Search results

I'm really, really curious as to what Evan's approach to the scalability issue is. Want to know dammit. :mad:

IX. IX. IX. IX. :tongue: edit: iX and we'll all go aggravate the Apple legal team. :grin: Shitloads of publicity guaranteed.

Jesus mate you're as old as me. :tongue: Still think "Dash" is a naff name though. "IX" - simple, fast, not a bloody washing powder, actually means something, only 2 letters! :cool:

As I've said before I don't think a name change is going to make any quantifiable difference to adoption, but "Dash" is just... a bit crap. 100% behind dropping the "coin" bit though.

They will all see the light when the Darktrain thunders right on by. :grin:

No mixing for me either on 11.2.1, been running since shortly after Evan posted it.

Could the wallet scan for a file named masternodes.dat in the CWD and behave accordingly, instead of relying on the user? edit: beaten by illodin!

Text in the QT console could stand to be a size or two bigger or a darker shade of grey. It's a bit of a squint to read the output.

The 'any available funds (not recommended)' thing is just letting you know that your privacy is potentially compromised by sending non anonymised funds. Don't worry about it unless you need to maintain your privacy, in which case anonymise your funds first by clicking the Start Mixing button...

I didn't think there were CLI IX options yet? Exchanges aren't likely to be running the QT client.

I asked the question some time back whether anything in the logfile could be of use to a malicious party and never got an answer. I assumed that was due to one or more of the following: 1. It was a stupid question 2. Nobody knew 3. Nobody wanted to admit that there might be 4. Anyone who knew...

Absolutely agree, whatever is decided upon needs to be integrated, without any external dependencies. Masternode ops all have to use TOR? Not going to happen. Pools and miners all have to use TOR? Not going to happen. Users all have to use TOR? Not going to happen. Merchants and exchanges all...

Agora and Evolution are on the dark web. Mining pools and miners are not. This is what we were talking about. Try to keep up.

So your cunning plan is to move pools and miners too to a network funded by the US govt.?

Two points: 1. I doubt pool owners are as 'rich as fuck' and spending $1000/month on DDOS protection. 2. The killer governments you talk about wouldn't piss about DDOSing them anyway, they'd locate them and physically shut them down. At a cost of peanuts. A phonecall to the service provider...

LOL, all this worry about DDOSing 2000+ Masternodes when 90% of the hash gets funnelled through 3 pool servers? An attacker is not going to waste time disrupting DS and IX services when they can render the entire currency unusable and rewrite the blockchain at will with 3 orders of magnitude...

This post perfectly sums up why Darkcoin should avoid any association whatsoever with TOR and its pot-addled denizens like the plague.

Further adoption killed stone dead right there. Centralised point of failure much? Huge PR gain? "Darkcoin now operating under US Gov funded spook network!" - I don't think so. Don't need TOR for this.

You have just fully outed yourself. Obviously, distrust of a guv spookproject makes me a criminal! Probably a turrist too! :eek: And this is the silliest math I have seen in a long time.

You sound like you're on the payroll. :rolleyes: I don't think Darkcoin should be using any 3rd party infrastructure at all beyond 'the internet,' on general principles. Anything TOR can do that's of any advantage can be done internally/independently.