Topic: This message was too old and has been purged - page 7. (Read 26105 times)

You are intentionally using misleading statements and it's no surprise that you would refer to posts by an open supporter of XMR, and we alll know the disgusting habits of XMR supporters.

Let me correct you before you think you can get away with what is tantamount to a lie

 

In response to

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10683089

let me pose you an interesting concept-- "The proof is in the pudding" Many a so called developer have written proofs and whitepapers, yet very few came through with an actual product. The OP conceded defeat in his original hypothesis and has returned to the drawing board.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10684983

Now that is sheer desperation. This thread was made buy a guy who jumped the gun, and was proven wrong. Leave it to XMR fanboys to turn it into a discussion about difficulty and emissions.  

You mean where he posted It's random this and random that and you can never unravel it so go ahead and do it?

Let me let you in on a little secret, IT is IMPOSSIBLE for a computer to generate anything random except a fire maybe.

What he should be doing is answering posts like this.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10683089

AND especially this!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10684983

He did address the claimed issue.

This is ultimately what really matters and renders the rest of the mixing process irrelevant (though flaws in that, such as those allegedly found by the OP, can compound the failure and make things even worse).

Masternodes can't be trusted, and their behavior can't be verified. Even with so-called "blinding" the necessarily information to reverse the mixing still flows throw masternodes and therefore its security can never be trusted. If someone comes up with a way to do this without disclosing the private information to the masternodes, then it could be a system that isn't entirely unsound in the sense of having an undetectable information leak. But that is not DRK.


Exactly. There is no mechanism to prevent that. Information is valuable, so masternodes will collect it, sell it, and likely inadvertently leak it. In some sense the best case possible would be the NSA actually running them all. At least they won't sell it.

Well, I haven't really gone through the entire thread but I don't think the DRK CoinJoin is entirely unsound from the perspective of being a centralized CoinJoin.

The theory is basically, you have n many outputs (O_n) of denomination size D. For simplicity, for any O_n there is an owner Z_n.

Z_n sends her output O_n to a masternode (MN) along with a new receiving address A_n. The MN shuffles these O_n as inputs and makes shuffled outputs to A_n in a single tx. The tx is then signed by all Z_n. The MN submits the tx to the network and the outputs are indistinguishable to everyone except the MN. Well, they're slightly known to the participants too, because they know which address and input is theirs.

It suffers from some of the same flaws as ring signatures (I'm not going to go over that, we've already published on them). But at the same time, ring signatures (a) don't require a MN (centralized) to do mixing because you can use any previous outpoint and (b) are somewhat more expensive space wise (but not really; see below) and (c) the MNs know 100% the outputs owned by their participants, who obviously have to connect to them somehow over TCP/IP. The last point is a big deal in terms of privacy, and even with Tor you can have timing correlation attacks.

The size of the ring signature is O(n), but then again, so is sequential DarkCoin mixing, per mix tx. The cost per mix for DRK is that of the signed input and output for the recipient, and the obfuscational security of a single tx is also O(n). For the latter I mean number of participants in terms of inputs/outputs... obviously a single participant is useless, and two participants is nearly useless. So, the DRK method still introduces O(n) bloat. It just load balances it differently.

The fact that the MNs are the centralized authority in the CoinJoin and now in network consensus (as of instant tx, since the MN decide which chain is valid by which tx is allowed to be in it) is more of an issue, along with providing correct incentives. Long term most of the rewards go to the MNs who I would guess will, over time, become progressively more pernicious in their activities. Another issue is legal ones for potential people running MNs, as they're effectively laundering money on behalf of the participants and directly benefiting from doing so monetarily.

NOW this is amusing! EVAN is the ONE person who should be in this thread!

Maybe if your dev wasn't in here arguing about petty things XMR might see some progress. If you haven't noticed, Evan hasn't been in here arguing. I think that shows the work ethic of both of them. 

You cannot argue logic with people that have an agenda, they are bag holders and will argue with every fallacy they can squirm into.

I can't believe you guys have the patience to deal with these fools, let them sink when their ship does. It makes no difference in the end anyway.

Ok, I LOL'd

I always have at least 2 law firms on retainer at all times, 1 personal, 1 corporate.  I should set them up to accept some DRK/BTC.  thanks for the suggestion. 

Good thing too. Sounds like people using DRK are going to need one!

(sorry, couldn't resist )

   got to love haters!

Before you can spent something you must have it.

Where can I spend my SDC? 

For a generic brand of peanuts maybe.

Thats a respectable achievement

To my knowledge we have 59 merchants accepting DRK.  From VPS providers, VPN Providers to hardware stores, wine merchants, 3d printing services, a lawyer(!), precious metals traders, electronics shops to general shops.

59 isn't much, agreed, but its a start.  Glad it makes you laugh. 

I have read it but thank you for the suggestion anyway!


Most if not all of the wallets are wrappers around the core code or recompile and link with core code. They did not reimplement the cryptography. Good question though!


Dark mainstream adoption is starting to happen? That's a good one! Funny!

*facepalm* Would you kindly remove yourself from the internets please. It is quite clear that you have never contributed anything but dribble to it thus wasting perfectly good server space.
This topic is about a possibly deanonomised, anon CRYPTO project. Smooth seems to be replying only to the onslaught of loaded statements. But you are just being a doofus, as usual.

Be nice if we can stop the dick measuring and actually just get on with the topic.