Yup... Evan is the REAL Satoshi Nakam * WHAAAAAAMM*..... ZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........
Wow, this article really blew my mind! Something was bugging me about Mastercoin, now I know what it is! (I already did, but was trusting the "market" - making me the biggest idiot for not trusting my gut... that and the lack of actual factual development)
100% moving out of Mastercoin, and the reason its falling so quick
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/the-brokenness-of-maidsafe/
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6160. (Read 9724097 times)
April 29, 2014, 01:57:35 PM
April 29, 2014, 01:39:41 PM
Couldn't you just clean XYZ wallets by sending yourself dummy transactions between legit ones (or having the client automate it)? Anonymint talked about this I believe. The more you send yourself the better. Also wasn't there talk of having some sort of injection nodes churning out constant dummy transactions?
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 flesh clean inputs of 10DRK. The client could automatically do this after each darksend, which would also get you new inputs for the next round.
That must be what I was thinking of.
April 29, 2014, 01:33:59 PM
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
...
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?
April 29, 2014, 01:30:58 PM
Aaah finally 
April 29, 2014, 01:26:55 PM
Darkcoin has been added to Bter.com 's BTC market
Deposit at
https://bter.com/myaccount/deposit/DRK
and Trade at
https://bter.com/trade/drk_btc
Deposit at
https://bter.com/myaccount/deposit/DRK
and Trade at
https://bter.com/trade/drk_btc
About time. BTC38, are you watching?
Slightly aroused.
April 29, 2014, 01:25:57 PM
Darkcoin has been added to Bter.com 's BTC market
Deposit at
https://bter.com/myaccount/deposit/DRK
and Trade at
https://bter.com/trade/drk_btc
Deposit at
https://bter.com/myaccount/deposit/DRK
and Trade at
https://bter.com/trade/drk_btc
About time. BTC38, are you watching?
April 29, 2014, 01:25:06 PM
E) Let's Brainstorm
There are other solutions I’m sure.. If everything above is implemented the anonymity of darkcoin will be extremely high, but there might be other great solutions I didn't think of, this is where you and our talented devs come in. Throw out your best ideas to increase anonymity
It's also worth mentioning that I haven't sold any of my coins since discovering the flaw, the future of Darkcoin is still extremely bright. Evan is an amazing dev that should be able to fix this issue in no time. Sorry for the long post (:
Best,
Sim
Wouldn't the best solution be that the change payment to be randomized in amount and time, leading to multiple change sends and in different amounts. This would look like a bucket where you can increase the users and randomly select (with some priority protocol parameters). Like 10 people in a bucket? If the bucket even has internal addresses to do the same thing stated above for even more shading?
I don't think randomizing the amount would help because the numbers will still add up to one of the change addresses.
Ie
1+1+1+1 = 4
1.2+1.5+.3+1 = 4
So in either scenario if the dirty change addresses are spent at the same time with one of the other addresses linked to the darksend transaction it would be possible to do the same analysis.
I do think randomizing the amount of time that the coins spend in repeated washing cycles will help solve the issue, see A) , but alone A) will only help - it needs to be combined with some of the other ideas to really fix the problem. Really C) is super important. There need to be other 8's and 2's in the pool to mathematically hide John's address.
Couldn't you just clean XYZ wallets by sending yourself dummy transactions between legit ones (or having the client automate it)? Anonymint talked about this I believe. The more you send yourself the better. Also wasn't there talk of having some sort of injection nodes churning out constant dummy transactions?
April 29, 2014, 01:24:49 PM
Darkcoin has been added to Bter.com 's BTC market
Deposit at
https://bter.com/myaccount/deposit/DRK
and Trade at
https://bter.com/trade/drk_btc
Deposit at
https://bter.com/myaccount/deposit/DRK
and Trade at
https://bter.com/trade/drk_btc
April 29, 2014, 01:22:14 PM
E) Let's Brainstorm
There are other solutions I’m sure.. If everything above is implemented the anonymity of darkcoin will be extremely high, but there might be other great solutions I didn't think of, this is where you and our talented devs come in. Throw out your best ideas to increase anonymity
It's also worth mentioning that I haven't sold any of my coins since discovering the flaw, the future of Darkcoin is still extremely bright. Evan is an amazing dev that should be able to fix this issue in no time. Sorry for the long post (:
Best,
Sim
Wouldn't the best solution be that the change payment to be randomized in amount and time, leading to multiple change sends and in different amounts. This would look like a bucket where you can increase the users and randomly select (with some priority protocol parameters). Like 10 people in a bucket? If the bucket even has internal addresses to do the same thing stated above for even more shading?
I don't think randomizing the amount would help because the numbers will still add up to one of the change addresses.
Ie
1+1+1+1 = 4
1.2+1.5+.3+1 = 4
So in either scenario if the dirty change addresses are spent at the same time with one of the other addresses linked to the darksend transaction it would be possible to do the same analysis.
I do think randomizing the amount of time that the coins spend in repeated washing cycles will help solve the issue, see A) , but alone A) will only help - it needs to be combined with some of the other ideas to really fix the problem. Really C) is super important. There need to be other 8's and 2's in the pool to mathematically hide John's address.
Well all you need to do is to sever the link. Different timing will solve that? And if it is in a waiting list and sent internally between mixer addresses before sending back prioritized?
What happends if there's two inputs from one user and how would the change back look like then?
April 29, 2014, 01:11:03 PM
There was a bunch of questions on the development around here +/- about 5 pages
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6025211
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6025211
April 29, 2014, 01:02:13 PM
E) Let's Brainstorm
There are other solutions I’m sure.. If everything above is implemented the anonymity of darkcoin will be extremely high, but there might be other great solutions I didn't think of, this is where you and our talented devs come in. Throw out your best ideas to increase anonymity
It's also worth mentioning that I haven't sold any of my coins since discovering the flaw, the future of Darkcoin is still extremely bright. Evan is an amazing dev that should be able to fix this issue in no time. Sorry for the long post (:
Best,
Sim
Wouldn't the best solution be that the change payment to be randomized in amount and time, leading to multiple change sends and in different amounts. This would look like a bucket where you can increase the users and randomly select (with some priority protocol parameters). Like 10 people in a bucket? If the bucket even has internal addresses to do the same thing stated above for even more shading?
I don't think randomizing the amount would help because the numbers will still add up to one of the change addresses.
Ie
1+1+1+1 = 4
1.2+1.5+.3+1 = 4
So in either scenario if the dirty change addresses are spent at the same time with one of the other addresses linked to the darksend transaction it would be possible to do the same analysis.
I do think randomizing the amount of time that the coins spend in repeated washing cycles will help solve the issue, see A) , but alone A) will only help - it needs to be combined with some of the other ideas to really fix the problem. Really C) is super important. There need to be other 8's and 2's in the pool to mathematically hide John's address.
April 29, 2014, 12:48:24 PM
E) Let's Brainstorm
There are other solutions I’m sure.. If everything above is implemented the anonymity of darkcoin will be extremely high, but there might be other great solutions I didn't think of, this is where you and our talented devs come in. Throw out your best ideas to increase anonymity
It's also worth mentioning that I haven't sold any of my coins since discovering the flaw, the future of Darkcoin is still extremely bright. Evan is an amazing dev that should be able to fix this issue in no time. Sorry for the long post (:
Best,
Sim
Wouldn't the best solution be that the change payment to be randomized in amount and time, leading to multiple change sends and in different amounts. This would look like a bucket where you can increase the users and randomly select (with some priority protocol parameters). Like 10 people in a bucket? If the bucket even has internal addresses to do the same thing stated above for even more shading?
April 29, 2014, 12:45:31 PM
Yep, that is the exact scenario, I must have missed your post earlier. I am kinda late to the party here and have missed a lot of the early discussion. Hopefully we will get a response from Evan on this issue.
My question didn't result in any further discussion or a response from the dev so I'm glad you pointed it out with a bigger post. This time we should get an answer.
April 29, 2014, 12:39:29 PM
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.
...
...
I pointed this out in mid-March and never got a response. It needs to be addressed.
DarkSend question:
After a DarkSend, the change is sent back to a hidden change address to which I own the private key, but no one knows it's mine. But what if I later had to send an amount large enough that my wallet is forced to source it from multiple addresses including this change address? This could then reveal that the original sender address and the change address are connected. With the change amount known, the sent amount is also known and the recipient can be guessed more easily. Is this correct?
After a DarkSend, the change is sent back to a hidden change address to which I own the private key, but no one knows it's mine. But what if I later had to send an amount large enough that my wallet is forced to source it from multiple addresses including this change address? This could then reveal that the original sender address and the change address are connected. With the change amount known, the sent amount is also known and the recipient can be guessed more easily. Is this correct?
Yep, that is the exact scenario, I must have missed your post earlier. I am kinda late to the party here and have missed a lot of the early discussion. Hopefully we will get a response from Evan on this issue.
April 29, 2014, 12:34:10 PM
Thank you for the time you put into it. Awesome.
This is why I love this coin and community.
Now that I understand how it works, I hope i'll be able to go back and grasp some of Anonymint and Evan's chat.
Edit- if someone finds these messages between Evan and Anonymint, can you plz post the quotes in one post for easy reading/tracking/referring.
April 29, 2014, 12:32:45 PM
So if the masternodes are required to keep 1k DRK on them, why do any of sender A's coins even need to be used for the change? It would make more sense if it went something like this:
10 People send transactions which use the default 10 DRK. The master node parks the 100 coins and uses 100 of the 1000 DRK that are just sitting there with absolutely no tie to anyone's wallet addresses in the current block transactions. This way there will be a several block disconnect between you sending the coins and the coins actually getting to a recipient. If you try to analyze the block chain you'll see the coins go to a wallet, sit there for X number of blocks then it gets sent to another address. Neither the sender nor the receiver will receive the coins that they actually sent, but the same value of coins that other users have sent.
I hope that makes sense.
10 People send transactions which use the default 10 DRK. The master node parks the 100 coins and uses 100 of the 1000 DRK that are just sitting there with absolutely no tie to anyone's wallet addresses in the current block transactions. This way there will be a several block disconnect between you sending the coins and the coins actually getting to a recipient. If you try to analyze the block chain you'll see the coins go to a wallet, sit there for X number of blocks then it gets sent to another address. Neither the sender nor the receiver will receive the coins that they actually sent, but the same value of coins that other users have sent.
I hope that makes sense.
April 29, 2014, 12:30:43 PM
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.
...
...
I pointed this out in mid-March and never got a response. It needs to be addressed.
DarkSend question:
After a DarkSend, the change is sent back to a hidden change address to which I own the private key, but no one knows it's mine. But what if I later had to send an amount large enough that my wallet is forced to source it from multiple addresses including this change address? This could then reveal that the original sender address and the change address are connected. With the change amount known, the sent amount is also known and the recipient can be guessed more easily. Is this correct?
After a DarkSend, the change is sent back to a hidden change address to which I own the private key, but no one knows it's mine. But what if I later had to send an amount large enough that my wallet is forced to source it from multiple addresses including this change address? This could then reveal that the original sender address and the change address are connected. With the change amount known, the sent amount is also known and the recipient can be guessed more easily. Is this correct?
April 29, 2014, 12:25:18 PM
Search for the discussion between Evan and AnonyMint earlier this month to not waste your time trying to reinvent the wheel.
April 29, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
Another dump without much expression so far! Look at that order book on mintpal!
This coins is going to be huge
This is all normal. Traders are having their fun with the coin. You shouldn't worry short-term about the price. This coins is going to be huge
April 29, 2014, 12:01:56 PM
I would like to ask the devs to make it compulsory to include the blockchain as part of the supernodes, and have it as 'read by anyone'.
I think that once we have the supernodes up and running with a readable blockchain that is accessible by anyone, different services might evolve independent of the darkcoin devs on top of this, such as the thin wallet described by TS.
Personally, I'm thinking less about smartphone wallet, and more about symbian wallet for third world countries.
These countries enjoy a huge influx of remittances by workers sending money back home, traditionally via Western Union.
We have in our village Thai and Filipino students/workers. I heard how much they are charged for transfers and almost fell to the ground.
This is huge market of more than $0.5 TRILLION PER YEAR.
I think this also bundles well with the Darkcoin gift-card that the devs are working on.
I think that once we have the supernodes up and running with a readable blockchain that is accessible by anyone, different services might evolve independent of the darkcoin devs on top of this, such as the thin wallet described by TS.
Personally, I'm thinking less about smartphone wallet, and more about symbian wallet for third world countries.
These countries enjoy a huge influx of remittances by workers sending money back home, traditionally via Western Union.
We have in our village Thai and Filipino students/workers. I heard how much they are charged for transfers and almost fell to the ground.
This is huge market of more than $0.5 TRILLION PER YEAR.
I think this also bundles well with the Darkcoin gift-card that the devs are working on.
This is a great idea.
This is something that Andreas Antonopoulos is always talking in his conferences. I think we must focus in real "third world" problems instead of western world merchants.
We must beat Western Union first, then other FIAT currencies
Agree
Another dump without much expression so far! Look at that order book on mintpal!
This coins is going to be huge
This coins is going to be huge
I have no doubt!
Jump to: