Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6413. (Read 9723858 times)

The summary thus far of my analysis of Darksend is that Evan has put into place adequate mechanisms to disincentivize theft of the collateral payments and to disincentivize Sybil attacking the inputs to a Darksend with legitimate Darksends.

The weaknesses (w.r.t. to anonymity) are that Masternodes can be purchased and if the adversary has too many of them, they can reduce your probability of anonymity unless you send your funds through dozens of Darksends between each receipt or spend transaction. If the adversary controlled 90% of the Masternodes, it would nearly impossible to be anonymous more than say 99% of the time, i.e. 1 in 100 of your spends would lose anonymity. Evan argues that attaining a lot of Masternodes is too expensive. Well probably so for the common criminal, but I am not convinced that is so for the NSA.

1 in 100 may not sound bad, but remember that loss of anonymity tends to domino cascade (for the holistic reasons I pointed out in my reply to LimLims on this page). And that is for the person who is extremely diligent to do dozens of Darksends between each spend. Most users are not so perfectionist. So for them anonymity could drop significantly if the adversary has such huge resources.

The other weakness is that it is not yet mandatory to use an IP mixer such as Tor with Darksend, and if not all of the participants to the Darksend are obfuscating their IP, then the anonymity probability declines. Note that even if Darksend makes Tor mandatory, Tor is not the best we can do for an IP mixer. It is unknown how effective Tor is. Some might estimate 80 - 95%. Others might pull 50% out of their arse. I really don't know, but I don't trust Tor entirely. This combined with say 20% of the Masternodes compromised (and a little bit of normal human error on your part such as forgetting to send dozens of Darksends for each coin your receive) can also make it unrealistic to repeatedly sustain very military grade strength of anonymity. (But who said you wanted military grade assurance? Some do, some may not require it)

Darksend has anonymity. Darkcoin is an anonymity coin. The strength of the anonymity depends on the resources and resolve of the adversary versus the Darkcoin user.

I am still trying to think of suggestions to improve it.

I think we should lead with this:



It's a Satoshi address. Maybe a little prickly for the community?

I posit that the distinction is meaningless as the outcomes are pushed out to the edges of the causality graph at economies-of-scale. Because at economies-of-scale, the adversary doesn't have perfect identities data, rather the NSA has statistically overlapping data sets (e.g. Tor breaks, browser fingerprints, etc), that when correlated generate identities. The NSA is not just targeting a few millionaires to know where all the wealth is being stored (so the G20 can confiscate it after 2016 as the world descends into a nightmare debt collapse), rather they are saving everything in Utah and targeting all the millionaires.

Anonymity is never an all-or-nothing proposition, rather is a degree of anonymity. That is why the distinction I made between privacy and anonymity upthread has blended and disappeared as we have discussed Darksend more. (that was your point too )



I surmise that you mean to say is if a Darksend does not pass through a compromised Masternode, then how can interception of IP address by a Tor node impact anonymity of a Darksend. Correct?

If so, then my analysis is that if you see the same IP address sending the input and signing the outputs, you still don't know which output that was, because the output signing is blinded cryptographically. But it depends on how the outputs are collected. If the outputs are first sent by each IP, then separate the collection signed, then output can be correlated to IP. But if the outputs are blinded signed as they are collected using ring signatures, then knowing the IP doesn't help the adversary.

So we need to ask Evan if he is using ring signatures?

However even if he is using ring signatures, there is another way that interception of IP can break anonymity.

When you spend the output of a Darksend, then your IP can correlate your identity to the same one as the input, and thus anonymity is broken.

So yes not obfuscating IP, breaks anonymity of the Darksend.

Also there is another way to break anonymity of the Darksend. If I merge two or more outputs of Darksends to form the inputs spent on a transaction, then I have correlated that those outputs share one identity (since they will look different than a Darksend mix transaction which has a constant amount and matching # of inputs and outputs).

Yes that is what I meant. And that seems like the correct mechanism to throttle it.

Great! Get going son! I hope there is more marketing and PR people here that can jump onto your train

I think we need to start planning some milestone objectives in terms of PR.

I know there are bounties for obtaining contacts for the media and there is a bounty for articles in magazines.

What I don't think we have is a timeline.

ZeroCash is going public in a few months time ~20 May. Regardless of whether they have anything tangible or just a published paper, they will get the headlines again and Darkcoin won't. We have already seen this happen once with this article in coindesk http://www.coindesk.com/taxonomy-bitcoin-mixing-services-policymakers/

This isn't about rushing the development of DarkSend. It's ready, when it's ready.

This is about not being drowned out and then being considered a clone. A hole which is difficulty to dig yourself out of once people have formed a first impression and then moved on. Again, we saw this with the recent coindesk article.  Everyone scrambled to post comments in the article and the writer took time to post on twitter, but by then history had been written and darkcoin was effectively written out.

Publishers will be looking to tie up column inches around the launch of Zerocash - the Zerocash paper or their paper and a live coin project. We should make sure we have something ready for this point as a minimum.

Zerocash will have some positive spin. They will talk about e-cash and anonymity. What they won't talk about are the problems with the project. We not only need to have some PR ready, but we should have a reason for people to consider Darkcoin as a serious contender and why it may overcome some problems with zerocash.

Rather than just point stuff out and sit back, I will write a frame for some PR articles and editors notes over the coming two weeks. We can then put that up for edits, comments, etc.

Can we agree on an overall suitable time horizon? Or is this pointless?

We verified and all his shares are legit. Perhaps he really seems to have that much hashpower.

Don't know really. Btw, I'm talking about the cpu miner. If he's talking about the GPU miner then there are 32 bit binaries ( https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-sph-sgminer-multi-coin-multi-algorithm-gpu-miner-added-marucoin-475795 )

Like music to my ears…

Updated to the new wallet and network! Now with Cryptsy price displayed
Address: drk.p2phash.com

P2Pool benefits:
* No registration required
* Distributed hashrate
* Immediate payouts after a block is found
* Higher payouts with transaction fees paid to miners
* No account hack possible

Fee: only 0.5%
Start mining within seconds! Just point your miner to p2phash.com:7903 and use the Darkcoin address from your wallet for username, the password doesn't matter.

You can now follow us on twitter: https://twitter.com/P2PHash

BAMT 1.6 (linux) is 32 bit. Comes with  sgminer-sph, works fine.

http://www.reddit.com/r/BAMT/comments/207rdz/release_bamt_v160_scrypt_scryptn_darkcoin/

is there a reason to not compile for 32 bit?

he wrote "supposed fix" thats because he is not seeing the fix as he thinks it should be

I read something and someone said DGW still had problems and refered to this link:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6016831

Conclusion feedback?

Lotterymining is at it again.....


Introducing Wheel of Fortune....


http://wheel.lotterymining.com

I have actually measured the power consumption.

Mining scrypt i need 1150 W, mining DRK i need 650 W.

So it depends on what side you are looking

If you say i need x % more to mine scrypt instead of X 11 you have to calculate from 650W -> 1150 W = + 76%

If you say i nedd X% less to mine x11 instead of scrypt you have to calculate from 1150W -> 650 W = - 43%

So i need 43% less power to mine X11 instead of scrypt and my GPU´s came from 82C down to 60C and fand speed from 4200Upm to 2800 UPM

I use 2 x HD 7990 - scrypt 2.6 MH against 8.3 HM X11
 

Thx, was going through that thread but somehow missed this reply

Only 64 bit...

Don't forget that mining Darks is one of the ways to get completely untraceable coins.