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

v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
eduffield flare I made a mistake once and created a transaction with DS+ inputs AND non-DS+ inputs. This somehow mixed my denomination addresses with my main account addresses and makes de-anonymization pretty easy. I just created a thread to ask people to find out "Who am I?" and tested myself and came accross that mixed transaction which obviously disposes my identity.

Any thoughts on that?
 
vertoe said:
Could anyone explain why we are paying these darksend colleteral fees? I have hundreds of such transactions:
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/tx/328b8025747c1ed077191ec0b6c182c07c269b3970fd07a8d09a1fa129d3b6a5
Click to expand...

vertoe
I believe it is related to the following point:
eduffield said:
We’re in the process of removing all of the bugs in the software. This was a complete rewrite of the system, which has put us slightly behind schedule for release (a complete rewrite was not what we originally intended to do). As it stands currently, we have a few issues left to address before we can release RC4 on mainnet:
  • ...
  • Track down an unknown bug causing Darksend collateral to be taken from users during the auto-denomination process. Darksend uses collateral to prevent malicious users from joining a Darksend transaction and then failing to sign. In this case, the client is refusing to sign because it believes there is missing data in the transaction when there is not (or the Masternode is not compiling the transaction correctly and the user is correct not to sign).
  • ...
Click to expand...
 
upload_2014-7-31_14-49-53.png


Any Idea what going on. Wallet stops on Block 6731
 
yidakee said:
I agree. Something that is done automatically without user input AND that collects a fee, will not sit well with the community.
Click to expand...

I agree as well... at the very least the fess must be much lower. Someone said a few pages back that for 3000 DRK in 10 hours he paid 0.3 DRK in fees. Assuming that there are no rouge collateral charges in that amount (as that is bug currently being fixed) then that is far too expensive for an automatic process that the entire network is subject to as the default.
 
GNULinuxGuy said:
Ubuntu v12.04.4 64 bit. I thought MangledBlue was referring to my post too. Best to use reply button. :smile:
Click to expand...
:D

Re. your crash: Never had problems with Ubuntu 64 - maybe your wallet/blockchain directory is corrupt. Did you already try to delete and restart from scratch? It's hard to track down unreproduceable errors...
 
JGCMiner said:
I agree as well... at the very least the fess must be much lower. Someone said a few pages back that for 3000 DRK in 10 hours he paid 0.3 DRK in fees. Assuming that there are no rouge collateral charges in that amount (as that is bug currently being fixed) then that is far too expensive for an automatic process that the entire network is subject to as the default.
Click to expand...
I agree... and then don't we collect fees yet again when the user actually sends their denominated coins? I would like to see fees only at the point when the user transacts and has the ability to approve the fees. There's really four options:
1) Auto denominate with fees and without approval - could really piss off users to see a declining balance when they aren't even doing anything
2) Auto denominate with fees, but requiring approval - would avoid pissing people off, but then when they go to send a transaction, the wallet may not be prepared with denominated coins (leading to delays or forcing the user to forgo anonymity)
3) Auto denominate without fees, but requiring approval - some users may not want to break up their deposited coins because it will lead to large transaction sizes (and higher fees) later when they go to send. But you end up with the same issues as option #2.
4) Auto denominate without fees and without approval (at least up to the set limit the user specifies) - Collect fees based on size of transactions (which using darksend inputs would be higher than a regular transaction). This feels the most fair. If you use darksend inputs a lot, you pay more. If you choose to just use DRK non-anonymously (which there are use cases for), you could potentially save transaction fees.
 
babygiraffe said:
I agree... and then don't we collect fees yet again when the user actually sends their denominated coins? I would like to see fees only at the point when the user transacts and has the ability to approve the fees. There's really four options:
1) Auto denominate with fees and without approval - could really piss off users to see a declining balance when they aren't even doing anything
2) Auto denominate with fees, but requiring approval - would avoid pissing people off, but then when they go to send a transaction, the wallet may not be prepared with denominated coins (leading to delays or forcing the user to forgo anonymity)
3) Auto denominate without fees, but requiring approval - some users may not want to break up their deposited coins because it will lead to large transaction sizes (and higher fees) later when they go to send. But you end up with the same issues as option #2.
4) Auto denominate without fees and without approval (at least up to the set limit the user specifies) - Collect fees based on size of transactions (which using darksend inputs would be higher than a regular transaction). This feels the most fair. If you use darksend inputs a lot, you pay more. If you choose to just use DRK non-anonymously (which there are use cases for), you could potentially save transaction fees.
Click to expand...
I would say #3 should be the default option
 
UdjinM6 said:
I would say #3 should be the default option
Click to expand...
After thinking about it more, I think option 3 and option 4 are simply different versions of the same option. Option 4 is nothing more than the approval in option 3 once the user has submitted his/her approval for an amount to ensure is auto-denominated and ready to spend.

EDIT: Unless of course option 3 requires the user to approve EACH time they denominate some transactions. I would think that setting a threshold once for the amount of DRK you want ready automatically would be fine. The wallet would only make more if you spent some of it.
 
Who am I? Anyone?
All you need to do is guessing an address.
There are 3 addresses on 1st level.
There are 20 addresses on 2nd level.
There are ~200 addresses on 3rd level (estimated).
Just pick one and find me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
eduffield said:
Auto-denom should cost 0.001 in fees, I'll look into that. It definitely has a cost though (although, it will be really low). A fee of 0.025 means you got hit by the collateral bug (which I'm also looking into).
Click to expand...
I don't understand why autodenom needs to cost money. A (normal) user has no control or no idea how to control this cost. Also, by keeping your wallet open for denominating, you help the system. I think there should only be collateral charges for bad actors only, and only if that is really needed to secure the network. If we need charges to support miners, etc... then there should only be a charge for sending a payment.

It just feels like a drain on funds that the user has no control over. is it necessary?
 
JGCMiner said:
I agree as well... at the very least the fess must be much lower. Someone said a few pages back that for 3000 DRK in 10 hours he paid 0.3 DRK in fees. Assuming that there are no rouge collateral charges in that amount (as that is bug currently being fixed) then that is far too expensive for an automatic process that the entire network is subject to as the default.
Click to expand...
I´ll second that. Mixing my approx. 5000 tDRK wallet has eaten quite a bit of fees (ignoring the portion caused by the collateral bug).
It´s peanuts but it does not feel quite right - especially because it´s happening automated and without user intervention or upfront notice.

fee.JPG
 
I believe I've located a flaw in the anonymization process that allows one to re-acquire the new address location after denomination and mixing.
At block 6454, I sent 4471.923 tDRK from my masternode (n3477ZfbKrovCAZ8WgBHHk1f9YwzWgjJ3o) to a fresh wallet (moiqjRS3APogkKBFvTHbKiaSu6kdYXK5WX).
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/bl...8c80d5b6fb58704912962a54746bb4a53c423f2606b24

On the next block, re-denomination starts. Coins move from moiqjRS3APogkKBFvTHbKiaSu6kdYXK5WX to msmvpSq9VDXDAzGP2FPKHzj42eeKZpAtT1.
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/bl...d427d44ed2de86712db955fa28ae3b0298e34141e7e3c

Coin mixing begins in earnest at blocks 6491, 6493, 6494, and 6495.
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/address/msmvpSq9VDXDAzGP2FPKHzj42eeKZpAtT1

At block 6499, the final balance of mixed coins land at address mmkNvXWAJTaoYzkW3iFSJSchkE6XxAN6MH, with a balance of 4471.514 tDRK.
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/address/mmkNvXWAJTaoYzkW3iFSJSchkE6XxAN6MH

Now a simple search through the blockchain for a balance of 4471 at blocks shortly after block 6454 would easily turn up the coins that landed at address mmkNvXWAJTaoYzkW3iFSJSchkE6XxAN6MH.

The problem, as I see it, is that the automatic denomination should never occur to the whole balance of a single address because it's easy to spot the full balance again at the anonymized address. Of the 4471 I originally sent at block 6454, only a small subset of coins (say ~1000 tDRK) should have been placed into auto denomination along with other amounts of similar size from other wallets to make mixing more uniform. Either that or use a number of return addresses to break up the 4471 balance into smaller stashes. Am I missing something or perhaps this is already a known issue?

Edit: I realize I have insider knowledge to trace the location of these coins, but I think anyone can 'play sudoku' in the blockchain explorer and find the new address by finding the matching balances (minus fees). A more sophisticated blockchain parser could find the match easily.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anybody knows how to fix "Unable to locate enough Darksend denominated funds for this transaction" problem?
 
HinnomTX said:
I believe I've located a flaw in the anonymization process that allows one to re-acquire the new address location after denomination and mixing.
At block 6454, I sent 4471.923 tDRK from my masternode (n3477ZfbKrovCAZ8WgBHHk1f9YwzWgjJ3o) to a fresh wallet (moiqjRS3APogkKBFvTHbKiaSu6kdYXK5WX).
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/bl...8c80d5b6fb58704912962a54746bb4a53c423f2606b24

On the next block, re-denomination starts. Coins move from moiqjRS3APogkKBFvTHbKiaSu6kdYXK5WX to msmvpSq9VDXDAzGP2FPKHzj42eeKZpAtT1.
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/bl...d427d44ed2de86712db955fa28ae3b0298e34141e7e3c

Coin mixing begins in earnest at blocks 6491, 6493, 6494, and 6495.
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/address/msmvpSq9VDXDAzGP2FPKHzj42eeKZpAtT1

At block 6499, the final balance of mixed coins land at address mmkNvXWAJTaoYzkW3iFSJSchkE6XxAN6MH, with a balance of 4471.514 tDRK.
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.qa/address/mmkNvXWAJTaoYzkW3iFSJSchkE6XxAN6MH

Now a simple search through the blockchain for a balance of 4471 at blocks shortly after block 6454 would easily turn up the coins that landed at address mmkNvXWAJTaoYzkW3iFSJSchkE6XxAN6MH.

The problem, as I see it, is that the automatic denomination should never occur to the whole balance of a single address because it's easy to spot the full balance again at the anonymized address. Of the 4471 I originally sent at block 6454, only a small subset of coins (say ~1000 tDRK) should have been placed into auto denomination along with other amounts of similar size from other wallets to make mixing more uniform. Either that or use a number of return addresses to break up the 4471 balance into smaller stashes. Am I missing something or perhaps this is already a known issue?

Edit: I realize I have insider knowledge to trace the location of these coins, but I think anyone can 'play sudoku' in the blockchain explorer and find the new address by finding the matching balances (minus fees). A more sophisticated blockchain parser could find the match easily.
Click to expand...

So after spending all that time denominating all the funds, it's consolidated into one account again? Is that what happened? Or am I confused? Sorry if I'm not understanding :p

I never realized there was a "Balance" header in the blockchain explorer. I take it this is the wallet's total balance? How can this happen? I thought the wallets were the only ones that can see the total balance?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TanteStefana said:
So after spending all that time denominating all the funds, it's consolidated into one account again? Is that what happened? Or am I confused? Sorry if I'm not understanding :p

I never realized there was a "Balance" header in the blockchain explorer. I take it this is the wallet's total balance? How can this happen? I thought the wallets were the only ones that can see the total balance?
Click to expand...
That's my read of this scenario. If it's a legit problem, I think there are solutions that are straightforward to implement. I have to remind myself that this is testnet, and NOW is the time and place to break stuff. :)

The balance for a given address is available at each block, as you can see. Of course, a wallet can contain a number of addresses, and there is no definitive way for a block explorer to determine the total wallet balance.
 
clayop said:
Anybody knows how to fix "Unable to locate enough Darksend denominated funds for this transaction" problem?
Click to expand...
Have you enabled coin control to see the breakdown of what's available in your wallet? You may need to wait for more activity on the blockchain to mix in with others.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top