Lol, someone selling cheap to dump price?
0.02DRK。。He wants to buy cheap
Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6850. (Read 9723508 times)
February 20, 2014, 12:28:12 AM
0.02DRK。。He wants to buy cheap
February 20, 2014, 12:26:47 AM
Lol, someone selling cheap to dump price?
https://i.imgur.com/P8lXjpu.png
https://i.imgur.com/P8lXjpu.png
February 20, 2014, 12:25:11 AM
a mixing service is again, a centralized solution in the hands of an entity you have to trust. Darksend is decentralized. It is managed by the wallet, mixed up in the blockchain and there is no need for trust, a trustless solution 
AND it doesn't bloat the blockchain!
AND it doesn't bloat the blockchain! February 20, 2014, 12:14:35 AM
I’ve heard some chatter and misconceptions about the difference between Darkcoin vs Zerocoin, so here’s a write up about the pros and cons of each approach and what they do differently.
Darkcoin
First off, most people start by asking is DarkSend actually real and does it work? Yes! Checkout the development progress here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anndrk-darkcoin-darksend-anonymous-technology-pre-alpha-launch-467857
DarkSend is based off of Greg Maxwells original idea called Coinjoin, with some added improvements and decentralization. The decentralized approach is important because the logic is self contained in the client, which is managed by the users themselves. This is a trustless solution.
Darkcoin uses the base transaction layer to sign it’s transactions in much the same way that Bitcoin does. The mathematics are tried and true and have been used for years in computer security and banking.
Transactions will be grouped together and the same cost as sending transactions on the normal network. Both DarkSend and normal transactions will be available to choose from, but at some point we might default to DarkSend (and go Dark).
It’s also worth noting that this approach doesn’t bloat the blockchain at all either. Transactions are the same size as the would have been.
Zerocoin
The approach Zerocoin takes is to use some exotic mathematics to hide the identity with a zero-knowledge proof. This allows a higher quality of anonymity, but also could have some unforeseen hole that will be exploited later.
Checkout this link to see the mathematics I'm talking about: https://github.com/Zerocoin/libzerocoin/blob/master/AccumulatorProofOfKnowledge.cpp
Zerocoin's proof of work is in the 2kb range, which was reduced from 1024kb in Mathew Green’s original work. These proofs must be stored in the blockchain for each transaction that goes through the network for confirmation purposes and the ledger history, so this will cause a lot of bloat. There is also a need for these proofs to be processed by the networks nodes, being larger will cause more intense CPU usage with smaller transaction rates.
The spec for Zerocoin also requires a 100% premine. I believe mining is what gives cryptocurrency their base value, so this could be a problem for the currency in the long haul.
With the high CPU usage, how will the network deal with DDOS attacks? I could send bad proofs that must be processed. It’s much harder with the Bitcoin protocol because the math is pretty fast and you would be banned quickly.
Imagine if Zerocoin had to deal with 20 transactions a minute, that would be 58.98MB/day that will be added to the blockchain. After a year, that would add up to 21.5GB. Now god forbid you have to reindex this, you’ll have to process all of the proofs on your computer? That might take another year to complete.
---
I think the Darkcoin approach has the best mix of features, with the least risk and it’s decentralized. So we definitely have our place in the market.
References:
Coinjoin spec: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0;all
Darkcoin
First off, most people start by asking is DarkSend actually real and does it work? Yes! Checkout the development progress here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anndrk-darkcoin-darksend-anonymous-technology-pre-alpha-launch-467857
DarkSend is based off of Greg Maxwells original idea called Coinjoin, with some added improvements and decentralization. The decentralized approach is important because the logic is self contained in the client, which is managed by the users themselves. This is a trustless solution.
Darkcoin uses the base transaction layer to sign it’s transactions in much the same way that Bitcoin does. The mathematics are tried and true and have been used for years in computer security and banking.
Transactions will be grouped together and the same cost as sending transactions on the normal network. Both DarkSend and normal transactions will be available to choose from, but at some point we might default to DarkSend (and go Dark).
It’s also worth noting that this approach doesn’t bloat the blockchain at all either. Transactions are the same size as the would have been.
Zerocoin
The approach Zerocoin takes is to use some exotic mathematics to hide the identity with a zero-knowledge proof. This allows a higher quality of anonymity, but also could have some unforeseen hole that will be exploited later.
Checkout this link to see the mathematics I'm talking about: https://github.com/Zerocoin/libzerocoin/blob/master/AccumulatorProofOfKnowledge.cpp
Zerocoin's proof of work is in the 2kb range, which was reduced from 1024kb in Mathew Green’s original work. These proofs must be stored in the blockchain for each transaction that goes through the network for confirmation purposes and the ledger history, so this will cause a lot of bloat. There is also a need for these proofs to be processed by the networks nodes, being larger will cause more intense CPU usage with smaller transaction rates.
The spec for Zerocoin also requires a 100% premine. I believe mining is what gives cryptocurrency their base value, so this could be a problem for the currency in the long haul.
With the high CPU usage, how will the network deal with DDOS attacks? I could send bad proofs that must be processed. It’s much harder with the Bitcoin protocol because the math is pretty fast and you would be banned quickly.
Imagine if Zerocoin had to deal with 20 transactions a minute, that would be 58.98MB/day that will be added to the blockchain. After a year, that would add up to 21.5GB. Now god forbid you have to reindex this, you’ll have to process all of the proofs on your computer? That might take another year to complete.
---
I think the Darkcoin approach has the best mix of features, with the least risk and it’s decentralized. So we definitely have our place in the market.
References:
Coinjoin spec: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0;all
I'm requoting this because everyone needs to read it!
Thanks! Thats a great explanation of the differences between zerocoin and darkcoin. Could you also compare the mixing service vs darksend?
February 20, 2014, 12:12:45 AM
And what is the difference between Darkcoin and DarkWallet's Coinjoin implementation?
It's not in the native client, it's a browser extension and it's not decentralized. In the world of crypto decentralized solutions will always win, we need all of this technology to be trustless.
And this regarding darkwallet
February 20, 2014, 12:11:27 AM
I’ve heard some chatter and misconceptions about the difference between Darkcoin vs Zerocoin, so here’s a write up about the pros and cons of each approach and what they do differently.
Darkcoin
First off, most people start by asking is DarkSend actually real and does it work? Yes! Checkout the development progress here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anndrk-darkcoin-darksend-anonymous-technology-pre-alpha-launch-467857
DarkSend is based off of Greg Maxwells original idea called Coinjoin, with some added improvements and decentralization. The decentralized approach is important because the logic is self contained in the client, which is managed by the users themselves. This is a trustless solution.
Darkcoin uses the base transaction layer to sign it’s transactions in much the same way that Bitcoin does. The mathematics are tried and true and have been used for years in computer security and banking.
Transactions will be grouped together and the same cost as sending transactions on the normal network. Both DarkSend and normal transactions will be available to choose from, but at some point we might default to DarkSend (and go Dark).
It’s also worth noting that this approach doesn’t bloat the blockchain at all either. Transactions are the same size as the would have been.
Zerocoin
The approach Zerocoin takes is to use some exotic mathematics to hide the identity with a zero-knowledge proof. This allows a higher quality of anonymity, but also could have some unforeseen hole that will be exploited later.
Checkout this link to see the mathematics I'm talking about: https://github.com/Zerocoin/libzerocoin/blob/master/AccumulatorProofOfKnowledge.cpp
Zerocoin's proof of work is in the 2kb range, which was reduced from 1024kb in Mathew Green’s original work. These proofs must be stored in the blockchain for each transaction that goes through the network for confirmation purposes and the ledger history, so this will cause a lot of bloat. There is also a need for these proofs to be processed by the networks nodes, being larger will cause more intense CPU usage with smaller transaction rates.
The spec for Zerocoin also requires a 100% premine. I believe mining is what gives cryptocurrency their base value, so this could be a problem for the currency in the long haul.
With the high CPU usage, how will the network deal with DDOS attacks? I could send bad proofs that must be processed. It’s much harder with the Bitcoin protocol because the math is pretty fast and you would be banned quickly.
Imagine if Zerocoin had to deal with 20 transactions a minute, that would be 58.98MB/day that will be added to the blockchain. After a year, that would add up to 21.5GB. Now god forbid you have to reindex this, you’ll have to process all of the proofs on your computer? That might take another year to complete.
---
I think the Darkcoin approach has the best mix of features, with the least risk and it’s decentralized. So we definitely have our place in the market.
References:
Coinjoin spec: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0;all
Darkcoin
First off, most people start by asking is DarkSend actually real and does it work? Yes! Checkout the development progress here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anndrk-darkcoin-darksend-anonymous-technology-pre-alpha-launch-467857
DarkSend is based off of Greg Maxwells original idea called Coinjoin, with some added improvements and decentralization. The decentralized approach is important because the logic is self contained in the client, which is managed by the users themselves. This is a trustless solution.
Darkcoin uses the base transaction layer to sign it’s transactions in much the same way that Bitcoin does. The mathematics are tried and true and have been used for years in computer security and banking.
Transactions will be grouped together and the same cost as sending transactions on the normal network. Both DarkSend and normal transactions will be available to choose from, but at some point we might default to DarkSend (and go Dark).
It’s also worth noting that this approach doesn’t bloat the blockchain at all either. Transactions are the same size as the would have been.
Zerocoin
The approach Zerocoin takes is to use some exotic mathematics to hide the identity with a zero-knowledge proof. This allows a higher quality of anonymity, but also could have some unforeseen hole that will be exploited later.
Checkout this link to see the mathematics I'm talking about: https://github.com/Zerocoin/libzerocoin/blob/master/AccumulatorProofOfKnowledge.cpp
Zerocoin's proof of work is in the 2kb range, which was reduced from 1024kb in Mathew Green’s original work. These proofs must be stored in the blockchain for each transaction that goes through the network for confirmation purposes and the ledger history, so this will cause a lot of bloat. There is also a need for these proofs to be processed by the networks nodes, being larger will cause more intense CPU usage with smaller transaction rates.
The spec for Zerocoin also requires a 100% premine. I believe mining is what gives cryptocurrency their base value, so this could be a problem for the currency in the long haul.
With the high CPU usage, how will the network deal with DDOS attacks? I could send bad proofs that must be processed. It’s much harder with the Bitcoin protocol because the math is pretty fast and you would be banned quickly.
Imagine if Zerocoin had to deal with 20 transactions a minute, that would be 58.98MB/day that will be added to the blockchain. After a year, that would add up to 21.5GB. Now god forbid you have to reindex this, you’ll have to process all of the proofs on your computer? That might take another year to complete.
---
I think the Darkcoin approach has the best mix of features, with the least risk and it’s decentralized. So we definitely have our place in the market.
References:
Coinjoin spec: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0;all
I'm requoting this because everyone needs to read it! Bolding by me
February 20, 2014, 12:09:57 AM
Test all you want.
It would be nice to have an "expert," (cough, some knowledgeable media) third party verify that the transaction is anonymous and explain why.
Such an article should also include an explination as to why bitcoin is NOT anonymous (and infact it's extremely public unlike normal financial transactions, which is a common misconception about Bitcoin.
It would be nice to have an "expert," (cough, some knowledgeable media) third party verify that the transaction is anonymous and explain why.
Such an article should also include an explination as to why bitcoin is NOT anonymous (and infact it's extremely public unlike normal financial transactions, which is a common misconception about Bitcoin.
Good point and agree !
[/quote]
eduffield wrote a great explanation at this post https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5241291
February 20, 2014, 12:04:50 AM
I really like the anonymous feature on Darkcoin. I currently have a lot of money in Tips. Can someone explain the difference between the two coins. I am growing frustrated with lack of branding/marketing, and considering putting some money into Darkcoin.
To me a coin tumbler says. "We are a money laundering service."
Anonymous transactions to me say that the only people who need to know of the transaction are the sender and the receiver.
February 20, 2014, 12:02:33 AM
Definitely 2 different options if possible! For darksend/regular transaction! 
This is such great news. We are making progress every single day.
This is such great news. We are making progress every single day.
February 19, 2014, 11:59:45 PM
I really like the anonymous feature on Darkcoin. I currently have a lot of money in Tips. Can someone explain the difference between the two coins. I am growing frustrated with lack of branding/marketing, and considering putting some money into Darkcoin.
February 19, 2014, 11:56:58 PM
Test all you want.
It would be nice to have an "expert," (cough, some knowledgeable media) third party verify that the transaction is anonymous and explain why.
Such an article should also include an explination as to why bitcoin is NOT anonymous (and infact it's extremely public unlike normal financial transactions, which is a common misconception about Bitcoin.
[/quote]
Good point and agree !
It would be nice to have an "expert," (cough, some knowledgeable media) third party verify that the transaction is anonymous and explain why.
Such an article should also include an explination as to why bitcoin is NOT anonymous (and infact it's extremely public unlike normal financial transactions, which is a common misconception about Bitcoin.
[/quote]
Good point and agree !
February 19, 2014, 11:53:18 PM
Test all you want.
It would be nice to have an "expert," (cough, some knowledgeable media) third party verify that the transaction is anonymous and explain why.
Such an article should also include an explination as to why bitcoin is NOT anonymous (and infact it's extremely public unlike normal financial transactions, which is a common misconception about Bitcoin.
It would be nice to have an "expert," (cough, some knowledgeable media) third party verify that the transaction is anonymous and explain why.
Such an article should also include an explination as to why bitcoin is NOT anonymous (and infact it's extremely public unlike normal financial transactions, which is a common misconception about Bitcoin.
February 19, 2014, 11:30:45 PM
Having it dark only could make things difficult for some types of transactions, like if one is withdrawing from an exchange, the exchange would want to be able to have a transaction showing that they sent the coins to that address, so someone couldn't argue that someone else sent that same amount to them at that time, and that they didn't get the withdrawl.
am not sure how difficult and complicated that would be to program, but as a dark coin + network i believe everything should be dark …. sending, receiving …>>>
If an exchange makes a transfer doesn't he just confirms 6 times (or whatever) that the transaction is out and on the block chain, but the receiver would be hidden (as dark) !
I think the more hidden and anonymous is totally the way to go !
Internett security, encryption, anonymosety (not even sure how to spell that) will be the way forward for the whole internet and any coin (as the NSA and whoever else is out there spying away) in the future.
if you guys pull this off to really stay "off" the grid you would be way ahead of the game !!!
(and sure this coin would take way off and really delivers what it promises !!!)
hope this is technical doable !
am not sure how difficult and complicated that would be to program, but as a dark coin + network i believe everything should be dark …. sending, receiving …>>>
If an exchange makes a transfer doesn't he just confirms 6 times (or whatever) that the transaction is out and on the block chain, but the receiver would be hidden (as dark) !
I think the more hidden and anonymous is totally the way to go !
Internett security, encryption, anonymosety (not even sure how to spell that) will be the way forward for the whole internet and any coin (as the NSA and whoever else is out there spying away) in the future.
if you guys pull this off to really stay "off" the grid you would be way ahead of the game !!!
(and sure this coin would take way off and really delivers what it promises !!!)
hope this is technical doable !
February 19, 2014, 11:28:27 PM
We just disappeared from coinmarketcap.com ... any clues as to what happened? Temporary bug?
I have seen that on several occations, But its back now #21.
Already #20.
February 19, 2014, 11:26:24 PM
We just disappeared from coinmarketcap.com ... any clues as to what happened? Temporary bug?
I have seen that on several occations, But its back now #21.
Sweet
February 19, 2014, 11:23:48 PM
We just disappeared from coinmarketcap.com ... any clues as to what happened? Temporary bug?
I have seen that on several occations, But its back now #21.
February 19, 2014, 11:13:31 PM
We just disappeared from coinmarketcap.com ... any clues as to what happened? Temporary bug?
February 19, 2014, 11:09:54 PM
I think the test went off really well. The process works - now it just needs some cosmetic tweaks to make it more user-friendly.
How about a dropdown from the send button that give you standard or darksend options?
How about a dropdown from the send button that give you standard or darksend options?
that is great news about the test, tx for the update
regarding an option between 'normal' or 'dark' sending
I think dark is dark and should always be dark !
otherwise people have an option to (maybe) hack into the dark and anonymous option easier, but i believe (even thought i do not know too much about the technical part) it would narrow it down for them …know what i mean !
I am all for "DARK" and always (no option)
if that is possible !
An interesting idea.. kind of like making assumptions about your dark sending based on your "light" sending...? or allowing a receive address in the open to identify you? With that in mind, your probably right about making it all dark. Eduffield, would making all the transactions dark cause any block overload? kinda like the monster fedora or zerocoin is building? Our transactions are still relatively like, data-wise, right?
Having it dark only could make things difficult for some types of transactions, like if one is withdrawing from an exchange, the exchange would want to be able to have a transaction showing that they sent the coins to that address, so someone couldn't argue that someone else sent that same amount to them at that time, and that they didn't get the withdrawl.
I do agree that the standard send should be dark though, in addition to the previous mentioned reason it also causes there to be more transactions to be able to join with, which helps dark sends. Having a non-dark send as a api / debug command only would be best I think.
February 19, 2014, 11:08:23 PM
If others are on the same path (Zerocoin and such) we should be the 'darkest' of them all (to really stick out in the market and separate us from the rest of the altcoins)
So go as dark as you can and always ! No traceable, anonymous all the way,….. as this is what this coin is all about …. otherwise ….. there is no point for all of this and we are just like 20 others out there creating a hype with no backup !
go get em …. am ready to go as dark as it gets (as long as i still can see the coins)
….>
So go as dark as you can and always ! No traceable, anonymous all the way,….. as this is what this coin is all about …. otherwise ….. there is no point for all of this and we are just like 20 others out there creating a hype with no backup !
go get em …. am ready to go as dark as it gets (as long as i still can see the coins)
….>
February 19, 2014, 11:06:11 PM
xD
It's not about being disrespectful but the discourage is needed!
Jump to: