Author

Topic: Official Anoncoin chat thread (including history) - page 150. (Read 530609 times)

full member
Activity: 954
Merit: 104
ludenaprotocol.io
Best for anonymity would be to automatically convert all ANC to ZC so that the total number of ZC coins and addresses is high.
I don't see why users should be given an option to send ANC without anonymity... the vision for ANC is anonymity, not a choice to send anonymously.

The user doesn't even have to know what's going on behind the scene with ZC, and the QT may even show amounts in ANC only.

This would 1) maximize anonymity and 2) make it simpler for users. 

It has been explained already: the mint process requires a high computational effort which will be rewarded with fees an order of magnitude greater. So it's not feasible or desirable to only have an anonymous send function.


True anonymity has a cost I'm pretty sure ANC users would be willing to bear.
On the flip side, using a "Anon-send" button would provide lower anonymity at the same fee magnitude...

Re feasibility; you say this approach is not technically feasible? 
full member
Activity: 175
Merit: 100
Best for anonymity would be to automatically convert all ANC to ZC so that the total number of ZC coins and addresses is high.
I don't see why users should be given an option to send ANC without anonymity... the vision for ANC is anonymity, not a choice to send anonymously.

The user doesn't even have to know what's going on behind the scene with ZC, and the QT may even show amounts in ANC only.

This would 1) maximize anonymity and 2) make it simpler for users. 

It has been explained already: the mint process requires a high computational effort which will be rewarded with fees an order of magnitude greater. So it's not feasible or desirable to only have an anonymous send function.
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
 May I suggest that we stop mining ANC, and let it how it is on 1.2M

I think drk do that from 84M to 22M

 Wink
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008
/dev/null
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls,   somebody wants to make panic sale,  selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..


No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me...
For all this work that is being done ... nothing!

I mean, even if ZC gets implemented  Huh will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable

Can we change name to AnoncoinDark or something , maybe will be more volume and success : )

Obviously there is some group of ppl who support few coins and go from one to another to pump.
Maybe ANC is on they TODO list   Grin
this wont happen.

+1

Thank god. Seriously though k1773R, a ticker change to [ANON] would be legit. No way on the full name change though.
You have to ask meeh for this
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
:)
Notice

For all pools and people mining, please apply the following three lines bellow to the anoncoin.conf file:
blockminsize=0
blockmaxsize=1000000
blockprioritysize=1000000

And restart Anoncoind. The blockchain got spammed with some huge transactions, and this would solve the issue.
sr. member
Activity: 249
Merit: 250

Does anyone have an opinion on a 100% proof-of-stake system, similar to Peercoin? (actually, they use a mixed POW and POS system.)

The benefit is that there is little energy used with POS compared to energy hungry POW algorithms.

The downside is that there is built in monetary inflation (albeit, very low at 1% for peercoin, if I remember correctly).

People are more attracted to 100% proof of stake in new coins now. Only miners don't like it. For the coin and the value of the coin 100% proof of stake is better than regular mining.

regular mined coins / btc, ltc etc / 1 star

proof of stake / nxt, cap, etc / 2 stars

innovative productive / xpm, ric etc / 3 stars

innovative productive variation of proof of stake / huc, etc / 4 stars

Going to 100% regular proof of stake is like adding a piece of celery to a bowl of rice.
Is it an improvement? Yes.
a significant improvement? No.
Nothing creative or new about it but yes, rice with celery is better than rice without celery.

With a block reward of 2.5 ANC in some months, we will loose all small miners against big centralized miners that will control the network as they want.

Then, in my opinion, PoS would be a good option. They could program the inflation rate to have same coins distribution as the actual PoW algo (4 million ANC at the same approximated date).
With regard to the block reward halving: This has always bothered me.

Halving the block reward every X blocks is nearly equivalent to an exponential decrease in the block reward with time. Why don't we just hard code the block reward to be

reward = C * exp (-b/lambda)

where b is the block number, lambda a decay constant, and C a constant that depends on the total number of coins?

Using step functions was a dumb idea from the start, and I don't know why Satoshi did this. It seems to me that it would be trivial to update the anoncoin code to have a continuously decreasing block reward, if everyone thought it was a good idea.
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls,   somebody wants to make panic sale,  selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..


No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me...
For all this work that is being done ... nothing!

I mean, even if ZC gets implemented  Huh will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable

Can we change name to AnoncoinDark or something , maybe will be more volume and success : )

Obviously there is some group of ppl who support few coins and go from one to another to pump.
Maybe ANC is on they TODO list   Grin
this wont happen.

+1

Thank god. Seriously though k1773R, a ticker change to [ANON] would be legit. No way on the full name change though.

xD  you mean that I was serious with this name change??
sr. member
Activity: 350
Merit: 250
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls,   somebody wants to make panic sale,  selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..


No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me...
For all this work that is being done ... nothing!

I mean, even if ZC gets implemented  Huh will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable

Can we change name to AnoncoinDark or something , maybe will be more volume and success : )

Obviously there is some group of ppl who support few coins and go from one to another to pump.
Maybe ANC is on they TODO list   Grin
this wont happen.

+1

Thank god. Seriously though k1773R, a ticker change to [ANON] would be legit. No way on the full name change though.
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
Last Block 232 295  , 12h ago,

geekz, report?


EDIT: geekz on vacation, that's it : )

https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/geekz-175822
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008
/dev/null
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls,   somebody wants to make panic sale,  selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..


No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me...
For all this work that is being done ... nothing!

I mean, even if ZC gets implemented  Huh will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable

Can we change name to AnoncoinDark or something , maybe will be more volume and success : )

Obviously there is some group of ppl who support few coins and go from one to another to pump.
Maybe ANC is on they TODO list   Grin
this wont happen.

ANCDRK, or TODO?
 Cheesy

what about PoS?
Skaia has brilliant ideas!

wrt dark
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls,   somebody wants to make panic sale,  selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..


No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me...
For all this work that is being done ... nothing!

I mean, even if ZC gets implemented  Huh will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable

Can we change name to AnoncoinDark or something , maybe will be more volume and success : )

Obviously there is some group of ppl who support few coins and go from one to another to pump.
Maybe ANC is on they TODO list   Grin
this wont happen.

ANCDRK, or TODO?
 Cheesy

what about PoS?
Skaia has brilliant ideas!
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1008
/dev/null
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls,   somebody wants to make panic sale,  selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..


No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me...
For all this work that is being done ... nothing!

I mean, even if ZC gets implemented  Huh will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable

Can we change name to AnoncoinDark or something , maybe will be more volume and success : )

Obviously there is some group of ppl who support few coins and go from one to another to pump.
Maybe ANC is on they TODO list   Grin
this wont happen.
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls,   somebody wants to make panic sale,  selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..


No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me...
For all this work that is being done ... nothing!

I mean, even if ZC gets implemented  Huh will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable

Can we change name to AnoncoinDark or something , maybe will be more volume and success : )

Obviously there is some group of ppl who support few coins and go from one to another to pump.
Maybe ANC is on they TODO list   Grin
full member
Activity: 954
Merit: 104
ludenaprotocol.io
Best for anonymity would be to automatically convert all ANC to ZC so that the total number of ZC coins and addresses is high.
I don't see why users should be given an option to send ANC without anonymity... the vision for ANC is anonymity, not a choice to send anonymously.

The user doesn't even have to know what's going on behind the scene with ZC, and the QT may even show amounts in ANC only.

This would 1) maximize anonymity and 2) make it simpler for users. 
sr. member
Activity: 298
Merit: 250
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls,   somebody wants to make panic sale,  selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..


No doubt that there is some heavy pressure on the Anoncoin price. It looks very strange to me...
For all this work that is being done ... nothing!

I mean, even if ZC gets implemented  Huh will there be a significant rise? hm... debatable
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
So, what is with this new cryptsy walls,   somebody wants to make panic sale,  selling to "himself" and going down with steps?
what do you think?
It looks strange to me..
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
Any news about ZC? When it will be done?
Bad-english-man

Soon,
you can watch the news without commercials at https://blog.privacysolutions.no/
every Monday 
 Wink
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500

Does anyone have an opinion on a 100% proof-of-stake system, similar to Peercoin? (actually, they use a mixed POW and POS system.)

The benefit is that there is little energy used with POS compared to energy hungry POW algorithms.

The downside is that there is built in monetary inflation (albeit, very low at 1% for peercoin, if I remember correctly).

People are more attracted to 100% proof of stake in new coins now. Only miners don't like it. For the coin and the value of the coin 100% proof of stake is better than regular mining.

regular mined coins / btc, ltc etc / 1 star

proof of stake / nxt, cap, etc / 2 stars

innovative productive / xpm, ric etc / 3 stars

innovative productive variation of proof of stake / huc, etc / 4 stars

Going to 100% regular proof of stake is like adding a piece of celery to a bowl of rice.
Is it an improvement? Yes.
a significant improvement? No.
Nothing creative or new about it but yes, rice with celery is better than rice without celery.

With a block reward of 2.5 ANC in some months, we will loose all small miners against big centralized miners that will control the network as they want.

Then, in my opinion, PoS would be a good option. They could program the inflation rate to have same coins distribution as the actual PoW algo (4 million ANC at the same approximated date).

You really work on Android..??   This is great!  Release in the same time as ZC?

With a block reword halving you plan to quit mining? : )
Maybe you will because of difficulty,  but price would be higher then now...
But yea, I accept every change right now, we need moves!

Keep working, and give us some progress, maybe every Monday?  Grin
hero member
Activity: 527
Merit: 500
Wait what? ZC can't be transferred?   Huh
Here is how it will (probably) work:

1. Zerocoin Mint Transaction

In your wallet, you will convert a part (or all) of your ANC into zerocoins, with 1 ANC = 1 Zerocoin. The Zerocoins will be denominated in factors of 10, so you will need to choose how to do this. Your wallet will store some information for each zerocoin you generate (like the coin serial number, an associated random number used to generate the coin, and the denomination). The blockchain will record information saying that "your public ANC address sent X ANC to the zerocoin pool."

2. Zerocoin Spend Transaction

You tell your wallet to redeem some zerocoins to a specified ANC address. This part is done using zero-knowledge proofs and the private info in your wallet so that you don't disclose who you are. This ANC address could be yours (if you want to "wash" your coins) or someone elses (if you want to do an anonymous transaction). 1 ANC will be credited to this ANC address for each Zerocoin that is redeemed.

The end result is the following:

The person who receives the ANC from the Zerocoin spend transaction won't know who they came from. All they will know is that they come from 1 of the people who ever owned zerocoins up to that date. As the number of people owning zerocoins will likely be VERY large, it will be impossible to guess who that person is. This differs from most other mixing services where the number of people you are mixed with is small, allowing you to play guessing games to eventually figure out who sent the coins.

The only thing you will need to worry about is the following: If the number of people who contributed to the zerocoin pool for denomination X is small, you are in danger of being found out. The wallet should thus tell you how many coins are in the escrow pool for each denomination. Even if this number is large, there is a possibility that all these coins belong to the same person! Thus it would also be a good idea for the wallet to tell you how many unique ANC addresses were used in the zerocoin mint transactions.


Why would anyone use other denominations than 1 ZC?


Because there is a transaction cost for each zerocoin proof. Miners need to verify each proof (which is considerably harder than just verifying a hash), and to incentivize them to do so, each zerocoin that is spent will have a small transaction fee. For a 1000 ANC transaction, you could either redeem 1000 zerocoins each with a 1 ANC denomination (with 1000 times the transaction fee), or just 1 zerocoin with a 1000 ANC denomination (with just 1 transaction fee). I think that darkcoin does something similar.

I have no idea what the transaction fees will be, but I suspect it will probably be 10 times larger than the normal fee of 0.01, so lets say it is 0.1 ANC

I think that there are two ways to deal with the fee. Lets say you want to send 1 ANC to someone.

(1) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1.1 ANC. When you redeem the coin, the 0.1 fee goes to the miner and the 1 ANC goes to the recipient.
(2) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1 ANC, and then a second one with the denomination of the fee, 0.1 ANC. To send 1 ANC to someone, you would need to send a 1 ANC zerocoin to them, plus send a 0.1 ANC zerocoin to the miner.

Option 1 is faster, as only 1 proof needs to be verified, but if you change the transaction fee at a later date, that would really screw things up. For option 2, the miner would need to verify twice as many zerocoin proofs in order to get the fee.



For the sake of simplicity (specially for casual users), the wallet software should have an "anonymous send" function which would both mint and spend ZC to a destination ANC address using the most appropriate denomination, so that the user doesn't have to know ZC or understand what is going on behind the scenes. ANC has to be simple in order to be popular, and advanced users will always be able to mint ZC manually.

The only thing users would have to understand is that "normal" send is not quite anonymous, and "anonymous send" is a bit more expensive because of the intermediary ZC step.

One problem with doing this is that your transaction could be deanonymized by a timing analysis. If you buy X zerocoins, and then immediately spend the same amount, that would look really suspicious in the block chain.

Another possible solution might be instead to have all coins in your wallet immediately converted to zerocoins. Perhaps the wallet could say "You just recieved X ANC. Would you like to convert them to Zercoins?"

That would still be too complex for casual users, for they would necessarily need to "know" Zerocoins. The whole idea of having "anon coins" and "zero coins" somehow co-existing in the same wallet is counter-intuitive. The ANC team should "hide" ZC from casual users that just want to have their ANC transactions fully anonymous.

That said, I understand the problem you are posing. What about keeping my original "anonymous send" concept, but warn the user that a fast/immediate "anonymization" of a transaction might look suspicious in the blockchain? The software could then ask the user how long he or she would be willing to wait for the whole transaction to complete, and then work in the backgroung, breaking the mint/spend in several steps within the specified time, allowing a random delay before the next spend.

Also, ANC should really drop the "Zerocoin" terminology in the user interface. We don't need two "coins" as there is really just one coin, which is ANC. For UI purposes, how about simply calling zerocoins "vouchers", which can be redeemed for ANC at a later time?


I'm a casual user and really do not have any problem with ANC with option to change them in ZC, if that will be easy like one or few clicks.
Or if would be possible, it is ok to be like now just ANC, and all will know that ZC is inside, with anonymity.
Who do not want to be anon, why use ANC anyway..

Hello to all ANC fans and watchers, I was on vacation  Cheesy 
full member
Activity: 175
Merit: 100
Wait what? ZC can't be transferred?   Huh
Here is how it will (probably) work:

1. Zerocoin Mint Transaction

In your wallet, you will convert a part (or all) of your ANC into zerocoins, with 1 ANC = 1 Zerocoin. The Zerocoins will be denominated in factors of 10, so you will need to choose how to do this. Your wallet will store some information for each zerocoin you generate (like the coin serial number, an associated random number used to generate the coin, and the denomination). The blockchain will record information saying that "your public ANC address sent X ANC to the zerocoin pool."

2. Zerocoin Spend Transaction

You tell your wallet to redeem some zerocoins to a specified ANC address. This part is done using zero-knowledge proofs and the private info in your wallet so that you don't disclose who you are. This ANC address could be yours (if you want to "wash" your coins) or someone elses (if you want to do an anonymous transaction). 1 ANC will be credited to this ANC address for each Zerocoin that is redeemed.

The end result is the following:

The person who receives the ANC from the Zerocoin spend transaction won't know who they came from. All they will know is that they come from 1 of the people who ever owned zerocoins up to that date. As the number of people owning zerocoins will likely be VERY large, it will be impossible to guess who that person is. This differs from most other mixing services where the number of people you are mixed with is small, allowing you to play guessing games to eventually figure out who sent the coins.

The only thing you will need to worry about is the following: If the number of people who contributed to the zerocoin pool for denomination X is small, you are in danger of being found out. The wallet should thus tell you how many coins are in the escrow pool for each denomination. Even if this number is large, there is a possibility that all these coins belong to the same person! Thus it would also be a good idea for the wallet to tell you how many unique ANC addresses were used in the zerocoin mint transactions.


Why would anyone use other denominations than 1 ZC?


Because there is a transaction cost for each zerocoin proof. Miners need to verify each proof (which is considerably harder than just verifying a hash), and to incentivize them to do so, each zerocoin that is spent will have a small transaction fee. For a 1000 ANC transaction, you could either redeem 1000 zerocoins each with a 1 ANC denomination (with 1000 times the transaction fee), or just 1 zerocoin with a 1000 ANC denomination (with just 1 transaction fee). I think that darkcoin does something similar.

I have no idea what the transaction fees will be, but I suspect it will probably be 10 times larger than the normal fee of 0.01, so lets say it is 0.1 ANC

I think that there are two ways to deal with the fee. Lets say you want to send 1 ANC to someone.

(1) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1.1 ANC. When you redeem the coin, the 0.1 fee goes to the miner and the 1 ANC goes to the recipient.
(2) You could mint a zerocoin with a denomination of 1 ANC, and then a second one with the denomination of the fee, 0.1 ANC. To send 1 ANC to someone, you would need to send a 1 ANC zerocoin to them, plus send a 0.1 ANC zerocoin to the miner.

Option 1 is faster, as only 1 proof needs to be verified, but if you change the transaction fee at a later date, that would really screw things up. For option 2, the miner would need to verify twice as many zerocoin proofs in order to get the fee.



For the sake of simplicity (specially for casual users), the wallet software should have an "anonymous send" function which would both mint and spend ZC to a destination ANC address using the most appropriate denomination, so that the user doesn't have to know ZC or understand what is going on behind the scenes. ANC has to be simple in order to be popular, and advanced users will always be able to mint ZC manually.

The only thing users would have to understand is that "normal" send is not quite anonymous, and "anonymous send" is a bit more expensive because of the intermediary ZC step.

One problem with doing this is that your transaction could be deanonymized by a timing analysis. If you buy X zerocoins, and then immediately spend the same amount, that would look really suspicious in the block chain.

Another possible solution might be instead to have all coins in your wallet immediately converted to zerocoins. Perhaps the wallet could say "You just recieved X ANC. Would you like to convert them to Zercoins?"

That would still be too complex for casual users, for they would necessarily need to "know" Zerocoins. The whole idea of having "anon coins" and "zero coins" somehow co-existing in the same wallet is counter-intuitive. The ANC team should "hide" ZC from casual users that just want to have their ANC transactions fully anonymous.

That said, I understand the problem you are posing. What about keeping my original "anonymous send" concept, but warn the user that a fast/immediate "anonymization" of a transaction might look suspicious in the blockchain? The software could then ask the user how long he or she would be willing to wait for the whole transaction to complete, and then work in the backgroung, breaking the mint/spend in several steps within the specified time, allowing a random delay before the next spend.

Also, ANC should really drop the "Zerocoin" terminology in the user interface. We don't need two "coins" as there is really just one coin, which is ANC. For UI purposes, how about simply calling zerocoins "vouchers", which can be redeemed for ANC at a later time?
Jump to: