let it be. All the price attention is having an impact in development.
Development must proceed as planned so we can have the final product, nice and polished - no matter if it takes 1-2-3 or 5 hardforks and no matter if investors are bitching that they are losing masternode income because the implementation is late. Do they want to have masternodes of a coin that is GOOD or do they want to have a masternode of a coin that is doing hack-arounds?
The masternode protocol works, the masternode payments work (we saw them - it's not vapor), it's just that there is something introducing instability which has to be debugged and sorted out. If the origin is difficult to trace, then perhaps a different mechanism can be used for doing the payments (not voluntarily)
+1
Fitting development priorities to price is the road to disaster.
F*ck the price. If a change needs a hardfork then thats what it should get. I'm not saying that absolute maximum care should'nt be taken to make the disruption minimal, but design priorities and technical strategy should be done around quality, not markets.
May 28, 2014, 07:56:38 AM
I checked the trollboxes this morning. Its not something I've done for a long while.
There is a group trying to organise a Darkcoin ATH over the next few weeks. It seems to be starting with a bit of trolling.
It's like foot/soccer fans in Europe .. stupid people paying to do stupid things.
May 28, 2014, 07:55:56 AM
Anybody else raise a bit of an eyebrow at the "no forks" part of Evan's post? If that can be done, then why did we try to hard fork in the first place? Was the original method really thought through and the best option to pay masternodes selected? Or is there some compromise in implementing forkless payments that is now being ignored becuase of the chaos over the last few days? And then there is the obvious increasing of the masternode incentive (20%, multiple tickets) which I guess is fine... but is also a convenient price lifeboat.
My wallet has remained closed during this mishap and I have no plans to dump any part of my modest stash, but I have a lot of questions right now. Anybody that has any insight (Evan himself is best, but that is hoping for too much) that could answer some of these questions would be appreciated.
Or maybe I am being too skeptical and nobody else sees anything odd here...
My wallet has remained closed during this mishap and I have no plans to dump any part of my modest stash, but I have a lot of questions right now. Anybody that has any insight (Evan himself is best, but that is hoping for too much) that could answer some of these questions would be appreciated.
Or maybe I am being too skeptical and nobody else sees anything odd here...
There were originally two strategies for masternode payments. One requires a hardfork and one doesn't. I originally decided to do the one that does, because you can't cheat as a pool operator. But, that comes with a price. The code must reject cheating blocks and that's what caused the forking issue.
The other way is to setup the client to pay nodes in a provably fair way. If the pool doesn't pay the correct amount to the correct node, we'll know and we'll shame them. We'll get miners to move to honest pools.
Like others have suggested, all of the groundwork has been laid. I have implemented the masternodes, the election system for payments and it's compatible with this soft fork.
So why 20% fees for masternode payments? This essentially will create twice as many nodes and create a much higher cost to spy on the network. It also creates a larger feedback loop for the price (because as darkcoin is taken out of the supply, it drives the price up), which is good for all of the investors and security of DarkSend. Miners will get less coin, but it's been proven time and time again that when you decrease the coins generated the price will just go up to meet the cost of mining.
My goal with Darkcoin has always been to take the #2 spot from Litecoin. I believe we have the best chance we've ever had now and these changes will actually help realize that goal.
As for my communication? Lately I've just had my nose to the grindstone, coding all of the time. I intend to be much more involved with the community in the future. This will include getting a team of software developers and managing the vision of the project. I think my time might be better spent in the future doing interviews, speaking at conferences and being Darkcoin's figurehead.
I agree. Delaying a couple of weeks won't matter long term as long as it works properly.
I think it's more important to have the payments work as they are intended to, than implement a stopgap solution.
Jump to: