Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 5521. (Read 9723748 times)

My thoughts exactly.

@Propulsion
Is this really a non-issue?

I'm getting an odd problem with my client.

Every time I try to send, it alters the amount to 0 and erases the address, calls it a send to self of 0DRK and still shows confirms... Damn strange.

Restarted client. Now different effect...

Only applies to using darksend. regular send works fine.

Waiting for entries 1/3. Stays that way until a block pops, then says idle and poof, like the darksend attempt never happened... Absolutely no log output in regard to it.

I'm not even sure where to look... Fuckin' weird...

Now spontaneously back to "payment to yourself" shit... Address is definitely not mine...

Darksend is just plain broken.

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.

That part:


...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

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.

That part:


...won't work. We couldn't even get the miners of coinmine to switch when they were >51% because they were getting consistency and low variance (compared to the official which was DOS'ed).

The days of 2-3 pools also seem to be over: http://drk.poolhash.org/poolhash.html

The pie chart is revealing.

Just use hard fork and another system of election/payment that doesn't affect network stability. "Honest pools" won't work. Guaranteed.

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.

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.

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.

If someone had their masternode coins stolen it was probably due to poor security on their box.

With almost 400 masternodes I'd be shocked if someone didn't have their coins stolen.

For people's peace of mind, I still think the private keys should never need to touch the masternode. All thats needed to validate ownership of coins is a signed message. The user should be able to sign a message using Darkcoin QT on an offline computer and then transfer the signed message to the masternode using a USB drive. This signed message contains all the proof that the network needs for authorizing the masternode to receive dividends and process darksends.

DRK on the MN? Not hardened? We need more info. Calling it a backdoor up front suggests you don't know how to secure your serve and were also fool enough to have your DRK ON the server instead of remote MN w/ cold wallet... You're sounding like a troll. We don't want to write you off if it's true, but so far... That may be precisely your troll tactic.

I'm trying to figure out my own weird-ass darksend problem...

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.