Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6410. (Read 9723858 times)
April 02, 2014, 03:05:19 PM
Thinking about how to violate the system with the mining reward: Say I am a pool operator and find blocks frequently. Is there a way where I can forge the transactions of the last block to make it appear that the DarkSend was performed in Masternode A instead of Masternode B, so that A gets the mining fee instead of B who actually performed it?
April 02, 2014, 03:02:45 PM
I am not sure of this.....
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
It's hard for me to keep up with the entire thread, but couldn't you just run a TOR node?
Yes you could run your master node via tor,
Your name sounds really familiar, where may I have heard it before?
April 02, 2014, 03:02:36 PM
I have asked before, but:
* Can DarkSend be the default payment option, with Darkcoin as the tick box option? For the average person, using darksend should be the norm. Those that want cheaper payment tools can opt out. People that use Darksend would be technical, but as things move on ordinary people would just expect anonymity from the word go.
Other:
* Is it worth having a market setting mechanism for node fees? i.e. nodes can elect what to charge?
* Exchanges and other services such as pools, gambling, stores, online wallet services, etc will be collection and pinch points in the network and will accumulate coins. What happens if we get hot spots of legitimate businesses where a court order can be obtained so that officials can go and sit on a system and monitor it, etc?
* Can DarkSend be the default payment option, with Darkcoin as the tick box option? For the average person, using darksend should be the norm. Those that want cheaper payment tools can opt out. People that use Darksend would be technical, but as things move on ordinary people would just expect anonymity from the word go.
Other:
* Is it worth having a market setting mechanism for node fees? i.e. nodes can elect what to charge?
* Exchanges and other services such as pools, gambling, stores, online wallet services, etc will be collection and pinch points in the network and will accumulate coins. What happens if we get hot spots of legitimate businesses where a court order can be obtained so that officials can go and sit on a system and monitor it, etc?
April 02, 2014, 03:01:45 PM
Maybe a dumb question : Is it possible to create addresses for the master nodes (darkcoin p2p) and use them instead of IP ?
April 02, 2014, 03:00:30 PM
I am not sure of this.....
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
It's hard for me to keep up with the entire thread, but couldn't you just run a TOR node?
SR 1.0 operator was busted in public view(to make a statement). Tor is really not what it is made out to be and like AnonyMint said, one could pull a number out of ther rear as to how much security % it provides. Sure, if I want to troll on a forum, I will post via Tor, but will not bank on it when money is involved.
lol, using dumbass DPR is a bad example. "Let me make an obvious thread on bitcointalk about SR and register with an email address that is my name."
TOR may or may not be completely anonymous. It's better than nothing and is the solution to your question. More people using it will increase anonymity (more relays, potentially more exit nodes).
April 02, 2014, 02:57:58 PM
I am not sure of this.....
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
It's hard for me to keep up with the entire thread, but couldn't you just run a TOR node?
SR 1.0 operator was busted in public view(to make a statement). Tor is really not what it is made out to be and like AnonyMint said, one could pull a number out of ther rear as to how much security % it provides. Sure, if I want to troll on a forum, I will post via Tor, but will not bank on it when money is involved.
April 02, 2014, 02:56:35 PM
The next stage of DarkSend
The design of Darkcoin is all about economic incentives, I've tried to bake as much of that in as possible. I've been thinking about the reliance on master nodes in our new design for securing the network and I see some room for improvement.
With the current design we will require 1000DRK to operate a master node. That requires you putting 1000DRK in a hotwallet (dangerous) only to collect the collateral fees which won't amount to much.
So what do we want?
- We want as many master nodes as possible (the more nodes the more secure the network)
- We want them to be profitable to run
- We want it to be very expensive investment to operate a master node
So I propose the following solution, each block the last master node will receive 10% of the mining reward (in addition to the reward given to the miner). So for example, if the mining reward was 19DRK the last master node will automatically receive 1.9DRK.
The design of Darkcoin is all about economic incentives, I've tried to bake as much of that in as possible. I've been thinking about the reliance on master nodes in our new design for securing the network and I see some room for improvement.
With the current design we will require 1000DRK to operate a master node. That requires you putting 1000DRK in a hotwallet (dangerous) only to collect the collateral fees which won't amount to much.
So what do we want?
- We want as many master nodes as possible (the more nodes the more secure the network)
- We want them to be profitable to run
- We want it to be very expensive investment to operate a master node
So I propose the following solution, each block the last master node will receive 10% of the mining reward (in addition to the reward given to the miner). So for example, if the mining reward was 19DRK the last master node will automatically receive 1.9DRK.
Good to see I did help. I helped you focus on a need apparently. That makes me feel good. Best of luck with it.
April 02, 2014, 02:55:54 PM
I am not sure of this.....
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
It's hard for me to keep up with the entire thread, but couldn't you just run a TOR node?
Yes you could run your master node via tor,
April 02, 2014, 02:51:26 PM
I am not sure of this.....
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
It's hard for me to keep up with the entire thread, but couldn't you just run a TOR node?
April 02, 2014, 02:48:26 PM
I am not sure of this.....
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
A few posts ago we were talking about obfuscated IPs and adding a stronger layer of anonymity. Why would one want to run servers with known IP addresses especially if there are other kind of ramifications besides denial/service poisoning?
April 02, 2014, 02:44:58 PM
Maybe this can be adjusted as the value the 1,000 DRK represents changes?
That's a good idea.
April 02, 2014, 02:44:42 PM
Something else: The other day someone mentioned about the DRK allocation to various wallets and that Cryptsy has something like 400-500k DRK (?)... so, in this scenario, an exchange of that size can create 400 master nodes as a way to gain "interest" on their money despite the hot-wallet risk. Even if they only used 50% of their DRKs, it could be 200 nodes - which would be a sizeable part of the network under control of only 1 party. That would require quite a lot of laundering depth to avoid the chance of hitting a cryptsy node every single time.
Good point. I wonder if holders would then want to run multiple nodes themselves, withdrawing from Cryptsy. I know I would but I am a bad trader.
Furthermore, if it was discovered that an exchange was keeping a large majority of funds hot, do you think users would keep their money there? People are excessively stupid so it is likely.
April 02, 2014, 02:43:44 PM
If there's a tutorial for windows i'm up!
Maybe 500 DRK ? The more, the merrier.
Maybe 500 DRK ? The more, the merrier.
April 02, 2014, 02:43:05 PM
1) If DRK goes to, say, 10 bucks a coin in the mid-term, we are talking about 10.000 usd for running a node. It could be too much.
Maybe this can be adjusted as the value the 1,000 DRK represents changes?
2) 10% of the mining for last node sounds too much. It also may open up a window of exploitation and give incentive to DDOS in master nodes so that one node takes the fee instead of the other... Other types of exploitation for getting the mining reward could spring up as we go along.
10% of the reward is not much if you will get it only once in every 1000 blocks. Dunno where the sweet spot is though.
There will be too many nodes running for anyone to dos them all.
April 02, 2014, 02:42:57 PM
How do we know other countries wont do the same...
lol, IDGAF.
Keep it legal in your country and get the increase in taxes and business, or shoot yourself in the face and give it all to the black market. You can't stop crypto-currency.
There are only a few countries that have banned it and none of the bans were surprising. I wouldn't worry about it.
China bring us too heavy
How should we respond?
Maybe we can't change what
April 02, 2014, 02:41:44 PM
If only I had 1000 DRK 
April 02, 2014, 02:38:18 PM
Random thoughts that spring up:
1) If DRK goes to, say, 10 bucks a coin in the mid-term, we are talking about 10.000 usd for running a node. It could be too much.
2) 10% of the mining for last node sounds too much. It also may open up a window of exploitation and give incentive to DDOS in master nodes so that one node takes the fee instead of the other... Other types of exploitation for getting the mining reward could spring up as we go along.
1000DRK is probably too much, it was just an example number. So was 10%. I was just vetting the idea itself.1) If DRK goes to, say, 10 bucks a coin in the mid-term, we are talking about 10.000 usd for running a node. It could be too much.
2) 10% of the mining for last node sounds too much. It also may open up a window of exploitation and give incentive to DDOS in master nodes so that one node takes the fee instead of the other... Other types of exploitation for getting the mining reward could spring up as we go along.
Something else: The other day someone mentioned about the DRK allocation to various wallets and that Cryptsy has something like 400-500k DRK (?)... so, in this scenario, an exchange of that size can create 400 master nodes as a way to gain "interest" on their money despite the hot-wallet risk. Even if they only used 50% of their DRKs, it could be 200 nodes - which would be a sizeable part of the network under control of only 1 party. That would require quite a lot of laundering depth to avoid the chance of hitting a cryptsy node every single time.
That's a good point, the exchanges will definitely want to take part in those profits. I imagine they wouldn't want to run 100% of their coins as master nodes, that excessively dangerous. They must keep 80%+ in cold wallets.
April 02, 2014, 02:37:17 PM
This is feeling like a IRC type discussion.. I am loving that it is here instead? Count me in to help support anything that is documented in a tutorial type format for Windows 
April 02, 2014, 02:31:45 PM
I'm up for testing anytime!
April 02, 2014, 02:29:56 PM
Random thoughts that spring up:
1) If DRK goes to, say, 10 bucks a coin in the mid-term, we are talking about 10.000 usd for running a node. It could be too much.
2) 10% of the mining for last node sounds too much. It also may open up a window of exploitation and give incentive to DDOS in master nodes so that one node takes the fee instead of the other... Other types of exploitation for getting the mining reward could spring up as we go along.
I think it needs to be less, both for the running node, and the mining reward. It'll still be a good incentive + drive the price up.
Something else: The other day someone mentioned about the DRK allocation to various wallets and that Cryptsy has something like 400-500k DRK (?)... so, in this scenario, an exchange of that size can create 400 master nodes as a way to gain "interest" on their money despite the hot-wallet risk. Even if they only used 50% of their DRKs, it could be 200 nodes - which would be a sizeable part of the network under control of only 1 party. That would require quite a lot of laundering depth to avoid the chance of hitting a cryptsy node every single time.
1) If DRK goes to, say, 10 bucks a coin in the mid-term, we are talking about 10.000 usd for running a node. It could be too much.
2) 10% of the mining for last node sounds too much. It also may open up a window of exploitation and give incentive to DDOS in master nodes so that one node takes the fee instead of the other... Other types of exploitation for getting the mining reward could spring up as we go along.
I think it needs to be less, both for the running node, and the mining reward. It'll still be a good incentive + drive the price up.
Something else: The other day someone mentioned about the DRK allocation to various wallets and that Cryptsy has something like 400-500k DRK (?)... so, in this scenario, an exchange of that size can create 400 master nodes as a way to gain "interest" on their money despite the hot-wallet risk. Even if they only used 50% of their DRKs, it could be 200 nodes - which would be a sizeable part of the network under control of only 1 party. That would require quite a lot of laundering depth to avoid the chance of hitting a cryptsy node every single time.
Jump to: