Topic: [Poll] What anonymous coin will succed? - page 25. (Read 90301 times)

Only a POS coin will be succed, multipools are pow killer

ICG INCOGNITOCOIN GUYS
NEW 5 % POS to hit Thursday and BitKey Implementation in the works.

That doesn't apply in non-cooperative games (which is what masternodes create).

If you're really interested in the game theory that shows why this is a bad idea, you can start here: http://www.ewp.rpi.edu/hartford/~stoddj/BE/IntroGameT.htm

What you really want is Nash equilibrium, but that's when a system comes to rest, not before. In the case of masternodes, those with the fastest access to resources and the most devious minds would initiate a systemic collapse. This could occur after quite a period of equilibrium, as the bad actors wait for price appreciation in order to ensure the barrier to entry for competitors is obliterated. They would launch an attack on masternode after masternode, obliterating them from the network. Those good actors with fast access to resources will also react, but it would only take a short time before they reason that one or more of the remaining masternodes must be operating in bad faith, and the best way to deal with this is to launch an attack of their own. Once sufficient numbers of masternodes have shut down and dumped their coins due to the cost prohibitive nature of defending against these attacks, a very small group (I'd hazard less than 10) will be left with a Nash equilibrium, knowing that they survived each other's onslaughts and were unable to take each other down permanently.

I've written a price ticker for the Sailfish mobile OS / Jolla smartphones. If you own such a device, check out the harbour for the drkJolla app.

I'm adding coins based on that poll, currently featuring:
- Darkcoin 138
- Cloakcoin 114
- XCurrency 98
- Monero 70

I might consider adding the following coins, too, if they can gain some momentum in the privacy-driven development:
- VootCoin 27
- Stealthcoin 24
- Vertcoin 21

LOL - please do - how on earth would you Sybil attack Monero??

As to the rest of your points, I can do nothing but chuckle at your naiveté.

Time will determine which system is broken and which is sound. As Anonymint said, if it works in spite of the "duct tape" , that's all that matters. Your solution may be more elegant, but outside of a small circle of programmers, no one cares. 99.9% of users will not appreciate anything outside of functionality and a nice GUI. Also you know damn well that Monero is not going to be immune to sybil attacks. You've had that discussion with Anonymint, do I need to fish it out? The general conclusion was that Darkcoin and CN are roughly equivalent in terms of attacks. Darkcoin's masternodes add an additional, but highly ineffective and impractical attack vector, yet Darkcoin can be pruned and CN cannot.

Quit the imaginary FUD. So tiring.

"In reality, humans display a systematic bias towards cooperative behavior in this and similar games, much more so than predicted by simple models of "rational" self-interested action."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

They can and they will, because it guarantees them more transactions to process and thus more fees.

DarkCoin or Cloakcoin

I do not think other coins are reliable like these 2.

I'm sure there will be people running dos attacks vs drk network, but I'm not so sure they will be fellow masternode owners. 

I saw it, it doesn't. It's layering on top of a fundamentally broken system. The solution is to drop the idea and opt for something that is cryptographically sound and not open to Sybil attacks.

Fewer people run Bitcoin nodes, and it seems to do just fine.

Payment IDs as a reduction in anonymity were raised in naiveté and rejected as a non-issue. The only thing it is is inconvenient as it is not serialised with the stealth address, it's certainly no threat to anonymity.

I'm not sure how you think that a DDoS SYN flood directed at the Darkcoin p2p port on a MasterNode will not lead to the datacenter nullrouting all traffic bound for that IP at their upstream provider's level? Do you even BGP? Seriously, I think you misunderstand what a DDoS attack is and does, and how datacenters react to them.

Memset Hosting has a good page on this, and they make it clear that during a DDoS attack they null route the server IP: "When an IP is null routed no data will arrive at Memset's network so we cannot tell when the attack has stopped. For this reason the IP is typically left null routed for a minimum of 24 hours." Similarly, there's a great comment on Hacker News that tells you how to destroy someone hosted at Hetzner. I'll quote: "If someone starts DDoS on your dedicated, after several minutes they just shut down your dedicated from network, and send you an email like "We disabled your network because you have DDoS attack on your server. Write us an email to reenable your network". And of course, several hours later I saw that email and tell them "Okay, please enable my network", but boom, I will have to wait Monday, because their support that can ACTIVATE network on a dedicated works only from Mondays to Fridays ... And then the person who attacked me sends me anonymous email like "lol, I bought 5$ packet at [some random booter/network stresser website], and I have put you offline for few days for only 15 minutes of DDoS, HAHAHAHA"". Masternodes can put each other out of commission for a whopping $5.

That notwithstanding, because X11 is significantly more processor intensive than SHA-256 when verifying blocks, masternodes are inherently open to slightly more sophisticated DDoS attacks that push bad blocks at the masternode, burning up CPU cycles so that it can't accept additional transactions or operate at all. These are not even particularly expensive attacks to mount against a masternode.

I fail to see how masternodes attacking each other will incentivise more nodes. They'll be fighting to keep each other offline, like wild dogs scrabbling over a few scraps of meat, but people won't be able to setup new masternodes because it will be cost prohibitive.

It is clear to who? The receiver? Well obviously, if you want something in exchange for your coins lol.



Retailer will do what they always do, they create an address for you to deposit. You send coins to that address. Problem? And, you still hold the private keys to the addresses where the coins were sent from. If you need to sign a message with those keys it can be implemented?



There is a combo box selection when sending, whether to send anonymous or non-anonymous funds. No need to use coin control. And, the new wallet design is under development, making it easier for people to use should be one of the focused areas, agreed.



I'm sure cryptonote will be good when it reaches the maturity that Bitcoin codebase offers, whether it's 1 or 5 years. But just like we've seen happening with Bitcoin, unless the newcomer is radically better than an established product, it can't take over.



Regarding "2 class economy" or rewards, dunno, I'm not an economist, and even if I was, this is something that hasn't been done before, so all talk is just subjective speculation imo.

Regarding scaling, sending doesn't use masternodes. Premixing does. So after your coins have been premixed, you can keep buying stuff from a lot of merchants for a long time until you need to premix again. And, it's not like the design is set in stone, the coin is only 6 months old, and the main dev has said that he will be developing full time at least for 2 more years.

...XC

No i am not.
I am talking about as way to verify you´ve send anonymous payment A to address B.

In CN you make a new ring sig, using the same key image but different (random) data, thats only possible if you own the private key.
Then you can disclose the random number used to create the one time address.

Everone can check that the one time address i send money to can be created using the pubkey and intermediate random number.
Ideally you pack this into a payment protocol outside of the blockchain.



Tell me how todo this with Darkcoin using Darksend.

Bigger blockchain means that fewer people run nodes. Especially when the blockchain is an order of magnitude bigger.  I could be mistaken on the payment ID's, but I distinctly remember it being raised as an issue in the Monero thread, with consensus towards removing them. I'll do some digging later. Masternode operators turning on each other? That doesn't sound like a realistic problem, additionally if it were a problem, it would be self correcting by incentivizing more nodes. How would they turn on each other? DOS? March wants its problem back. Node hacking? Remember that you can't steal the coins held in a MN. ( Unless you're a moron and you don't use the clearly safer cold storage setup).

How are payment IDs a risk? They tell you that a group of inputs from person(s) unknown and unknowable made a payment, or a series of payments, or simply paid money to themselves, and the whole group is identified by a 64 character hex string. Each of these outputs is signed by a different group of people who are also unknown and unknowable. It cannot be determined which signature for each output is the true one.

The second half of your sentence is equally nonsensical - is Bitcoin easy to attack with its 20gb blockchain?


Once the arrests start we'll have a different conversation. People thought Bitcoin provided "enough" anonymity till DPR got arrested. Although I don't suspect we'll get to that stage, as masternode operators will turn on each other and destroy each other to increase their profits. It is a great setup for mutually assured destruction.

If you're referring to payment ID's , you should know they have been identified as a security risk, look through the Monero thread.  Blockchain size does matter, if no one runs nodes, your network becomes centralized and easier to attack.

Combining inputs only establishes that they belonged to one person, it does not establish where those funds originated. So no, it wouldn't unmask you. And once the funds were anonymized by the recipient's wallet, you couldn't tell where they went.

As far as coin control, the client will select anonymized funds automatically, there will be no risk of unmasking yourself through the inadvertent use of unmixed funds. Not sure why you think premixing is horrible, I've tried it on testnet and it's actually pretty awesome. Everything is being built with a general user in mind. It all happens automatically and seamlessly, no technical skill required.

Either way, it will be out later this week, you can try it out if you're so inclined (or if you're as excited as I am, head over to the testing thread https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rc4-testing.1830/page-89. Based on my experience, I think people will be pleased.

To your last point, if you can't scale properly, you'll simply lose out to those that can. Once people try to trace Darkcoin transactions and fail, it will become accepted as a standard. Good luck trying to explain your advantages a year or two after a standard has been established. First mover advantage is huge, and you guys aren't getting it Even if you do have advantages, they won't be game changing. I'll grant you that the CN solution is more elegant, but that's utterly meaningless because it all happens under the hood, and the vast majority of people don't care. People use what works, which as you'll find out shortly, is Darkcoin.