• Forum has been upgraded, all links, images, etc are as they were. Please see Official Announcements for more information

Decentralized mixing

Did you not read last two posts? :) 1000 DRK is much only for normal citizen, not for government.

I am not asking for drastic changes just additional features. Government doesn't buy Bitcoin because why would they? The transaction list is open for them. They will buy DRK to buy Masternodes so they can see even a small % of the transactions.

It would be extremely irresponsible and ironic for any government to buy a digital currency with tax dollars. Gov has allocated resources, most are in debt and darkcoin remains dispersed to the people. This coin is more then secure. I spoke to that. "Besides, The gov auctioned their BTC. Users bought billions more in Bitcoin. Users obviously do buy more. That fear of gov is over for the most part."
 
It would be extremely irresponsible and ironic for any government to buy a digital currency with tax dollars. Gov has allocated resources, most are in debt and darkcoin remains dispersed to the people. This coin is more then secure. I spoke to that. "Besides, The gov auctioned their BTC. Users bought billions more in Bitcoin. Users obviously do buy more. That fear of gov is over for the most part."

They already spend millions of tax dollars for Tor relays to deanonymize TOR users.

Google "Edward Snowden" read about NSA. They have more money than any darkcoin user in the world has. They will spend it for surveillance. I offered a solution to this. You can ignore this, but if you do, please change "Anonymous" to "A percentage of chance anonymous".

The best way is allowing users to choose which Masternodes to use for DS+, even better if masternodes were free. There is absolutely no reason for them to be paid, not a single valid reason other than to make money for the developers(?) not sure where the 1k DRK goes.

Secure is not Anonymous btw. Those are two completely different terms.

TOR is secure but not anonymous. It becomes anonymous when you use your own Exit node.
 
They already spend millions of tax dollars for Tor relays to deanonymize TOR users.

Google "Edward Snowden" read about NSA. They have more money than any darkcoin user in the world has. They will spend it for surveillance. I offered a solution to this. You can ignore this, but if you do, please change "Anonymous" to "A percentage of chance anonymous".

The best way is allowing users to choose which Masternodes to use for DS+, even better if masternodes were free. There is absolutely no reason for them to be paid, not a single valid reason other than to make money for the developers(?) not sure where the 1k DRK goes.

Dude that's the kinda talk im talking about. "please change "Anonymous" to 'A percentage of chance anonymous'." go back to your own coin. lol your solution sucked, dark is safe.
 
Dude that's the kinda talk im talking about. "please change "Anonymous" to 'A percentage of chance anonymous'." go back to your own coin. lol your solution sucked, dark is safe.

You don't even read, do you? I have been with Darkcoin for 3 months. I bought my 100 coins and never let them go even after the $12 drop. I am trying to help Darkcoin. I am not some monero or other wankcoin user. I always say BTC and DRK are the only useful cryptocoins.

If you have absolutely no knowledge in Programming then you should leave this thread and stop talking shit.


USE BRAIN. IF YOU USE 8 ROUNDS. IF GOVERNMENT CONTROLS THOSE 8 NODES. THEY SEE SOURCE AND DESTINATION OF PAYMENT. IF YOU USE YOUR OWN MASTERNODES, THEY WILL NEVER KNOW SOURCE AND DESTINATION. READ THIS!!!!!!!!

Edit: How my solution sucked? Having a choice for the user to use his own selected masternodes is bad why? If you don't know any masternodes you could use the Random choice as it is now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok now we are talking. I dont know why you are bashing the masternode premise. That is central to the coin. I don't see any way around it. Its perfect.
Free nodes is like Tor, so we see the problem? wallets are not masternodes. and masternodes have to be trusted, wallets do not. Free masternodes are far more compromised then the tiny fraction of what is paid for. Free nodes have been tried and failed. No Gov prints drk! Need scarcity and its own cryptocurrency. Masternoders get paid drk and there is this whole incentive behind buying and holding 1000s of drk. That way, no one can never have enough darkcoins. Keeping 1000 darkcoin off the market is a great thing for the coin. It has worked wonders for repelling day trading as the only means of profit.

Are you sure you understand darksend exactly? I do know you can anonymize your wallet as many times as you like, 8 rounds at a time. Then, sending anonymized is a 1kb.
 
Ok now we are talking. I dont know why you are bashing the masternode premise. That is central to the coin. I don't see any way around it. Its perfect.
Free nodes is like Tor, so we see the problem? wallets are not masternodes. and masternodes have to be trusted, wallets do not. Free masternodes are far more compromised then the tiny fraction of what is paid for. Free nodes have been tried and failed. No Gov prints drk! Need scarcity and its own cryptocurrency. Masternoders get paid drk and there is this whole incentive behind buying and holding 1000s of drk. That way, no one can never have enough darkcoins. Keeping 1000 darkcoin off the market is a great thing for the coin. It has worked wonders for repelling day trading as the only means of profit.

Are you sure you understand darksend exactly? I do know you can anonymize your wallet as many times as you like, 8 rounds at a time. Then, sending anonymized is a 1kb.


You don't understand sir. The current setup for Darksend is perfect, it works fine, you can't actually tell where the payment comess from and to who.

BUT, when masternodes are logged then its possible for the masternode operators to tell where the payment is coming from and to whom. From what I know 8 rounds means the use of 8 masternodes. Everyone has bad luck and if we have bad luck and all 8 masternodes are run by the government then they can tell from where the payment come from and to who. Only the masternode operators no one else.

My solution fights this, because when at one point you use your own masternode then there is 0% chance that government will have log access to all masternodes involved in that transaction causing the Anonymity to be exactly at 100.00%.

Do you understand now?
 
Ok I see. Maybe this can be done without major changes. If the voting system remains. The 1000drk is still necessary. Only with extra option for which masternode to exit through, and you have a masternode yourself or know which masternode you'd like to choose. But the payment gets still gets sent to a random masternode via voting system. Can we add that?
 
Ok I see. Maybe this can be done without major changes. If the voting system remains. The 1000drk is still necessary. Only with extra option for which masternode to exit through, and you have a masternode yourself or know which masternode you'd like to choose. But the payment gets still gets sent to a random masternode via voting system. Can we add that?

Here is how I would use DarkSend+ under the following circumstances:
- When anonymizing your coins, you have ability to select which masternodes to use(or select one + random)
- Masternodes are built inside wallet and free of charge.

I would setup another wallet on Virtual Machine. Before anonymizing I would select my masternode on the virtual machine and 7+ others random. I would do the anonymiization knowing that my funds in result will be 100.00% anonymous. This is a dream to me which I hope will become a reality.

eduffield could you please join me in this thread?
 
You can already choose which Masternode you want to use.

And you still haven't understood that 1000DRK to run a Masternode is a greater barrier to attackers than 0DRK to run ten thousand wallets.
 
Choosing one address you'd like to exit through, sounds good. If you don't have your own MN to trust, go buy more darkcoins! :}

"- Masternodes are built inside wallet and free of charge." Why do we need this? I dont agree.

Free nodes again? Masternodes cost real world money. That is a different coin entirely. Would you pay amazon for hosting all your free Hypothetical-Coin wallets? I wouldnt.
 
Here is how I would use DarkSend+ under the following circumstances:
- When anonymizing your coins, you have ability to select which masternodes to use(or select one + random)
- Masternodes are built inside wallet and free of charge.

I would setup another wallet on Virtual Machine. Before anonymizing I would select my masternode on the virtual machine and 7+ others random. I would do the anonymiization knowing that my funds in result will be 100.00% anonymous. This is a dream to me which I hope will become a reality.

eduffield could you please join me in this thread?

This same topic has been discussed on another thread here:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/trusted-masternodes.2231/#post-18823

Read what elbereth said, you can force using a MN with a commandline.....
 
This same topic has been discussed on another thread here:
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/trusted-masternodes.2231/#post-18823

Read what elbereth said, you can force using a MN with a commandline.....

It should be added to the GUI then. If you can choose which Masternode to use then this thread is pretty much useless. Sorry, I did not know.

And you still haven't understood that 1000DRK to run a Masternode is a greater barrier to attackers than 0DRK to run ten thousand wallets.
Not really. Anyone then can setup their own MD and use it for anonymizing. Them being free has more positive than negative.
 
Well, making masternodes free is a very serious attack vector, you could easy pop up 1 million masternodes if you want to bring down darkcoin whatever your reasons are. The 1000 DRK are the solution to mitigate this vulnerability. Of course, a bored govt could still buy shitloads of DRK, but they would never be able to attack the network in such a big scale.

In some points I agree, I like the idea to have each node on the network (every running wallet) being a masternode which creates the mixed transactions on random voted base, but this still would require a minimum threshold of coins (let's say 1000) in your wallet to avoid the attack explained above and now we are where we started - masternodes. The snake bites it's tail.

The current masternode system is the most decentralized and best working approach currently available out there.
 
Well, making masternodes free is a very serious attack vector, you could easy pop up 1 million masternodes if you want to bring down darkcoin whatever your reasons are. The 1000 DRK are the solution to mitigate this vulnerability. Of course, a bored govt could still buy shitloads of DRK, but they would never be able to attack the network in such a big scale.

In some points I agree, I like the idea to have each node on the network (every running wallet) being a masternode which creates the mixed transactions on random voted base, but this still would require a minimum threshold of coins (let's say 1000) in your wallet to avoid the attack explained above and now we are where we started - masternodes. The snake bites it's tail.

The current masternode system is the most decentralized and best working approach currently available out there.

Ok. I will explain when the free masternode approach would be an attack vector and when it would not.

Lets imagine that it currently is free, the government are running three million wallets(3 million masternodes). Darksend has two options: 1) Use random masternodes. 2) Use random + one your selected.

You choose the first option, you have 99% chance of your darksend going through the government nodes and it happens you are not anonymous.

You choose the second option, you are using YOUR OWN masternode + other random. Darksend goes through some of government masternodes, through yours and then through government masternodes again. You are 100% anonymous, because they don't have control to all masternodes(you used your own at one time).

In any situation(free or 1000 DRK) the Random choosing of Masternodes is an attack vector. It doesn't matter if masternodes cost 3 million dollars, random choosing of masternodes without using your own at one point will always give you a risk of not being anonymous.

I hope you understand now. If you do understand then you also see that the cost of masternode is pretty pointless from the perspective of it being an attack vector.

The attack vector is not masternodes, the attack vector is how Darksend chooses masternodes. Use your own at one point and you are 100% anonymous in both cases if Masternode costs 99999999999999999999999999$ or its free. The only difference in (free vs paid) is that when its paid there is a smaller chance for you to have a masternode(since most cant aford it) so the paid option is a bad one since it kinda decreases anonymity.

I hope that everyone who decides to reply to my post will actually read it slowly and think about it.
 
Ok. I will explain when the free masternode approach would be an attack vector and when it would not.

Lets imagine that it currently is free, the government are running three million wallets(3 million masternodes). Darksend has two options: 1) Use random masternodes. 2) Use random + one your selected.

You choose the first option, you have 99% chance of your darksend going through the government nodes and it happens you are not anonymous.

You choose the second option, you are using YOUR OWN masternode + other random. Darksend goes through some of government masternodes, through yours and then through government masternodes again. You are 100% anonymous, because they don't have control to all masternodes(you used your own at one time).

In any situation(free or 1000 DRK) the Random choosing of Masternodes is an attack vector. It doesn't matter if masternodes cost 3 million dollars, random choosing of masternodes without using your own at one point will always give you a risk of not being anonymous.

I hope you understand now. If you do understand then you also see that the cost of masternode is pretty pointless from the perspective of it being an attack vector.

The attack vector is not masternodes, the attack vector is how Darksend chooses masternodes. Use your own at one point and you are 100% anonymous in both cases if Masternode costs 99999999999999999999999999$ or its free. The only difference in (free vs paid) is that when its paid there is a smaller chance for you to have a masternode(since most cant aford it) so the paid option is a bad one since it kinda decreases anonymity.

I hope that everyone who decides to reply to my post will actually read it slowly and think about it.

I hope you read my reply slowly and actually think about it, as opposed to your replies in the thread on 2 factor auth.

Your proposal is fundamentally flawed.

If everyone used their own masternode as opposed to being assigned by the network, then no coins would ever mix and you never would complete a single round of darksend.

Also if we ignore that flaw, if the nsa owned every masternode except for yours, it's pretty clear that when you send money through your node and not theirs who the sender actually was.

Finally, you haven't even begun to consider the effects any of this would have in terms of actual technical implementation and what actually can function within the darkcoin protocol, how the protocol could potentially be changed, and what the hard limits of computer networking actually dictate is possible. Because your ideas have fundamental inconsistencies with all three of these areas.

tl:dr: Stop stating things as fact that you don't actually understand. These are very complicated topics that I am more than happy to help explain to you, but you have not been willing to listen. You are making bold and arrogant claims that are patently false. And then you simply ignore everyone when they present you with information contrary to your beliefs. Nothing I have presented you with has been philosophical in nature - they all have been verifiable facts on how technology functions. They are not up for debate: you can verify all of the information yourself by researching them.
 
I hope you read my reply slowly and actually think about it, as opposed to your replies in the thread on 2 factor auth.

Your proposal is fundamentally flawed.

If everyone used their own masternode as opposed to being assigned by the network, then no coins would ever mix and you never would complete a single round of darksend.

Also if we ignore that flaw, if the nsa owned every masternode except for yours, it's pretty clear that when you send money through your node and not theirs who the sender actually was.

Finally, you haven't even begun to consider the effects any of this would have in terms of actual technical implementation and what actually can function within the darkcoin protocol, how the protocol could potentially be changed, and what the hard limits of computer networking actually dictate is possible. Because your ideas have fundamental inconsistencies with all three of these areas.

tl:dr: Stop stating things as fact that you don't actually understand. These are very complicated topics that I am more than happy to help explain to you, but you have not been willing to listen. You are making bold and arrogant claims that are patently false. And then you simply ignore everyone when they present you with information contrary to your beliefs. Nothing I have presented you with has been philosophical in nature - they all have been verifiable facts on how technology functions. They are not up for debate: you can verify all of the information yourself by researching them.

Leave this thread kid.

I never said Your masternode alone.

Darksend goes through some of government masternodes, through yours and then through government masternodes again. You are 100% anonymous,
What part of this you did not understand? Some people would randomly use your masternode too but the difference is when you're doing mix you would ask explicitly for it to be part of the masternode chain used for mixing to defeat the chance of all masternodes involved in mixing to be controlled by government.

Edit: Implementing this is easily possible. Instead of building the Masternode chain randomly, you add rules, e.g: one member in the masternode chain must be your choosen.

Btw this masternode selection is already implemented according to one member but the GUI doesn't support it. So you're wrong about it not being possible and it being flawed because its already there. You just don't understand what I am talking about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Leave this thread kid.

I never said Your masternode alone.

What part of this you did not understand? Some people would randomly use your masternode too but the difference is when you're doing mix you would ask explicitly for it to be part of the masternode chain used for mixing to defeat the chance of all masternodes involved in mixing to be controlled by government.

Edit: Implementing this is easily possible. Instead of building the Masternode chain randomly, you add rules, e.g: one member in the masternode chain must be your choosen.

Btw this masternode selection is already implemented according to one member but the GUI doesn't support it. So you're wrong about it not being possible and it being flawed because its already there. You just don't understand what I am talking about.

> 'kid'
If you want to have a flame war I'm not interested, resulting to name calling is not at all conducive to productive debates.

> I never said Your masternode alone.
No you did not say it. But when your argument is that the NSA will essentially control 99% of the masternodes, it is equivalent to only sending it through your own masternode.

> So you're wrong about it not being possible
I never said that. In fact I could have told you, and should have been more clear about this, that someone absolutely could choose whichever masternode they want. Once the protocol is open sourced as RC5, you can make it do whatever you want (that is compatible with the masternodes you are interacting with at least), that's the beauty of open source software!

What you have described in this specific post, is a good idea. But I need to be clear, the rest of the thread, and your arguing for free master nodes, are terrible ideas.
If you specify one masternode which you know is "safe", yes, it does make the protocol more secure. If you take the time to go read the discussion from many months ago when darksend was first being discussed you can see this was brought up. Making it a default option, however, only makes it confusing to users who don't have a masternode themselves and don't know anyone who does.

But what you described throughout the rest of this thread was very different from the very specific idea I just described.

They already spend millions of tax dollars for Tor relays to deanonymize TOR users.

Google "Edward Snowden" read about NSA. They have more money than any darkcoin user in the world has. They will spend it for surveillance. I offered a solution to this. You can ignore this, but if you do, please change "Anonymous" to "A percentage of chance anonymous".

The best way is allowing users to choose which Masternodes to use for DS+, even better if masternodes were free. There is absolutely no reason for them to be paid, not a single valid reason other than to make money for the developers(?) not sure where the 1k DRK goes.

Secure is not Anonymous btw. Those are two completely different terms.

TOR is secure but not anonymous. It becomes anonymous when you use your own Exit node.

You don't even read, do you? I have been with Darkcoin for 3 months

You've been following darkcoin for 3 months and don't know where the 1k DRK goes? You are trying to argue for changing the protocol when you admit you don't understand fundamental aspects of it!

The developers don't make money from darksend, the 1k they cost never leaves your control, it is sent to an address you own to act as collateral, if you move it from that address, your masternode goes offline.

Finally, free vs paid masternodes. Remember when I said you didn't understand the technical implementations behind this? That was the part I was referring to. On a technical level, an implementation where every wallet was a masternode, as opposed to the current system, would not function. The idea to have masternodes cost money was done for many reasons.

As far as the networking issues I referred to, for the protocol to function each wallet client needs to maintain and keep updated a list of all the masternodes. To do this requires network traffic. At 1000 masternodes there is a reasonable amount of network traffic and memory usage.

But if there were 20,000,000 clients? It roughly may take 50 bytes to store the required information for each node, that is 1 gigabyte of RAM required just to keep track of the nodes. It also would require a consistent 1 megabyte per second internet connection to handle node discovery and updating. That is 86 gigabytes of data per day, which results in many users going through their entire monthly bandwidth cap in under a week. A mobile wallet would do it in under an hour.

There also is another issue with this. It is ddosable. Very easily and very cheaply ddosable. A large botnet could bring the network down and keep it down indefinitely and it wouldn't cost them a penny. Due to the prior issues I mentioned, memory requirements and network usage, by artificially inflating the size of the client list you could make it impossible for anything but very modern computers to run the daemon. Additionally, and here is the cruz of the problem, 10,000 nodes restarting a few times a minute could flood the network indefinitely, keeping the network nonfunctional for as long as the attacker wanted.

So please explain to me how there was not a single valid reason for masternodes to cost money again?

But since you want to hear from evan, here is a post by evan from very early in masternode development: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/darkcoin-update-masternode-requirements-masternode-payments.225/

He explains both the feedback loop -> how even if the NSA wanted to, they simply could not buy 99% of the masternodes and the network issue and that too many masternodes is impractical on the network level.
 
> 'kid'
If you want to have a flame war I'm not interested, resulting to name calling is not at all conducive to productive debates.

> I never said Your masternode alone.
No you did not say it. But when your argument is that the NSA will essentially control 99% of the masternodes, it is equivalent to only sending it through your own masternode.

> So you're wrong about it not being possible
I never said that. In fact I could have told you, and should have been more clear about this, that someone absolutely could choose whichever masternode they want. Once the protocol is open sourced as RC5, you can make it do whatever you want (that is compatible with the masternodes you are interacting with at least), that's the beauty of open source software!

What you have described in this specific post, is a good idea. But I need to be clear, the rest of the thread, and your arguing for free master nodes, are terrible ideas.
If you specify one masternode which you know is "safe", yes, it does make the protocol more secure. If you take the time to go read the discussion from many months ago when darksend was first being discussed you can see this was brought up. Making it a default option, however, only makes it confusing to users who don't have a masternode themselves and don't know anyone who does.

But what you described throughout the rest of this thread was very different from the very specific idea I just described.





You've been following darkcoin for 3 months and don't know where the 1k DRK goes? You are trying to argue for changing the protocol when you admit you don't understand fundamental aspects of it!

The developers don't make money from darksend, the 1k they cost never leaves your control, it is sent to an address you own to act as collateral, if you move it from that address, your masternode goes offline.

Finally, free vs paid masternodes. Remember when I said you didn't understand the technical implementations behind this? That was the part I was referring to. On a technical level, an implementation where every wallet was a masternode, as opposed to the current system, would not function. The idea to have masternodes cost money was done for many reasons.

As far as the networking issues I referred to, for the protocol to function each wallet client needs to maintain and keep updated a list of all the masternodes. To do this requires network traffic. At 1000 masternodes there is a reasonable amount of network traffic and memory usage.

But if there were 20,000,000 clients? It roughly may take 50 bytes to store the required information for each node, that is 1 gigabyte of RAM required just to keep track of the nodes. It also would require a consistent 1 megabyte per second internet connection to handle node discovery and updating. That is 86 gigabytes of data per day, which results in many users going through their entire monthly bandwidth cap in under a week. A mobile wallet would do it in under an hour.

There also is another issue with this. It is ddosable. Very easily and very cheaply ddosable. A large botnet could bring the network down and keep it down indefinitely and it wouldn't cost them a penny. Due to the prior issues I mentioned, memory requirements and network usage, by artificially inflating the size of the client list you could make it impossible for anything but very modern computers to run the daemon. Additionally, and here is the cruz of the problem, 10,000 nodes restarting a few times a minute could flood the network indefinitely, keeping the network nonfunctional for as long as the attacker wanted.

So please explain to me how there was not a single valid reason for masternodes to cost money again?

But since you want to hear from evan, here is a post by evan from very early in masternode development: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/darkcoin-update-masternode-requirements-masternode-payments.225/

He explains both the feedback loop -> how even if the NSA wanted to, they simply could not buy 99% of the masternodes and the network issue and that too many masternodes is impractical on the network level.

Thanks. I honestly did not know why masternodes cost money, I thought the only reason was so NSA could not open 9000000 masternodes with zero cost as explained by members previously in this thread.
 
How difficult would it be to implement slavenodes (i.e. every qt wallet could be a slavenode at no cost). Denomination would still continue to function on the masternode level with the 1000 drk/mn requirement but those that want even more anonimization could use slavenodes that would further fragment sends. I don't want to break something that clearly works, but taking it to an extreme level for privacy, this might be an idea to consider for those that are extremely paranoid.
 
Back
Top