[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6115.

GhostPlayer

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Simcom on May 03, 2014, 05:48:26 PM

Quote from: GhostPlayer on May 03, 2014, 05:21:00 PM

Quote from: girino on May 03, 2014, 04:55:58 PM

This wouldn't be accurate either. The correct phrase should be: I used some of the code from sph_miner with some of the code from cpuminer and some improvements of my own... As for getting the speeds people are getting with their 280x, thay are overclocking really high. My hardware does not support that, so i cannot test with the same settings as them. The best i can do is 2.5Gh/s with 1100/1500 OC.

So basically, you got code from free software, tweaked it around, and want to sell it ?

.!.

I'm happy with my 5x 280x Vapor-X doing 2.2mh/ each, totalling 650w (at the wall). You still havent answered, how much does your rig consume?

This is mining p2pool with I=18... on MPOS I use I=19 and get 2.2 - 2.3 MH/s

Quote

-k darkcoin -o http://q30.qhor.net:7903 -u Xdeq6pcN3cPsZtta6jsA286N4jbuwVn51D+0.00254200 -p x --auto-fan --gpu-fan 40-85 --temp-cutoff 92 --temp-overheat 88 --temp-target 64 -I 18 -g 1 -w 128 --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 8192 --gpu-powertune 20 --gpu-engine 1100 --gpu-memclock 1500

Try lowering the intensity - the reject rate is hurting your profits.

I have! This one is actually cause by ping being too high. Just comparing stats. I have a 15ms node nearby and my reject rate with these settings is aroun 1.5%. If I go lower, hashrate drops and rejects are the same. But I'm liking this pool.

If you check the pool miners though, everyone seems to have crazy high reject rates, the earnings do add up nicely, Its the best one, no hidden stats etc. I cant understand why everyone has such high %, but like I said, my earning are higher than MPOS so I 'm not complaining. On my near by nodes, rejects are lower, but so is hashrate for some reason, payouts are great too (the same) - BUT - the metrics there not all there like pool luck and average payouts etc..

http://q30.qhor.net - mind you, I'm still in ramp-up here.

mannie

full member

Activity: 168

Merit: 100

I know a few people are worried about the drop in price but I'm not sweating it. I think it bears repeating that fundamentals will always win out.

There are macroeconomic risks, like with anything else, but let's look at the fundamentals: we have committed developers that have proven their abilities, we're early in the crypto game with most of the public yet to jump in with their wealth, we have a gap in the market for an anonymous decentralized digital currency and we're achingly close to releasing the final DarkSend product.

Just like a producer which has oil in the ground, there are fundamentals that haven't changed, despite the slight changes in psychology, sentiment and the short attention span of some traders. Scam coins will flare up and fade away but something like this has fundamentals in its favour.

Just my 2c. Good luck to us all.

TanteStefana

full member

Activity: 280

Merit: 100

The Future Of Work

Quote from: Simcom on May 03, 2014, 09:22:37 PM

Quote from: Kai Proctor on May 03, 2014, 09:10:35 PM

@Simcom Every time you believe that you may have find a flaw with DarkSend but yet you don't seem to totally understand or know about the way it works. Take your time to read the thread, some of your questions and concerns have already been answered long ago.

LOL seriously? The last issue I raised (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6459044) was so serious that Evan decided to devote an entire release (RC3) to fix it. I am just trying to help. :/

He is constantly refining things in upcoming releases, he didn't say he would be devoting an entire release to this. He just said he'd add it to the next release. He has no set schedule, just a loose plan. If he needs 50 RC releases to get it right, he'll use them. I certainly didn't get the impression that the issue was so serious he had to do a new release. He has a lot of refinement to achieve before full release.

Anyway, it is indeed nice to know Evan is always keeping an eye on the thread, even if he isn't always commenting. He seems to pop up when good points are made, which is really awesome.

TanteStefana

full member

Activity: 280

Merit: 100

The Future Of Work

Quote from: eizh on May 04, 2014, 12:34:37 AM

Quote from: DieCommieScum on May 04, 2014, 12:06:07 AM

what's the TL;DR for the issues being discussed?

To have good anonymity, the amount disappearing from the sender's address must have a low probability of being close to the intended payment. This is accomplished by low granularity. E.g. to spend anywhere from 100 to 1000 DRK, you must input 1000 DRK. This is obviously inconvenient because what if I want to send 115 DRK but only own 180 DRK?

Providing more granularity either in the protocol itself or by manually doing multiple Darksends (e.g. 100 + 10 + 10) causes plausible deniability to plummet. Sure it may still be hard for a human to piece together a set of possible histories, but a computer could analyze millions of permutations per second and possibly give confident inferences of the sender-receiver mappings.

I agree that this is a valid concern. Don't overestimate the degree of anonymity just because it quickly gets messy in your human head -- blockchain analysis by computers have produced impressive results for connecting BTC holdings to identities despite the complexity provided by a large user base.

Temporal spreading of sends is a possible solution, though very inconvenient for users.

If every input comes with a different address (which it already does), how would anyone know that the 6-10 coin deposits you put into a pool of other 10 coin inputs are yours? Even if there is an output of 550 coins in the group, how would anyone know which 6 accounts made up the input? and from which wallet? As I understand it, only the wallet knows which addresses belong to it? No?

Simcom

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: TanteStefana on May 04, 2014, 12:32:26 AM

Quote from: eduffield on April 29, 2014, 01:33:59 PM

Quote from: Simcom on April 29, 2014, 11:57:55 AM

I spent a fair amount of time thinking about the discussion with dime, humanitee, luigi1111, camosoul and others yesterday about the anonymity of Darksend. I suspected that the logic behind darksend as currently implemented was not sound, and I thought it would be best to determine how exactly darksend was working, and do an in-depth analysis of a mixing cycle and the transactions that follow mixing.

...

Best,
Sim

Wow! This is great. About 400+ pages ago I talked about having a different kind of pool for change outputs only. Put in all of your change outputs and you'll get new fresh clean inputs of 10DRK. The client could automatically do this after each darksend, which would also get you new inputs for the next round.

I'm currently embedded in patching stratum and p2pool to support the masternode payments, which is why I haven't been around. It takes a lot of work to make something so different from anything else out there, dare I say, revolutionary?

I like the idea of an automatic restructuring of the change eduffield suggests here. I think it would be a nice easy simple clean way of dealing with change addresses. When mixed with other change addresses, to rebuild 10 coin blocks, nobody'd know where the change came from or went to.

I'm sorry, Simcom, but I don't see where Evan cancelled or re-scheduled or did anything to the plans of RC3 from this?

Anyway, I also wanted to say I think adding a blockchain node is an amazing idea! People could run them right from their wallet, and it'd be a way for everyone to participate in "Proof of Service" without feeling the need to hold large amounts of coin. I would guess that because more people would be able to provide this service, the payments wouldn't be that great, but it may well be worth it just to provide some storage space. We still have to be sure it's worth while for people to mine though! Mining makes the world go around (or in this case, makes the coin function!) There is only so much coin produced. The price of coin will really have to increase to make all this functional.... Not easy!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6465870

TanteStefana

full member

Activity: 280

Merit: 100

The Future Of Work

Quote from: DieCommieScum on May 04, 2014, 12:30:56 AM

Quote from: Simcom on May 04, 2014, 12:20:18 AM

Quote from: DieCommieScum on May 04, 2014, 12:06:07 AM

what's the TL;DR for the issues being discussed?

Darksend pools coins, but it requires more coins than you are sending to enter a pool. (eg want to darksend 121 coins, you 1000 coins in your wallet so your coins can enter the 1000 coin pool, you get 879 coins back as change)

Several good solutions have been proposed, but no perfect solution.

I like chaeplin's idea: to send 121 coins, you need 130 in your wallet (not 1000). This breaks down into: 1 entry into the 100 coin pool, 3 entries into the 10 coin pool. sender receives 9 change coins. If routed through several cycles of darksend it would be hard to de-anonymize the transaction.

Ah, yes. A 1000 to send 101 is kind of silly.... even if it was treated as a send of 100 and another of 10 with 9 change that'd be better. And maybe 100+3x10 for 121 with 9 change.

I don't understand why all transactions can't be multiples of 10, except when 10 coins become worth so much money, that not many people would have so many coins. But even so, it doesn't matter as far as speed, however it'd make the blockchain a bit heavier-solved by blockchain proof of service.

You can see Darkcoin is paving such new ground, it's light years ahead and won't be finished overnight.

eizh

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: DieCommieScum on May 04, 2014, 12:06:07 AM

what's the TL;DR for the issues being discussed?

To have good anonymity, the amount disappearing from the sender's address must have a low probability of being close to the intended payment. This is accomplished by low granularity. E.g. to spend anywhere from 100 to 1000 DRK, you must input 1000 DRK. This is obviously inconvenient because what if I want to send 115 DRK but only own 180 DRK?

Providing more granularity either in the protocol itself or by manually doing multiple Darksends (e.g. 100 + 10 + 10) causes plausible deniability to plummet. Sure it may still be hard for a human to piece together a set of possible histories, but a computer could analyze millions of permutations per second and possibly give confident inferences of the sender-receiver mappings.

I agree that this is a valid concern. Don't overestimate the degree of anonymity just because it quickly gets messy in your human head -- blockchain analysis by computers have produced impressive results for connecting BTC holdings to identities despite the complexity provided by a large user base.

Temporal spreading of sends is a possible solution, though very inconvenient for users.

TanteStefana

full member

Activity: 280

Merit: 100

The Future Of Work

Quote from: eduffield on April 29, 2014, 01:33:59 PM

Quote from: Simcom on April 29, 2014, 11:57:55 AM

I spent a fair amount of time thinking about the discussion with dime, humanitee, luigi1111, camosoul and others yesterday about the anonymity of Darksend. I suspected that the logic behind darksend as currently implemented was not sound, and I thought it would be best to determine how exactly darksend was working, and do an in-depth analysis of a mixing cycle and the transactions that follow mixing.

...

Best,
Sim

Wow! This is great. About 400+ pages ago I talked about having a different kind of pool for change outputs only. Put in all of your change outputs and you'll get new fresh clean inputs of 10DRK. The client could automatically do this after each darksend, which would also get you new inputs for the next round.

I'm currently embedded in patching stratum and p2pool to support the masternode payments, which is why I haven't been around. It takes a lot of work to make something so different from anything else out there, dare I say, revolutionary?

I like the idea of an automatic restructuring of the change eduffield suggests here. I think it would be a nice easy simple clean way of dealing with change addresses. When mixed with other change addresses, to rebuild 10 coin blocks, nobody'd know where the change came from or went to.

I'm sorry, Simcom, but I don't see where Evan cancelled or re-scheduled or did anything to the plans of RC3 from this?

Anyway, I also wanted to say I think adding a blockchain node is an amazing idea! People could run them right from their wallet, and it'd be a way for everyone to participate in "Proof of Service" without feeling the need to hold large amounts of coin. I would guess that because more people would be able to provide this service, the payments wouldn't be that great, but it may well be worth it just to provide some storage space. We still have to be sure it's worth while for people to mine though! Mining makes the world go around (or in this case, makes the coin function!) There is only so much coin produced. The price of coin will really have to increase to make all this functional.... Not easy!

DieCommieScum

full member

Activity: 128

Merit: 100

Quote from: Simcom on May 04, 2014, 12:20:18 AM

Quote from: DieCommieScum on May 04, 2014, 12:06:07 AM

what's the TL;DR for the issues being discussed?

Darksend pools coins, but it requires more coins than you are sending to enter a pool. (eg want to darksend 121 coins, you 1000 coins in your wallet so your coins can enter the 1000 coin pool, you get 879 coins back as change)

Several good solutions have been proposed, but no perfect solution.

I like chaeplin's idea: to send 121 coins, you need 130 in your wallet (not 1000). This breaks down into: 1 entry into the 100 coin pool, 3 entries into the 10 coin pool. sender receives 9 change coins. If routed through several cycles of darksend it would be hard to de-anonymize the transaction.

Ah, yes. A 1000 to send 101 is kind of silly.... even if it was treated as a send of 100 and another of 10 with 9 change that'd be better. And maybe 100+3x10 for 121 with 9 change.

Simcom

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: DieCommieScum on May 04, 2014, 12:06:07 AM

what's the TL;DR for the issues being discussed?

Darksend pools coins, but it requires more coins than you are sending to enter a pool. (eg want to darksend 121 coins, you need 1000 coins in your wallet so your coins can enter the 1000 coin pool, you get 879 coins back as change)

Several good solutions have been proposed, but no perfect solution.

I like chaeplin's idea: to send 121 coins, you need 130 in your wallet (not 1000). This breaks down into: 1 entry into the 100 coin pool, 3 entries into the 10 coin pool. sender receives 9 change coins. If routed through several cycles of darksend it would be hard to de-anonymize the transaction.

DieCommieScum

full member

Activity: 128

Merit: 100

what's the TL;DR for the issues being discussed?

darkproton

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: peteycamey on May 03, 2014, 10:42:43 PM

why the price went down so hard?

That's what she said. Or he. He said.

goodluck0319

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

what is the best setting for 290 non x gpu?

I have xfx 290 non ref and 290 ref? xfx 290 non ref kept give me sick msg when I mine?

jakecrow

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

Quote from: sharkbyte093 on May 03, 2014, 10:49:28 PM

Quote from: peteycamey on May 03, 2014, 10:42:43 PM

why the price went down so hard?

Because it went up so hard. Gravity.

Can't argue with that!

sharkbyte093

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: peteycamey on May 03, 2014, 10:42:43 PM

why the price went down so hard?

Because it went up so hard. Gravity.

peteycamey

legendary

Activity: 1185

Merit: 1026

why the price went down so hard?

Kai Proctor

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

01100100 01100001 01110011 01101000

Quote from: Simcom on May 03, 2014, 09:22:37 PM

Quote from: Kai Proctor on May 03, 2014, 09:10:35 PM

@Simcom Every time you believe that you may have find a flaw with DarkSend but yet you don't seem to totally understand or know about the way it works. Take your time to read the thread, some of your questions and concerns have already been answered long ago.

LOL seriously? The last issue I raised (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6459044) was so serious that Evan decided to devote an entire release (RC3) to fix it. I am just trying to help. :/

And you have a very alarmist way of presenting things. Just saying.

reflexmk

sr. member

Activity: 289

Merit: 250

what do I have to change in my miner settings for p2p pool mining? 4x 280x dual-x 1070/1500/1.125v getting 2135 Kh/s each @550w total with -w 256 -I 13 -g 2 --lookup-gap 2 --thread-concurrency 8193 --gpu-fan 50 --shaders 2048 --gpu-powertune 20. Thanks

sharkbyte093

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

OK, let me first state that technically some of this is over my head. I am not a cryptographer or even a programmer.

That being said, I was wondering about something. If it has been discussed previously please forgive me.

What if instead of darksend sending coins to the pool and then on to a singular final address, it sends coins to multiple addresses that are in the same wallet. What if these multiple addresses were contained within a master address, that had anywhere from 3-5 addresses contained within. Master addresses could be generated much like you would generate an address in most crypto wallets, except it would have multiple sub-addresses. So each time you generate a new master address, you get 3-5 new sub-addresses. The change from darksend transactions could then be sent back to the sender at multiple sub-addresses.

Now obviously the owner of the master address and subsequently the sub-addresses would have to be masked somehow. Could it then be encrypted?

Is this even possible? Just an idea. If it has been discussed before or is totally asinine I apologize.

darkproton

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

Quote from: Simcom on May 03, 2014, 09:22:37 PM

Quote from: Kai Proctor on May 03, 2014, 09:10:35 PM

@Simcom Every time you believe that you may have find a flaw with DarkSend but yet you don't seem to totally understand or know about the way it works. Take your time to read the thread, some of your questions and concerns have already been answered long ago.

LOL seriously? The last issue I raised (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6459044) was so serious that Evan decided to devote an entire release (RC3) to fix it. I am just trying to help. :/

I hope you do continue to help. I think your postings can be very constructive.

Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6115. (Read 9724017 times)