Edit:
Regarding his idea to charge penalty fee to attackers doing denial-of-service on the CoinJoin output step...
How do you prove who is denying service when the whole point of CoinJoin is you can't link the outputs to the inputs? I provided a divide-and-conquer approach in that CoinJoin thread, but that will be unscalable. Seriously there is a technical reason CoinJoin is not the correct algorithm.
Any thing deterministic violates the Byzantine General's solution of proof-of-work and can be defrauded. What will happen is the fraudsters will game this deterministic selection to put themselves in control. Understand that the fundamental genius of Satoshi's invention is that nothing can be known about the next block winner a priori. I explained in great detail why all non-PoW systems, e.g. proof-of-stake, are thus not secure. If you introduce determinism (e.g. a pseudorandom number generator is controlled by whom ever controls the initial seed) then you've lost that key attribute of PoW w.r.t. to your use in controlling the denial-of-service of enjoining transactions in the CoinJoin algorithm.
Ah, you're replying to something completely 100% different than what I said. I suppose it's super complicated. How about this, I'll write the code for this into DarkSend in the next few days. We'll do a public beta test on testnet and you can try to break it. I'll document it and make flow charts and everything so you can see how it works.
I don't think so. I think either you don't understand how what I wrote applies, or you didn't mean what I thought you wrote.
I don't have any time for hacking DarkCoin. But if you post algorithms, I will explain how to hack it (if it can be) and let others try. Also try to tell you how to fix, if I see any way to.
No rush, you are in the middle of a release. I am also very busy. No one sent me a private message about your post above. And I won't be wading through 100 pages after a week or so to find a response from you. Someone will need to message me a link to your future post then.
Also, the anonymint guy has every right to ask questions and be critical about darkcoin, he just seems to be attacking it rather than being impartial. Seemingly for his own purposes. ... This was the guy badmouthing PSone because it didn't have Playstation 4 graphics. Everything in it's own time, you build the foundation first.
I never wrote anything about PSone, I don't even know what it is.
I explained in great detail why all non-PoW systems, e.g. proof-of-stake, are thus not secure.
AnonyMint, thank you for a very interesting read [even though i understood only 30% at most...].
Can you please refer me to your detailed explanation of the above. I have so-far avoided PoS completely, considering it a kind of scam, but the idea that by default it has a potential security flaw in the design intrigues me and i'd like to understand this issue further.
thank you.
It is discussed several times in the following thread, with several posts of back and forth discussion. Sorry I don't have time to dig for the links to the posts in the thread, you will need to dig.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/failure-to-understand-bitcoin-could-cost-investors-billions-bitcoins-flaws-455141
I mean AnonyMint simply wrote a "this is flawed" and the price went down.
That wasn't intentional. I have no financial stake in this coin. And I don't need promotion at all. In fact, I would try to minimize interest in the beginning, because I am not interested in a pump & dump, rather I am interested in winning the long-game by having the absolute best technology that will blow the shit out of anything else out there.
I already stated upthread that I will never announce nor promote an altcoin.
If you aren't totally confused, that is unfortunate as it is intentional.
This is the same guy that says Bitcoin was created by the NSA, and Satoshi is an NSA employee, in order to create a new world order control grid
Read
this analysis and weep.
Let us know if that fixed it!
