Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6424. (Read 9723858 times)

Thanks AnonyMint!
You are the real deal in anonymityland

James

Interesting article in Wired about Bitcoin's place as a hybrid payments system: http://www.wired.com/2014/03/bitcoin-currency_martin/

What I found most interesting as a DRK holder were these final paras!

"The existing, bank-based payments system is expensive and antediluvian — but also profitable and therefore jealously guarded by its powerful owners. Other technologies co-exist — such as cash payment face-to-face, or the developing world staple of hawala for international transfers — but they cannot seriously compete with banks. If Bitcoin’s technology is as cheap, as scalable, and as secure as its advocates claim, it may be different.

That last point, of course, is crucial. One reason that cash, that most archaic of payments technologies, still exists, is because it really is anonymous. Anonymity in transactions can be abused, of course. But it remains a basic civil liberty. Payments systems that use ledgers rarely offer the same assurance. Efficiency and economy are nice to have: but not at the cost of our right to privacy."

You can always see when TanteStefana wakes up from the dead. Post after post

Earlier in the development someone attacked DarkSend this way and broke it for a day or so. I ended up coming up with what I call collateral transactions. A collateral transaction is a transaction that is only sent to the master node and if broadcast will transfer money from the node in question to the master node.

The main problem is CoinJoin happens in 3 main stages:

1.) ACCEPTING INPUTS (inputs are the money I’m sending)
2.) ACCEPTING OUTPUTS (outputs are who I’m sending to)
3.) SIGN INPUTS (everyone signs their input separately then sends them)

In stage 2, what if someone fails to send their output?  
In stage 3, what if someone fails to sign?

So with blind signing (footnote 1) when a user adds an output, you know it’s one of your users but you don’t know which. So if a user fails to provide outputs, the whole session must restart and no one can be punished.

I've thought about multiple designs for DarkSend, many of which do have the issue you’re talking about:

Design A: Users provide inputs and collateral, then later will provide outputs. The master node must know which user didn’t provide the outputs to be able to charge him. If we use blind signing we can’t charge the bad actor fees.

Design B: Users provide inputs, outputs and collateral at once. In this case the master node knows who is sending money to who, but later it can tell who didn’t sign.

I’ve chosen to use design B (users will add inputs and outputs at the same time) because it’s the only design that can’t be attacked in the way you’re saying.

//Accepting inputs
1. User A provides (Input, txCollateral, Output1, Output2)
2. User B provides (Input, txCollateral, Output1, Output2)
3. User C provides (Input, txCollateral, Output1, Output2)

//Signing
1. User A provides (Input, txCollateral)
2. User B fails to provide to sign
3. User C provides (Input, txCollateral)

//Fees
1. User B is charged

So to be clear, the master must know who is sending money to who. But ONLY the master node will need to know this. Beyond that the blockchain is still anonymous, and master nodes can be decentralized among the users of the network.

(1) More about blind signing:
http://ojs.academypublisher.com/index.php/jnw/article/viewFile/0508921928/2053

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

TLA would have no problem in getting a large percentage of nodes

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.

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

Okay he has confirmed that you are not anonymous to the master node, as I wrote upthread would be the case if he associates the collateral transaction with both input and output stages of the CoinJoin.

eduffield I would like to say that is not acceptable because for the same reason I don't want to use mixer or laundry website, I can't know if the master node is an NSA honeypot.

I would like to suggest you think about my divide-and-conquer idea as another electable option for users.

If there is failed stage, then divide the inputs into two groups. Then ask for outputs again. Divide and conquer as necessary, then the join will complete.

Not ideal, but at least you don't break anonymity and require trust of the master node.

Best of luck with it.

Stuff about his 3x290 + 1x290X rig takes out 1/15 of the whole network speed.

You can always see when TanteStefana wakes up from the dead. Post after post

Can this please be archived in post #1 or on the website technical FAQ?

Here is the fix for the R9 290 mining.
Tested on BAMT 1.6, it worked.
You can put it in first post, or not.


I have sent a 30 Darkcoin Bounty to cryptogretzky by myself, for the bug finding.

If any-one want to pay me back a part of that bounty, here is my address to share the cost.
XavaNMidPmofBUt4RWLf6YHhNDUNA7TjY6

As I only have 3 r9 290 I'll make 3 month to recover that bounty with my increased hasrate, but I'll be in peace with this bug.






run "aticonfig --adapter=all --initial -f".

add these 4 lines into /etc/rc.local before exit 0


Just in case it's not already executable, run:


Enjoy, and sleep in peace now

Here is the fix for the R9 290 mining.
Tested on BAMT 1.6, it worked.
You can put it in first post, or not.


I have sent a 30 Darkcoin Bounty to cryptogretzky by myself, for the bug finding.

If any-one want to pay me back a part of that bounty, here is my address to share the cost.
XavaNMidPmofBUt4RWLf6YHhNDUNA7TjY6

As I only have 3 r9 290 I'll make 3 month to recover that bounty with my increased hasrate, but I'll be in peace with this bug.






run "aticonfig --adapter=all --initial -f".

add these 4 lines into /etc/rc.local before exit 0


Just in case it's not already executable, run:


Enjoy, and sleep in peace now

There's a difference between bashing and commenting.

Everyone here is part of the community even if you deem them negative. Any shit can lead to good shit. Embrace it instead and stop the personal level shit. That just ruins for outsiders wanting to get in.

I expect nothing less from a self-proclaimed "world-class programmer who knows his shit". 

This is all ad hominem. Why not simply attack his argument if you believe it's unfounded?

We are talking about two different folks here (hopefully)

AnonyMint: Asking good questions. Long time member.

ILoveAnonCoin: https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/iloveanoncoin-276866     -> Check his posts. Pure Troll. No approach is correct against these types of cancer. Is most likely the hungsukmom character or someone similar.

Anyways back to technical discussions Sorry for the short offtopic.

the problem with anonycoin, he is dismissive even before he has really seen it, and even before knowing anything regarding the way it works,

its always good to have 3rd party to look things trough, but being desmissive before even knowing anything about this particular implementation thats more like trolling...