v0.10.13.x RC5 Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diirk

New Member
May 27, 2014
21
31
13
Evan Duffield,
I want to point out some flaws in the user flows of Darkcoin RC5 client. Please note that I work with user interfaces on a daily basis.

Current:
1) User can enable or disable anonimization, disabled by default.
2) If enabled, every time you start the client, it starts anomimizing any non-anonimized funds automatically.

Issues with Current:
1) It takes some effort to figure out how to enable anonimzation (Darksend). It's quite hidden.
2) When enabled, the client simply starts anonimizing all your funds automatically, without user request. To me, as a user, this feels very intrusive. What if I started the client to quickly check my funds, not to have my funds anonimized. The task is to start the client, not to start the client and anonimize funds at the same time. This is a very poor user experience. Usually in user flow design, flows are split per task type. In Darkcoin, tasks that are totally different are merged as one. Things even become worse if my wallet has a password: I get the password prompt shortly after enabling the client. My first reaction is, why the hell does the password prompt show, I didn't do anything? It looks like a bug. At the very least, the password prompt should explain why it is showing automatically.

Proposed:
The anonimization process absolutely needs to be user initiated, it should never happen automatically (although there could be advanced options for that). I'd like to compare the Darkcoin client to virus scanning software, since I feel that both software types share similarities in terms of task architecture.

Does virus scanning software start scanning your computer once you start the virus scanner? No, it doesn't. Why not? Because that would be intrusive. The user requests to start the program, not to perform any type of action in addition. Instead, virus scanning software simply has a big green 'Quick Scan' button in their home screen. The Darkcoin client should have the equivalent of this: A big green 'Anonimize Funds' button (do not call it "Darksend" please as this name is misleading). Clicking it would start the anonimizing process. If your wallet has a password, then you would see a prompt at this stage to enter your password. 'Anonimize Funds' button would be disabled if all your funds have already been anonimized.

Evan Duffield, can I get your opinion on this? I feel this would be a considerable improvement to RC5 as current implementation is very likely to scare off new users since the anonimization user flow is far from optimal at the moment..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Light and flare

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,797
2,614
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
Evan Duffield,
I want to point out some flaws in the user flows of Darkcoin RC5 client. Please note that I work with user interfaces on a daily basis.

Current:
1) User can enable or disable anonimization, disabled by default.
2) If enabled, every time you start the client, it starts anomimizing any non-anonimized funds automatically.

Issues with Current:
1) It takes some effort to figure out how to enable anonimzation (Darksend). It's quite hidden.
2) When enabled, the client simply starts anonimizing all your funds automatically, without user request. To me, as a user, this feels very intrusive. What if I started the client to quickly check my funds, not to have my funds anonimized. The task is to start the client, not to start the client and anonimize funds at the same time. This is a very poor user experience. Usually in user flow design, flows are split per task type. In Darkcoin, tasks that are totally different are merged as one. Things even become worse if my wallet has a password: I get the password prompt shortly after enabling the client. My first reaction is, why the hell does the password prompt show, I didn't do anything? It looks like a bug. At the very least, the password prompt should explain why it is showing automatically.

Proposed:
The anonimization process absolutely needs to be user initiated, it should never happen automatically (although there could be advanced options for that). I'd like to compare the Darkcoin client to virus scanning software, since I feel that both software types share similarities in terms of task architecture.

Does virus scanning software start scanning your computer once you start the virus scanner? No, it doesn't. Why not? Because that would be intrusive. The user requests to start the program, not to perform any type of action in addition. Instead, virus scanning software simply has a big green 'Quick Scan' button in their home screen. The Darkcoin client should have the equivalent of this: A big green 'Anonimize Funds' button (do not call it "Darksend" please as this name is misleading). Clicking it would start the anonimizing process. If your wallet has a password, then you would see a prompt at this stage to enter your password. 'Anonimize Funds' button would be disabled if all your funds have already been anonimized.

Evan Duffield, can I get your opinion on this? I feel this would be a considerable improvement to RC5 as current implementation is very likely to scare off new users since the anonimization user flow is far from optimal at the moment..
I have created a report in Jira which deals with this issue as well as adding on optional feature of a estimated transaction fee before proceeding:

http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-59

Tao
 
  • Like
Reactions: Light

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,319
183
****** PLEASE UPDATE TO v9.13.4 (Stable) OR 10.13.4 (RC) *******

It looks like development should start slowing down here soon and we can prep for a full release of RC5 on mainnet. If anyone else has anything they'd like to see in RC5, now would be the time to get it into Jira.

I'm planning on doing two or three more versions, then after that we'll do a final test to make sure Darksend works properly with three participants. Currently Darksend is setup to use 2 clients per Darksend transaction. This is not an ideal amount of participants to use for Darksend but it's been very convenient for testing purposes. Changing this setting to three participants alone adds another layer of anonymity and increased protection from a sybil attacks.

- Fixed issue with denominating small amounts of DRK in large wallet (http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-46)
- Made splitting up initial inputs much more efficient. Now when splitting up, it will use powers of two from 4096 DRK in reverse to get the best possible mix of inputs for the next phase without any bloat to the blockchain or to the users wallet.
- Fixed "transaction too large" due to the initial splitting function
- Stopeed collateral/fee creation when it should have been doing a full split instead
- Sometimes the client would denominate less than the intended amount, then do small denominations to make up the difference. This slowed down the transactions and created extra transactions that weren't needed.
- Darksend should anonymize very close to the intended amount now
- Added Amount/Rounds to overview screen so you can see current settings
- Overview darksend cache is cleared on settings change (will instantly update)
- Fixed issue with completed amount jumping around (http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-46)
- Made messages less threatening (http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-60)

PS : Please move testing funds to a new wallet. This version has massive optimizations for the way inputs are stored and split up. This will make everything much more efficient.

Stable Binaries
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/master-rc5/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/master-rc5/darkcoind

RC5 Binaries
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc5/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc5/darkcoind
 

flare

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 18, 2014
2,287
2,406
1,183
Germany
CI-builds for v0.9.13.4-g5f4e64e

Windows 32bit:
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/DWD-DRK/QTL/build-116/gitian-win-darkcoin-bin/32/darkcoin-qt.exe
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/...tian-win-darkcoin-bin/32/daemon/darkcoind.exe
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/...coin-bin/32/darkcoin-0.9.13.4-win32-setup.exe

Mac OS X:
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/browse/DOD-DRK-97/artifact/QTL/gitian-osx-darkcoin/DarkCoin-Qt.dmg

Linux 32bit:
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/BL-DRK/QTL/build-95/gitian-linux-darkcoin-bin/bin/32/darkcoin-qt
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/BL-DRK/QTL/build-95/gitian-linux-darkcoin-bin/bin/32/darkcoind

Linux 64bit:
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/BL-DRK/QTL/build-95/gitian-linux-darkcoin-bin/bin/64/darkcoin-qt
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/BL-DRK/QTL/build-95/gitian-linux-darkcoin-bin/bin/64/darkcoind

CI-builds for v0.10.13.4-g71381bc

Windows 32bit:
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/...arkcoin-rc-darkcoin-qt-bin/32/darkcoin-qt.exe
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/...coin-rc-darkcoind-bin/32/daemon/darkcoind.exe

Mac OS X:
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/browse/DOD-DRKRC-34/artifact/QTL/gitian-osx-darkcoin-rc/DarkCoin-Qt.dmg

Linux 32bit:
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/...tian-linux-darkcoin-rc-bin/bin/32/darkcoin-qt
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/...gitian-linux-darkcoin-rc-bin/bin/32/darkcoind

Linux 64bit:
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/...tian-linux-darkcoin-rc-bin/bin/64/darkcoin-qt
http://bamboo.darkcoin.qa/artifact/...gitian-linux-darkcoin-rc-bin/bin/64/darkcoind
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,556
729
183
soooo close at getting my 20.000 tDRK's anonymized to 19.500 tDRK's with 8 rounds (i actually got to 98% this time).
oh well, awaiting version 4 to start all over again :)
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,319
183
Evan Duffield,
I want to point out some flaws in the user flows of Darkcoin RC5 client. Please note that I work with user interfaces on a daily basis.

Current:
1) User can enable or disable anonimization, disabled by default.
2) If enabled, every time you start the client, it starts anomimizing any non-anonimized funds automatically.

Issues with Current:
1) It takes some effort to figure out how to enable anonimzation (Darksend). It's quite hidden.
2) When enabled, the client simply starts anonimizing all your funds automatically, without user request. To me, as a user, this feels very intrusive. What if I started the client to quickly check my funds, not to have my funds anonimized. The task is to start the client, not to start the client and anonimize funds at the same time. This is a very poor user experience. Usually in user flow design, flows are split per task type. In Darkcoin, tasks that are totally different are merged as one. Things even become worse if my wallet has a password: I get the password prompt shortly after enabling the client. My first reaction is, why the hell does the password prompt show, I didn't do anything? It looks like a bug. At the very least, the password prompt should explain why it is showing automatically.

Proposed:
The anonimization process absolutely needs to be user initiated, it should never happen automatically (although there could be advanced options for that). I'd like to compare the Darkcoin client to virus scanning software, since I feel that both software types share similarities in terms of task architecture.

Does virus scanning software start scanning your computer once you start the virus scanner? No, it doesn't. Why not? Because that would be intrusive. The user requests to start the program, not to perform any type of action in addition. Instead, virus scanning software simply has a big green 'Quick Scan' button in their home screen. The Darkcoin client should have the equivalent of this: A big green 'Anonimize Funds' button (do not call it "Darksend" please as this name is misleading). Clicking it would start the anonimizing process. If your wallet has a password, then you would see a prompt at this stage to enter your password. 'Anonimize Funds' button would be disabled if all your funds have already been anonimized.

Evan Duffield, can I get your opinion on this? I feel this would be a considerable improvement to RC5 as current implementation is very likely to scare off new users since the anonimization user flow is far from optimal at the moment..
I think you bring up some great points. Is it better to make a "Anonymize Funds" popup (seems kind of annoying) or what if I added a button to the overview screen that said "Begin Anonymization", when you clicked that button it would ask "This operation requires your password, etc" and enable Darksend.
 

qwizzie

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,556
729
183
I think you bring up some great points. Is it better to make a "Anonymize Funds" popup (seems kind of annoying) or what if I added a button to the overview screen that said "Begin Anonymization", when you clicked that button it would ask "This operation requires you password etc" and enable Darksend.
''Begin Anonymization'' or ''Start Anonymization'' button in overview would be great .. but then we likely need a "Stop Anonymization" button in the overview as well....

Edit : maybe we can put extra buttons for this in there somewhere between the Overview, Send, Receive, Transactions and Addresses buttons ?

Edit 2 : maybe you can even keep it with one button .. pressed once it starts.. pressed again it stops.
(with changing descriptions... start / stops)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: TaoOfSatoshi

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,797
2,614
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
I think you bring up some great points. Is it better to make a "Anonymize Funds" popup (seems kind of annoying) or what if I added a button to the overview screen that said "Begin Anonymization", when you clicked that button it would ask "This operation requires your password, etc" and enable Darksend.
Yes, the button followed by the password prompt would be ideal.

Tao
 

Diirk

New Member
May 27, 2014
21
31
13
If we could do this for RC5 it would be a massive win in my opinion. It would make the wallet so much more user friendly and less scary. It would also make anonimization more accessible by default, since it is currently disabled by default and the option to enable it is kind of hidden right now. For power users, we could still have an advanced option to have same functionality as currently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kryptofoo and flare

HinnomTX

Active Member
Jul 22, 2014
166
196
103
Code:
[email protected]:~$ darkcoind getinfo
{
  "version" : 101304,
  "protocolversion" : 70037,
  "walletversion" : 60000,
  "balance" : 14124.44090011,
  "anonymized_balance" : 0.00000000,
  "blocks" : 28337,
  "timeoffset" : 0,
  "connections" : 15,
  "proxy" : "",
  "difficulty" : 0.95208694,
  "testnet" : true,
  "keypoololdest" : 1406001326,
  "keypoolsize" : 1001,
  "paytxfee" : 0.00000000,
  "mininput" : 0.00001000,
  "errors" : ""
}


[email protected]:~$ darkcoind masternode list
{
  "54.68.102.109:19999" : 1,
  "54.68.80.151:19999" : 1,
  "54.206.23.188:19999" : 1,
  "198.50.148.87:19999" : 1,
  "92.222.10.179:19999" : 1,
  "211.99.224.162:19999" : 1,
  "188.226.248.36:19999" : 1,
  "188.226.223.5:19999" : 1,
  "54.68.81.45:19999" : 1,
  "54.68.84.193:19999" : 1,
  "54.68.88.75:19999" : 1,
  "202.171.65.13:19999" : 1,
  "202.171.65.14:19999" : 1,
  "108.61.199.31:19999" : 1,
  "176.31.109.97:19999" : 1,
  "108.61.198.220:19999" : 1,
  "54.189.217.57:19999" : 1
}
 

DrkMiner

Member
Jun 7, 2014
204
63
88
Just an idea to simplify the GUI.



Remove the current "Main" tab from "Options" and add the above to the main page of the wallet.

1) No anonymization will start by default. User will decide the amount (no need to keep DRK level to anonymization).
2) Drop box with levels basic, medium, strong.
3) Estimated fee for the transaction.
4) Start button
5) Progress bar would be nice.
 

Diirk

New Member
May 27, 2014
21
31
13
Just an idea to simplify the GUI.



Remove the current "Main" tab from "Options" and add the above to the main page of the wallet.

1) No anonymization will start by default. User will decide the amount (no need to keep DRK level to anonymization).
2) Drop box with levels basic, medium, strong.
3) Estimated fee for the transaction.
4) Start button
5) Progress bar would be nice.
It needs to show the bare minimum. Amount to be anonymized is not important (just anonimize until user presses button again). Anonimization level is not important (use default). Transaction fee is not important. It needs to be one big green button, that's all. When enabled, pressing again would stop anonimization. What you are suggesting should be there as well, but in a separate tab ('Anonymize' tab?) for users who want more control.
 
  • Like
Reactions: coingun

JGCMiner

Moderator
Moderator
Jun 8, 2014
360
211
113
If we could do this for RC5 it would be a massive win in my opinion. It would make the wallet so much more user friendly and less scary. It would also make anonimization more accessible by default, since it is currently disabled by default and the option to enable it is kind of hidden right now. For power users, we could still have an advanced option to have same functionality as currently.
I agree. Actually, I would take it a little further for the purposes of clarity. Here are my suggestions:

Evan,

1) There should be a "start" and a "stop" button on the overview page. The first time you hit start there should be a pop up allowing you to set rounds and amount to anonymized. Then user should then be told that the settings can be adjusted in the future in the menu options.

2)I would set the default send type to "non-anonymous" funds and automatically move it to "anonymous" funds the first time the user hits start. "No preference" is dangerous (in terms of lost anonymity) by your own admission but currently this is the default (most normal users will never change default settings).

3) Everything time a user hits start (including the first time after initial customization) there should be a popup with the estimated fees for anonymization along with a "do you wish to continue?" confirmation message.

4) Finally, set a time limit before the user has to hit "start" again. In other words if you hit start all funds added to your wallet will be autodenom'ed up to the set value for 24 hours (or maybe a bit shorter). After that the user has to hit "start" again.

Just my 2cents. I will add a feature request to Jira.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

coingun

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 8, 2014
489
402
133
masternode.io
It needs to show the bare minimum. Amount to be anonymized is not important (just anonimize until user presses button again). Anonimization level is not important (use default). Transaction fee is not important. It needs to be one big green button, that's all. When enabled, pressing again would stop anonimization. What you are suggesting should be there as well, but in a separate tab ('Anonymize' tab?) for users who want more control.
I would argue some noobies might think the amount it's going to cost might be very important. Not sure how easy it is to guess the transaction fee but i think it would be very useful if that was shown.
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
I think you bring up some great points. Is it better to make a "Anonymize Funds" popup (seems kind of annoying) or what if I added a button to the overview screen that said "Begin Anonymization", when you clicked that button it would ask "This operation requires your password, etc" and enable Darksend.
There have been talks that we can have more anonymity by going through 8 rounds several times. Can we do it yet? So far I haven't seen the wallet do it. Could we have a feature that when we use it, the client knows it's supposed to anonymize the anonymized fund again? Thank you!
 

mbilker

Member
Aug 7, 2014
55
8
48
Guys, I'm very, very sad that our testnet has so few masternodes. IMO, creating a larger and more robust testnet is vital.

To that end, I'm offering a bounty of 1.5 DRK (real ones =D) to anyone who will set up an MN on testnet. Maximum of 4.5 DRK will be paid out. Will y'all accept my challenge? Will others join in and offer additional bounties?

*Hosting on VULTR costs $5 per month, so 1.5 DRK at current prices should get you roughly one month of hosting.
I host mine (176.31.109.97) on OVH SAS (Kimsufi in France) for roughly 5 euros a month. I live in the US but OVH is good since it is fast where I live still. I run a masternode on testnet. I check on it every few days. I just noticed that darkcoin was not responding today. Luckily it did not cause corruption when I killed it.

EDIT: I use that server for other purposes too. So it isn't a total waste of money on only one low usage thing.
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
Windows wallet v.10.13.4 - After encryption is put in, the wallet still freezes for about 2 min. As I understand it was supposed to be resolved in the previous version?

upload_2014-9-9_1-21-35.png
 

Tesquenure

Member
Mar 23, 2014
110
13
78
Do i have to change the ip of the MN if i create a new wallet, cold wallet side ?

I have 3 wallet in 3 folders :
origine
mn1
mn2

I use darksend in origine for the test.

I just laucht mn1 wallet, he show me my total balance of mn1 wallet, but in darksend he show me the 311 drk/4 rounds from my wallet origine ...

Do i miss something ?

EDIT : Same in mn2 wallet

i use -datadir= in my shotcuts in windows
 
Last edited by a moderator:

flare

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 18, 2014
2,287
2,406
1,183
Germany
Was it a fresh wallet?
Simply delete the wallet.dat file (before moving the funds of course). After you restart the wallet software the wallet.dat file will be created from scratch --> fresh
 

flare

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 18, 2014
2,287
2,406
1,183
Germany
Windows wallet v.10.13.4 - After encryption is put in, the wallet still freezes for about 2 min. As I understand it was supposed to be resolved in the previous version?

View attachment 428
The encryption process of the wallet.dat was not part of the optimization. The freeze during encryption (of large keypools) is not specific to darkcoin, it applies to most Bitcoin clones as the process is not properly threaded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli and vertoe

Tesquenure

Member
Mar 23, 2014
110
13
78
Do i have to change the ip of the MN if i create a new wallet, cold wallet side ?

I have 3 wallet in 3 folders :
origine
mn1
mn2

I use darksend in origine for the test.

I just laucht mn1 wallet, he show me my total balance of mn1 wallet, but in darksend he show me the 311 drk/4 rounds from my wallet origine ...

Do i miss something ?

EDIT : Same in mn2 wallet

i use -datadir= in my shotcuts in windows
Ok, i understand, than Amount and Rounds, was write in the qt.exe
Than we need to copy one qt.exe by wallet if we want different darksend setting by wallet.

What's it ?
 

TaoOfSatoshi

Grizzled Member
Jul 15, 2014
2,797
2,614
1,183
Dash Nation
www.dashnation.com
This is a copy of my submission to the dev team in jira this morning. Tell me what you think:

DarkMix: A New Road

When Darkcoin was first created, the term "Darksend" made sense because the funds were sitting in the wallets unanonymized, and when the user wanted to send the coins anonymously, he would have to engage the "Darksend" process at that time. This would be easy for the layman to understand.

Well, with RC4 came an entirely new idea by Evan (which was brilliant by the way) to pre-mix the funds before the user sends them sometime in the future. As such, I do not think the term "Darksend" accurately portrays what is technically happening with the coin after RC4.

A completely new way of anonymizing deserves a completely new term for it:

DarkMix:

This is a sexy term which really brings what is happening behind the scenes post-RC4 and explains it in a way that my mom could understand. It also could lead to easier UI explanations as follows:

"The DarkMix feature requires that you unlock your wallet so it can auto-transact with the network. Please enter your password." - Easy to understand. You need to enter your password to MIX your coins, you are not "Darksend"ing anything at this time.

"Payment to yourself" could become "DarkMix Initialization"

"Darksend Denominate" could become "DarkMix Denomination"

"N/A" could become "DarkMix Transaction, No Address"

All of the above would be easier for Mom and Pop to understand: not actually "sending" anything at the time, just mixing, anonymizing!

The above are only the technical benefits to DarkMix, from a marketing perspective it could be a potential gold mine:

"Darkcoin releases RC5, with open-source DarkMix technology"

This kind of attention-grabbing headline is just what we need right now to generate interest and curiosity in our drastically improved tech. We all know how cool Darkcoin is, but a terminology change would have a far-reaching effect amongst people (potential whales) who have written Darkcoin off as a pump and dump scheme, haven't been following us since, and may not even know that "Darksend"'s been flipped upside down, drastically improved, and is now kick-ass!

It would be a fresh start, furthering us from the "instamine" crap, the "closed source" argument and all the other growing pains of the first few months.

With the way this tech works, generating interest (and more users) right off the bat would be VERY beneficial.

I'm excited, we have a great coin here, let's show it off!!

"DarkMix" is submitted for your approval.

The term "Darksend" is very important to the history of the coin and could still be used at the time of sending, from the dropdown menu: Darksend (Use anonymous funds). In addition, it could be used in videos and promotional materials alongside DarkMix (Darkcoin featuring DarkMix/Darksend)

Thank you for reading,

Tao

http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-68
 
  • Like
Reactions: bertlebbert

droptable

Member
May 27, 2014
42
14
48
a) group settings
b) call it "enable"


c) feature -its not a request, just a proposal-





thx for all the work
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kryptofoo

Member
Jul 21, 2014
114
36
78
Germany
Upgraded to 101304 with new wallet. Am trying darksend 1000, 4 rounds. I have 3 different wallets running these settings (2x Linux64, 1x win64). All 3 are repeatedly sending "Payment to yourself" transactions costing .002 tDRK. All 3 wallets have exactly 16 of these transactions and no darksend transactions. All the transactions keep sending around various amounts of 0.0125 and 0.125 tDRK. Anybody else seeing this?

Capture.JPG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.