Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6422. (Read 9723858 times)

You know, the solution eduffield came up with is very simple, has about a 99.9% obfuscation (enough info, you maybe able to make some associations with enough power, but very expensive).  This is why I see this as a huge advantage:

1. the simpler something is, the more directly it works, the less "holes" that will be found!  

2.  The "hole" this system has is obvious and a clear solution has been implemented. I think it will be very difficult if not impossible to take advantage of this system because of the fine charged if there is any funny business.  It's financially unfeasible.  This is the only "hole" that can be seen and it is logically and financially closed.

3.  The NSA possibly could find probable cause that a wallet belongs to a person, maybe even that that person has made repeated purchases to another person, I don't know.  They almost have infinite funds.  However, if I were the NSA, I'd try to get this information by infecting computers with back doors etc... malware, which they already do according to Snowden.  Who can defend against a government that does such things, and ours does.  The only way to protect ourselves from the government is by staying off line.

So, you can pile more systems of obfuscation on top of DarkSend as it is, but you would only make it have more hidden holes that could be discovered by a malicious person who could do a ton of damage!  Keep it simple stupid, is a successful acronym for a reason: KISS

And finding a simple yet extremely effective solution is a sign of brilliance.  E=mc(2) came from clearing out the debris and only looking at the facts, the clear facts.

Why not just offer "rounds" of DarkSend through separate master nodes, i.e:

User 1 -> Change Address 1 (master node 1)
Change Address 1 -> Change Address 2 (master node 2)
Change Address 2 -> Change Address 3 (master node 3)
Change Address 3 -> Change Address 4 (master node 4)
Change Address 4 -> Change Address 5 (master node 5)
Change Address 5 -> Destination (master node 6)

I do believe NSA-proofing is a virtually impossible task, since they have control on factors beyond our own code (hardware, networks) but the issue here is this: DarkSend is launched, everything rolls, it's open sourced etc etc. Then another one comes along, takes Dark Send code, implements divide & conquer and then boooom. He claims they have the superior anonymous coin. It's a market weakness for DRK placement right there if it lags behind.

Now, the situation is obviously difficult having to choose one or the other, so I propose this: What if DarkSend had 2 checkboxes, one that is simple "Enable DarkSend" and a further one which activates "Divide and Conquer" for "extra anonymity". I've been thinking about a slide bar actually that enhances the degree of anonymity, with something like 1 to 10 - and increasing parameters like time delay for transaction or laundry depth (multiple laundering) to make it more obfuscated, but maybe it could simply go the Div/Conq way at max setting for the more paranoid about their secrecy.

Darkcoin is meant to fix problems with Bitcoin, not to be CriminalCoin. I'm afraid that if you're trying to hide something from the NSA, we don't want to be involved with that.

Privacy is a human right and it's about time that a coin implemented it. However, if the NSA wants to find out what you're doing, they will. No matter how much you protect it, if someone wants your information bad enough they'll get it.

It's Especially true with Zerocash/Zerocoin and their use of exotic mathematics. I've read through it and it's insanely complicated, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a room full of cryptographers in the NSA ripping it apart already.  

Problem with trusting a random node is Sybil attacks. Unless the cost of creating a node is significant, the adversary can flood with nodes.

Also a market could develop for buying the information from nodes.

Trusting a node is not anonymity. It is a form of privacy.

Problem with trusting a random node is Sybil attacks. Unless the cost of creating a node is significant, the adversary can flood with nodes.

Also a market could develop for buying the information from nodes.

Trusting a node is not anonymity. It is a form of privacy.

yes, but if you could do it better, than do it better, even if the current solution seems trustfull and enough (because of randomly chosen nodes), but something like the divide-and-conquer approach will help it to make it even better in my eyes.

ofc there are problems, too - which needs a solution. like - if you divide-and-conquer, at some points the darksend transaction wouldn't be as obfuscating as it could be, because only a fragment of users would be in that darksend transaction. (right?)

but i believe thats a good idea, which could help us.

Let's differentiate between anonymity and privacy.

Anonymity means that no one can know some aspect of your identity, e.g. you might decide to reveal the name of your company but never who runs that company.

Privacy means only some people know some aspect of your identity, e.g. the merchants you buy from may know your account number but otherwise not public unless revealed by one of those merchants.

Anonymity is a more secure form of privacy because there is no trust involved, because no one knows what you have not revealed to anyone.

So I can choose to trust a merchant who reveals its name and stakes its reputation on that name, without needing to know who owns that merchant. The key here is that prior bad outcomes don't follow the owner to new ventures. So history of performance of a merchant becomes paramount.

If I don't want to trust a merchant to deliver the goods, the merchant and I can agree on a 3rd party escrow agent with multisig on payment (both I and escrow agent must sign for payment to be transferred to merchant). Again no need for the escrow agent to reveal his/her true name rather the historical reputation of a pseudonym will suffice.

Ditto on contracts, arbitration agents can be chosen on contract signing.

In short, our personal identity can be orthogonal to our business performance identity.

This allows us to fail and start over again. It is very forgiving. And it keeps the government, conniving attorneys, and the Kangeroo court system out of our business.

It's code... code can break if it's not clean, extremely well thought out, trial-tested, reviewed, etc etc. It needs time to be patched to better levels of reliable functionality and prove itself, just like BTC code is taking years and still has questionmarks if something can break it and render it useless. Even things like stratum, kgw, dgw, need fixing. You can't have complicated code working flawlessly from day 1, no matter the assurances. That's just how it is.

It's always better to have realistic expectations rather than unrealistic ones because that way no disillusionment can occur later on and comments like "ohhhhhh disaster, darksend is a flop" start to spring up after some bug or something.

the master node is still elected randomly, so no node will be default master everytime

Can you have perfect trust with perfect anonymity? Or are they dynamic dualities
I'm having trouble conceiving how trust might work with perfect anonymity and vice versa

+1

definitiv an nice idea to use a "divide-and-conquer"-algorithm on signing !

Hey Guys, I just wanted to mention that I've launched my coin - Québecoin - It's a currency for the province (and nation) of Québec, Canada. It features both X11 and DarkGravityWave. I'm very thankful towards Evan (as you can see in my thread) for both those creations and I think they are cutting edge. Here's a picture we made for Dark Gravity Wave, maybe you can use it for Darkcoin as well.

https://i.imgur.com/yacvlHA.png

Here's the link to Québecoin - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annqbc-quebecoin-x11-dgw-bittrex-winmaclinux-wallets-new-552561

P.S. : We have no intention of implementing Darksend - that is yours to have and keep and we know that.