Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6156. (Read 9724097 times)

Nice. I never thought about this in the way you have clearly stated. I like your read on the situation. I, myself, would not trust money going through a plugin. Heck, I barely like plugins. I dare say I would fall in with the html group over flash. Very interesting and thought provoking.

But Darkcoin is not a scrypt-based.  I highly doubt their asic would work with x11. If asics did come it would definitely drive to block reward down to 5 and probably help the price that way... so it probably wouldnt be that bad tbh.  Even though I love mining x11

Blah blah pre-order our ASICs they are the best...never heard that before 

omg ! check this article, i really hope they will not implement the X11 to their ASIC miners

Today, Flower Tech is thrilled to announce several significant accomplishments in our Scrypt ASIC development. Our customers will receive the absolute best in performance, power and value when it comes to Scrypt mining solutions. Our engineering team at Ensilica has made substantial progress on our ASIC, and continue to progress steadily with development as we work towards tape-out. We once again are able to provide the highest performance Scrypt ASIC with the lowest power consumption on the market.
First and foremost, in order to provide our customers with the best value in performance mining hardware, we will be upgrading the Orchid and all customers’ Orchid orders, present and future, to 60 MH/s and will remain at our highly competitive price of $1,900 USD. Our brand new, high-performance miner, the Lilac, will hash at a rate of 300MH/s with the market-best pricing of only $7900.00 USD, hailing in at a market-topping cost per kH of $0.0263 / (kH/s). This ensures the Lilac is the absolute best in performance per dollar on the Scrypt mining market. Lilac pre-orders will be first come first served and will ship according to priority in qeueu. Any existing Orchid customers who wish to upgrade to the Lilac will be given the option to do so and are asked to send an email to [email protected] with an upgrade request.

We are pleased to announce our updated power specifications for the Flower Tech 28nm ASIC. Our skilled engineers have managed to achieve incredibly low power usage for each Flower Technology chip, with numbers tested and confirmed at slightly under 1.8 watts per mega-hash. This milestone is achieved through M.A.S.T. (Massive Array of Scrypt Threads) technology, aimed to minimize consumer power usage and necessary cooling, keeping monthly power bills low and allowing you to mine at a highly efficient rate with maximum performance.

Finally, we are thrilled to announce a huge milestone in both ASIC development and the Scrypt mining community. The Flower Technology ASIC is now capable of mining Scrypt-N in addition to Scrypt proof-of-work coins. This will future-proof your purchase for expanded mining options and increased versatility. Examples of Scrypt-based coins you can mine with our machines includes Litecoin, Dogecoin, Mastercoin, Darkcoin, Isracoin, Auroracoin, Feathercoin, while examples of Scrypt-N coins you can mine with our machines includes Vertcoin, execoin, GPUcoin, CaiShen and PANDA.

Here at Flower Tech we will continue to set the bar in performance, power-saving and versatility. We appreciate the support we have gathered from the community, and will continue to work to improve our units as we work progress towards tape-out.
ALSO: WE HAVE SECRETLY BEEN WORKING TO IMPLEMENT SUPPORT FOR SCRYPT-N SUPPORT UP TO N=16384!!!  We have been successful and now our ASIC is capable of mining any Scrypt-N coins such as Vertcoin

My 2-cents analogy for Dark Wallet:
About 15 years ago, I was exposed to several radical start-ups in Israel in the fields of betting and forex.
At the time, html looked pale, whereas Flash was really pushing the limits in user experience, animation, etc.

It took time to understand an apparent paradox-
People liked very much the betting and financial presentation of markets in Flash, but apparently where not loading money to their account. At the time, the general thought was it's because people are afraid to give their credit-cards or don't trust the companies...

It took some time until the 'dime fell'. The reason was that people where not trusty of Flash as means to transfer their credit-card details. It was too shinny. Like a honeypot...
When 2 groups of people were offered the choices - an html page for entering their credit-card details (with a secure https lock etc.), or a Flash interface, the numbers were overwhelmingly favorable to html.  

Fast forward to 2014 - Dark Wallet:
From the little I understand, DarkWallet is a plugin for browsers...
I believe people do not trust plug-ins with their money, in the same manner as they did not trust flash.

To strengthen my argument above, I can stress that I've seen more than a few start-ups in the past decade that deal in NFC (Near Field Communications), and other types of mobile payments and eCash. Al have failed... and it wasn't because of the technology.
 

Dark Wallet article in Wired Magazine:

‘Dark Wallet’ Is About to Make Bitcoin Money Laundering Easier Than Ever

http://www.wired.com/2014/04/dark-wallet/?mbid=social_fb

instresting

Your next task is to update the chart with the plans Evan has for RC3  

Denomitated change addresses! 

My head hurts.....   

Ok, here is another attempt:



Remember, I'm just trying to put down what I believe Evan is actually doing

Yes if it we knew for sure that each 10 coins came from a separate wallet, there would be a big problem with the logic. But because multiple inputs can come from the same wallet and hopefully the denominization will be semi-random, so the logic is sound.  If X+Y+V+Z+A shows up in a darksend, A is not necessarily outed because even though X+Y+V+Z adds up to 7.5 and there was a 2.5 output, it is possible that the Joe&Suzie transactions came from the same wallet and we are actually looking at W+K+G+H+A not X+Y+V+Z+A.  It would be impossible to differentiate between X+Y+V+Z+A and A+W+K+G+H because both of these possible "change" combinations add up to 7.5    It is quite an eloquent solution actually.

There is still the problem evan mentions: if only one instance of a denomination is present it will be easy to out that person, but this seems like it would be an unlikely event once there are more than 4-5 people participating in the pool. Evan could even completely ablate this problem by coding it so that the darksend mixing won't start until there are at least 2 of every denomination represented.

No. This is wrong and people shouldn't practice it. Bitcoin is fine with 10 minute block as well.

Yah, I don't have it right yet... Ugh! I think the layers of Masternodes was to obfuscate the IP address which might be snooped out by a Masternode.  So I'm guessing, the first Masternode can only receive the coin and pass on the instructions to another Masternode, so that no Masternode can have all the information?  Maybe several Masternodes will pass the funds and instructions along so that the possibility of having control of enough Masternodes to retain the information is pretty much nil.  Then the final MasterNode, who can only know the IP address of the last MasterNode, is allowed to "open" the instructions, and sends the amounts to their recipients.

  I'll post another flow chart in a moment which might be how Evan is doing this or going to do this??

This is the thing.  It already seems to work this way.  I've used DarkSend to send funds to a second wallet via an address1.  When I try to see the balance afterwards of address1, I get 0, but I can see in my wallet that the funds have arrived.  I'm trying to understand what happens so that I can get this flowchart to be correct!

Genius is a too strong word. He i just a developer, a real one. DRK might be one of the top coins, it surely has potential.

out of curiousity, is there any chance in reducing the block time for 2.5mins? There are alot of coins that have much faster block times now which would lend to be better accepted as a currency for every day purchases in the future.

This really is brilliant and completely removes the problems we've been brainstorming about (or I'm just tired again (always have an excuse )). Too bad there's not a practical way of implementing it, right? Right? 

I was in the middle of going through this very logic myself, when I refreshed and saw your post.

I agree with the basic analysis: this proposed method seems to me to be flawless unless and until the largest change holder sends from all his change addresses associated with a particular DarkSend simultaneously with balance from his "main" address.

I'm still going to have to think about it more, because what if we DON'T consider the last sentence in your 3rd paragraph? Aren't we still *potentially* impacting anonymity?

I'm falling asleep right now, but I can't think of how you could actually secure this if the largest change holder did what you describe above. Even additional mixing wouldn't help as you could just track inputs and outputs all the way back once John did the bad deed.

I guess my point is: there's probably a large chance of additional "noise" being created that would make our potential analysis of John's coins impossible, but what if in a particular case this noise doesn't exist?

Or I'm just tired.

I spent a decent amount of time thinking about how to denominate the receiving address as well.  One solution I thought of, is not nearly as fancy as what you describe but sort of works.  You could just have the recipient provide a concatenated list of addresses from his wallet than can be used to do denominate the transaction.  This could be called a "Dark" address or something else equally silly  . and would look something like this:

ABCDEFGHIJK

where each letter represents a different address in the receiving wallet. The "Dark" address would be long as fuck, but it would get the job done - on the blockchain there would be no record of a special "Dark" address ever existing, only the individual addresses, A, B, C etc.

Ok, well I think this is a great solution, definitely the best idea proposed so far.  I have spent several hours thinking about ways to break it but I can't seem to come up with an Achilles heel.

A couple suggestions off the top of my head.  I think it would help if there was some randomness added to the way things are denominated. Ie sometimes 1.5 is denomated 1+0.5 - sometimes it is denominated 1+0.25+0.1+0.1+.05 sometimes it is denominated 0.5+0.5+0.5.  This would make it substantially harder to figure out what is going on in the blockchain

My other concern is that whoever gets the biggest amount of change is put in a precarious position.  In the above example this would be John. If John sends X+Y+V+Z+A he is outing A as the sender to C.  Even if John Darksends these coins he is still outing address A. Then once he outs himself, Joe (as the second largest change recipient (7DRK) is at risk of outing himself if he sends (or darksends) W+K+J+E. I suppose this whole scenario is a non-issue if we consider that more than one transaction can be sent into the pool from the same wallet, so it would be impossible to tell for certain who got the most change, as someone could have submitted multiple transactions and received 20,30,40 change coins to the same wallet.  

Seriously though, this is a fantastic solution, I'm relatively certain the logic is sound, and the level of anonymity will be very high. I'll sleep well tonight for sure