Same here. This latest beta finally works for me.
I wonder why we're centralizing DarkSend... Why can't it be as equally distributed as the BlockChain? TOR chooses Rendezvous nodes for hidden services entirely at random, so no "MasterNode" can be identified...
I'm not opposed to a setup like that. Maybe that can be V2. I'd argue our system is still decentralized though, there will be many masternodes each doing mixing for a small time.
I realize it's not a black and white issue, I'm suggesting that it be made into a black and white issue. Still testing, too...
I'd like DarkSend a lot more if it distributed the pool of darksends in the same way the memory pool currently distributes all sends. It's a good model for many reasons, why re-invent the wheel?
As it is, if one node is compromised or malicious, what stops it from hosing up darksend? Sure, that TX will fall out of the memory pool and eventually be not a sent transaction according to my client, but how about something that actively avoids the incident? Why shouldn't all clients hosting the full chain also be darksend nodes? For that matter, why is darksend optional? Why aren't all sends done in that manner automatically? Input volume, yes...
It's easy to be the idea guy when you don't have to do all the work... ;-)
Some of my questions are a bit noobish, but I wanted them answered for the sake of the noobs reading this thread. If you can barely comprehend BitCoin, this is a lot of new fancy stuff on top of it...
At the least, there should be some way to prevent discerning such nodes as that represents a less distributed model and a point of attack. The simplest way I know of doing that is to include it or tie it to another feature, not have it independently selectable and independently identifiable. My first thought is anything that hosts the full blockchain also functions as a darksend node by default, no user option to do otherwise. This works as a paradox because we still know which nodes are doing darksend, but it's equally futile to attack one of them as it is to attack a node for any other reason. Looking forward, this makes sense because you don't want a darksend node taking the BitCoin route of clients that don't hold the full chain once it gets so hugeness. It wouldn't be able to verify veracity of the claim from which the send it originating.
It may not be a concern today, but it will be eventually. If my ass speaketh, advise me of my ignorance that I might be rid of it.
