A better hot/cold setup?

[oaxaca]

A modest proposal.

What about adding a parameter in the masternode darkcoin.conf to specify the 1000 coin address?

lockedcoinaddr=Xc8u...hT

When the masternode daemon starts, it can verify the 1000DRK and auto-start the masternode without the "cold wallet" telling it to.

 

[flare]

A modest proposal.

What about adding a parameter in the masternode darkcoin.conf to specify the 1000 coin address?

lockedcoinaddr=Xc8u...hT

When the masternode daemon starts, it can verify the 1000DRK and auto-start the masternode without the "cold wallet" telling it to.

And how do you proof that you own that 1000DRK and not using somebodies elses address?

 

[oaxaca]

And how do you proof that you own that 1000DRK and not using somebodies elses address?

No proof needed. If I used somebody else's address, they would get the payments. I wouldn't make any profit and would in fact lose money due to the costs of running the server.

 

[thelonecrouton]

The masternodeprivkey already 'includes' the address with the 1000DRK vin I thought? I assumed that was w

No proof needed. If I used somebody else's address, they would get the payments. I wouldn't make any profit and would in fact lose money due to the costs of running the server.

Heh, if you wanted to you could turn every wallet with a 1000DRK vin into a Masternode, whether they liked it or not.

 

[oaxaca]

Heh, if you wanted to you could turn every wallet with a 1000DRK vin into a Masternode, whether they liked it or not.

That would be bad for me as a "rival" masternode owner as it would delay my payments incrementally.

 

[UdjinM6]

masternodeprivkey is used for signing messages that are sent from MN: when you start MN it verifies you signed message from local wallet that has 1000 DRK in one single input and that this start message is signed with the same masternodeprivkey contains pubkey (for 1000DRK) and pubkey2 (for MN) and signed with the privatekey of 1000 DRK input. When MN is activated and acts - it sign every message to other MNs with its masternodeprivkey and users so they are able to verify this MN's identity. Otherwise you can setup malicious MN, do some crazy stuff and legal MN will be blocked/dropped off the list.

EDIT: fixed, see above removed added

 

[oaxaca]

...Otherwise you can setup malicious MN, do some crazy stuff and legal MN will be blocked/dropped off the list.

Setting up a malicious MN under this new scenario would be no more dangerous than setting it up a malicious one under the current scheme. The possible "crazy behavior" is the same. They real question is what is the largest number of potential bad guys? Does anybody have an estimate of (total number of addresses that have >= 1000DRK) - (current number of masternodes)? My hunch is the number is pretty small.

 

[flare]

Setting up a malicious MN under this new scenario would be no more dangerous than setting it up a malicious one under the current scheme. The possible "crazy behavior" is the same. They real question is what is the largest number of potential bad guys? Does anybody have an estimate of (total number of addresses that have >= 1000DRK) - (current number of masternodes)? My hunch is the number is pretty small.

Your scenario is opening the possibility for sybil attacks: a malicious party can run myriads of masternodes, reusing the same 1000 DRK as there is no 1:1 binding anymore.

 

[oaxaca]

Good thing this idea died in here then.

 

[UdjinM6]

Good thing this idea died in here then.

The more people thinking of ways to make something better/faster/stronger in DRK the better :wink:

btw, I was not accurate in my previous answer so I fixed it, it should make more sense now I hope.