Topic: [ANN][PIVX] - PRIVATE INSTANT VERIFIED TRANSACTION - PROOF OF STAKE - ZEROCOIN - page 495. (Read 782493 times)

That is part of the issue. Which is why I put it up for vote. Everyone can not have access to this node, because everyone can't be trusted not to abuse it. Without telling everyone what our specific design plans are for this node (If we do it we would be the first) we would be essentially creating an "air-gap" between addresses, which would make it technically not possible to track the transaction through the air gap as the transaction being sent to the "Special node" would stop at one edge of the air-gap and begin again at the other edge. If I were to explain in detail what the entire process is everyone should understand why the increased security is a requirement.

This coin is called Darknet for a reason, we want to push the boundaries of Privacy and Anonymity to its limits. This service would be optional, and one of a kind initially. But there is always a level of risk. Which is why if we do this we would control the Special Node. If someone has a better way of accomplishing 100% untraceability and maintaining trust-less, feel free to PM me your ideas.

just looking save a few quid on vps

People always trying to game the system. We will be removing any possibility of running Masternodes from the same system. It is bad for Tor and the Network as a whole

I guess this is going below 1k satoshis?
will set some buy orders lower

...

That is already technically possible, but it is not really a good idea for the network, either for Tor and/or dnet nodes.

The Tor network simply does not have enough .exit IP's to make that a viable option, coupled with the fact that unless you know how to fully edit your torrc for this purpose, then Tor IP circuits rotate every 10 mins by 'default' anyway.

It would therefore be a much better option to obtain a bunch of cheap / private Socks proxy (static) IP addresses and to use those instead.

Although, running a node as onlynet=onion and then using your own addnode=.onion hidden_service address effectively as externalip=.onion could work OK, in theory.

- https://bitcoin.it/wiki/Running_Bitcoin - realize however that a number of these Connection options: are currently unique to Bitcoin Core with the version 0.12.0 release and that code updates would be required to dnet and/or respectfully dash for this to function...

Moreover, the real issue here being that IP addresses are 'unique' and that FQDN's (fully qualified domain names) are not, as multiple domain names can ofc operate from a single IP address (i.e. as with shared hosting and with .onion addresses).

Your 'technical issue' exists, because the Masternode design was seemingly created to try and prevent this form of centralized monopoly of Masternode ownership, in terms of network effects, at the very minimum.
  

be good if you could figure out how to get multiple nodes on same computer using tor

8th MN has been setup, charging towards 9th possibly > if made possible by the network difficulty

will vote later with all 9, I like the idea of SMN, dont like idea of any closed source or centralization but will review before taking part in vote

technology is working great thus far, will do later some inter TOR transactions with small amounts between nodes (to self basically) wanted to do this with dash but way too expensive, here sky is the limit (yet) (TOR and anon provide 100% anonymity, only backdoor or TOR exit nodes if compromised can break)

and no, selling nothing, in this way I provide backbone for future operations and roadmap , and it is my strong believe this is aint going anywhere

OK guys, I'm techtarded because I blew out my mind on drugs few years back.  I bought MN from host above, have wallet set up on laptop, logged into MN via putty, now what? How do I access the .conf?

I agree. Higher balance requirement but with higher reward sounds good.
e.g. 100k DNET per SMN (SuperMN) for 1.5x normal MN reward.

Seems like an obvious point of failure/attack.  Can't this feature be a function of all masternodes?

*EDIT if not all then a 2nd tier of supernodes, with higher collateral requirements and rewards. 

I am a miner and masternodes owner. I think constant supply during POW phase is bad for cryptocurrency. It leads to constant inflation and therefore fading of interest of investors.

My proposal for supply reduction during POW phase. It will decrease inflation, leaving enough coins for fair distribution. We will have total of 45 360 000 coins at the end of the POW phase instead of 64 800 000 coins (-19 440 000 coins).

Blocks 1 - 86 400 (56 days)
POW reward: 250 DNET
Total supply: 21 600 000

Blocks 86 401 - 172 800 (56 days)
POW reward: 175 DNET
Total supply: 36 720 000

Blocks 172 801 - 259 200 (56 days)
POW reward: 100 DNET
Total supply: 45 360 000

Blocks 259 200 +
POS

To vote in favor = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c yes"
To vote against = "mnbudget vote eb800b00add41c506738592d8cc7de53c17bbfec4ca572b77c778632c57e2c3c no"
(use 'vote-many' instead of 'vote' to vote using all your MN at once via controller wallet).

Great ideas!

Considering Darknet is all about being "Community Driven via MN voting".....

Anything that could increase community/investor involvement is key....

So I think a new Darknet website with ability to view current Proposals & Votes in "real time" should be right up there in priority. (more than untraceable tx)

This will really allow the community & investors to see what's going on without needing to see it via CLI.

Also would be cool to have it auto-tweet new proposals & end-results via Twitter. (like an automated alert/notification)

I guess this portion will make DNET more unique which I think is great. But yeah, needs more explanation.
In this case, I would classify it as a logically centralized transaction service. So it's optional to use right?

edit: oh. you already answered my question on it being optional.  

Please feel free to share your reasons..

That is correct, it is an optional service and will not effect the existing functionality in any way.

Darknet will remain decentralized as it should be.

It's not like they are centralizing the whole economy, this will be just a service for extra anonymity... I guess they would make that layer opt-in for an anon tx. with a checkbox or something.

Will vote "no". Centralization is enemy of cryptocurrency.

I think decentralization is much more important than anonimity for several reasons.