Developer of Darkcoin has confirmed my suspicions:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6004394
Topic: ZeroCash: 2nd gen with anonymization starting from the coinbase transaction - page 2. (Read 15278 times)
March 31, 2014, 12:11:40 PM
March 31, 2014, 11:20:35 AM
scam Jewcoin
NO GRACIAS JEW.
"Set up by a trusted party"
"Propietary source code"
-Jews made it
"Propietary source code"
-Jews made it
Why nobody ban this anti-semite guy?
It's a scam coin made by a jew, what's antisemite about pointing it out?
March 31, 2014, 08:11:18 AM
scam Jewcoin
NO GRACIAS JEW.
"Set up by a trusted party"
"Propietary source code"
-Jews made it
"Propietary source code"
-Jews made it
Why nobody ban this anti-semite guy?
March 31, 2014, 08:04:36 AM
Did they attempt to do anything to deal with DOS-attacks? The problem is that if you blacklist the input address, someone can just go create another input address (even passing through another instance of the mixer). If they are sharing a single blacklist coin-wide, then it is not a decentralized coin (i.e. some pools could lie and cause addresses to become unspendable). Etc, etc, etc.
A cost of 0.1 DRK was added that is not returned but distributed to the miners if the client misbehaves, so organizing a dos could become a costly endeavor. Again, possible I got it wrong. Someone else please verify.
I just replied on that point:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6000702
I am thinking DOS can still occur free-of-charge in the signing of the outputs.
March 31, 2014, 07:36:51 AM
Did they attempt to do anything to deal with DOS-attacks? The problem is that if you blacklist the input address, someone can just go create another input address (even passing through another instance of the mixer). If they are sharing a single blacklist coin-wide, then it is not a decentralized coin (i.e. some pools could lie and cause addresses to become unspendable). Etc, etc, etc.
A cost of 0.1 DRK was added that is not returned but distributed to the miners if the client misbehaves, so organizing a dos could become a costly endeavor. Again, possible I got it wrong. Someone else please verify.
March 31, 2014, 07:22:29 AM
P.S. Just wait until DarkCoin's CoinJoin is denial-of-service attacked (if necessary I will do it to prove it is vulnerable, will wait until it becomes more popular then bet short on it and DOS-attack it). Tried to tell them that, but they didn't want to listen. Oh well. CoinJoin can't be protected against this because it is a two-step process (not atomic). Go read my debate with gmaxwell in the CoinJoin thread. Blacklisting input addresses is futile.
iirc drk dev asked you to exploit it in the test net setting but you disappeared.
It's possible I remember wrong though.
They never PM'ed me as I requested. I don't spend my time monitoring that DK thread that has several pages per day of new posts.
Did they attempt to do anything to deal with DOS-attacks? The problem is that if you blacklist the input address, someone can just go create another input address (even passing through another instance of the mixer). If they are sharing a single blacklist coin-wide, then it is not a decentralized coin (i.e. some pools could lie and cause addresses to become unspendable). Etc, etc, etc.
Nothing in their whitepaper about DOS protection:
http://darkcoin.io/downloads/DarkcoinWhitepaper.pdf
March 31, 2014, 06:23:42 AM
Creating the master key in a ceremony doesn't guarantee the computer isn't backdoored or someone isn't using technology to sniff over the air-gap. And no one will ever know if it was intercepted or not. It is impossible to know the money supply.
I suggest we trust this in the hands of Chris Angel.
P.S. Just wait until DarkCoin's CoinJoin is denial-of-service attacked (if necessary I will do it to prove it is vulnerable, will wait until it becomes more popular then bet short on it and DOS-attack it). Tried to tell them that, but they didn't want to listen. Oh well. CoinJoin can't be protected against this because it is a two-step process (not atomic). Go read my debate with gmaxwell in the CoinJoin thread. Blacklisting input addresses is futile.
iirc drk dev asked you to exploit it in the test net setting but you disappeared.
It's possible I remember wrong though.
March 31, 2014, 06:04:39 AM
I'm also one of those who can't wait for zerocash.
I expect massive adoption by sites like silk road 2.0 and such. I expect several states declaring it illegal. And of course I expect its value to heavily rise in the middle of war with governments and other negative-hype-raising events.
It'll be grand, my friends.
I expect massive adoption by sites like silk road 2.0 and such. I expect several states declaring it illegal. And of course I expect its value to heavily rise in the middle of war with governments and other negative-hype-raising events.
It'll be grand, my friends.
In the video Dr. Green urged everyone to be cautious about the adoption of the currency -- there's one pitfall if I understand correctly, and that is that since everything is obscured (even the generation of new coins via block subsidy), you can't observe actual inflation in the currency (just try to predict it based on the programming of the source code). That is, if there were a bug and someone were to generate 2 billion coins (as what happened with Bitcoin), there's no real way to observe that.
Worse than that, if the creator of the master configuration parameters for Zerocash wants he can create unlimited coins and no one will ever know.
This was also true with Zerocoin, except that the counterfeit coins would need to be less than the mints minus spends.
Creating the master key in a ceremony doesn't guarantee the computer isn't backdoored or someone isn't using technology to sniff over the air-gap. And no one will ever know if it was intercepted or not. It is impossible to know the money supply.
Worse yet, 9ms verification is still way too slow to scale to any reasonable number of transactions per block, unless we only allow server farms to be full nodes (well Bitcoin is headed that way any way with one pool controlling more than 50% of the mining hash rate now).
This iteration will never be in a widely adopted serious coin.
They need more years to improve it and for cryptanalysis to vet it. Can you imagine putting this new crypto in a coin then later it is broken and chaos reigns.
Exciting development, but nothing for us to use any time soon.
Actually the original Zerocoin is superior but for a different application.
P.S. Just wait until DarkCoin's CoinJoin is denial-of-service attacked (if necessary I will do it to prove it is vulnerable, will wait until it becomes more popular then bet short on it and DOS-attack it). Tried to tell them that, but they didn't want to listen. Oh well. CoinJoin can't be protected against this because it is a two-step process (not atomic). Go read my debate with gmaxwell in the CoinJoin thread. Blacklisting input addresses is futile.
March 29, 2014, 07:54:38 AM
Look intresting, ill follow this coin on launch
March 29, 2014, 07:16:08 AM
March 29, 2014, 07:08:19 AM
Any update?
March 28, 2014, 10:38:55 PM
Can you explain it more clearly?
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7LSSE0bRRo
He says that it's better than other previous ideas that required a centralized bank to anonymize and mint coins... then he says that his coin needs a "trusted party" to generate public keys and that it's not open source.
scam Jewcoin
I think the trusted party is a centralized bank.
Trusted party is someone that isn't you (or your ZeroCoin client), and since the project is not open source then you will have to trust your key to whoever this guy decides these "trusted parties" are going to be.
This is a centralized coin in disguise.
Because they want to control it, but they market it as anonymous and decentralized to attract people to it.
I see....
March 28, 2014, 11:51:49 AM
I think some of the core developers of bitcoin in the xcp thread already told that this is at most half true
March 28, 2014, 11:48:41 AM
Can you explain it more clearly?
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7LSSE0bRRo
He says that it's better than other previous ideas that required a centralized bank to anonymize and mint coins... then he says that his coin needs a "trusted party" to generate public keys and that it's not open source.
scam Jewcoin
I think the trusted party is a centralized bank.
Trusted party is someone that isn't you (or your ZeroCoin client), and since the project is not open source then you will have to trust your key to whoever this guy decides these "trusted parties" are going to be.
This is a centralized coin in disguise.
Because they want to control it, but they market it as anonymous and decentralized to attract people to it.
March 28, 2014, 11:36:35 AM
Can you explain it more clearly?
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7LSSE0bRRo
He says that it's better than other previous ideas that required a centralized bank to anonymize and mint coins... then he says that his coin needs a "trusted party" to generate public keys and that it's not open source.
scam Jewcoin
I think the trusted party is a centralized bank.
Trusted party is someone that isn't you (or your ZeroCoin client), and since the project is not open source then you will have to trust your key to whoever this guy decides these "trusted parties" are going to be.
This is a centralized coin in disguise.
March 28, 2014, 11:13:48 AM
Can you explain it more clearly?
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7LSSE0bRRo
He says that it's better than other previous ideas that required a centralized bank to anonymize and mint coins... then he says that his coin needs a "trusted party" to generate public keys and that it's not open source.
scam Jewcoin
I think the trusted party is a centralized bank.
Trusted party is someone that isn't you (or your ZeroCoin client), and since the project is not open source then you will have to trust your key to whoever this guy decides these "trusted parties" are going to be.
This is a centralized coin in disguise.
March 28, 2014, 11:11:05 AM
Can you explain it more clearly?
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7LSSE0bRRo
He says that it's better than other previous ideas that required a centralized bank to anonymize and mint coins... then he says that his coin needs a "trusted party" to generate public keys and that it's not open source.
scam Jewcoin
I think the trusted party is a centralized bank.
March 28, 2014, 11:05:12 AM
It seems it is really something new!
Can u help introduce more on this project?
Or where can I get more info?
Very interested!
Can u help introduce more on this project?
Or where can I get more info?
Very interested!
March 28, 2014, 11:04:31 AM
Can you explain it more clearly?
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
I just want to know more about it .
Maybe it is a good coin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7LSSE0bRRo
He says that it's better than other previous ideas that required a centralized bank to anonymize and mint coins... then he says that his coin needs a "trusted party" to generate public keys and that it's not open source.
scam Jewcoin
March 28, 2014, 10:55:40 AM
good idea! we need more info.
Jump to: