v0.10.13.x RC5 Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.

droptable

Member
May 27, 2014
42
14
48
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?
win32 - v0.10.13.4-g71381bc-beta
50drk / 8 rounds


only payments to self.
no darksend-message
anon: 0.0 DRK
Rounds 0%
average 0/8

2 hours since start (i thought i wait a little longer, but since your post)
 

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
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
I personally dont like DarkMix it sounds juvenile to me, and it is not intuitive for the non-crypto folks. Mixing is not necessarily associated to privacy or anonymity if you are not already familiar with cryptocoins, while Darksend is already a brand and is pretty intuitive. Just my 2 duffs, I would of course support anything the team decides.
 

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
win32 - v0.10.13.4-g71381bc-beta
50drk / 8 rounds


only payments to self.
no darksend-message
anon: 0.0 DRK
Rounds 0%
average 0/8

2 hours since start (i thought i wait a little longer, but since your post)
I have this same issue since the previous version, posted to Jira under DRK-61 for v3, resposted this morning under DRK-69 for v4 with screenshots, etc. So I am sure Evan will check it out soon. Maybe go to Jira and add your info to issue DRK-69 to give Evan more data.
 

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
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?

View attachment 429
Same issue here, see above.
 

droptable

Member
May 27, 2014
42
14
48
I personally dont like DarkMix it sounds juvenile to me, and it is not intuitive for the non-crypto folks. Mixing is not necessarily associated to privacy or anonymity if you are not already familiar with cryptocoins, while Darksend is already a brand and is pretty intuitive. Just my 2 duffs, I would of course support anything the team decides.
i completely agree. -> see my post on bitcointalk.

// thx for your replay, regarding darksend issue with the new version, i will check jira.
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
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.
Thanks, flare. So does it mean it can't be fixed somehow? Or it's just a minor thing and should be overlooked?
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
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
"Darksend" is a brand. For us who have been with Darkcoin, Darksend is THE brand. If you play off anything else like "DarkMix" it will be too confusing and it will undermine Darksend. All other terminology like "Payment to yourself" can be changed to "Darksend splitting fee" or some such and it should be under the brand Darksend, and it's not that hard for moms and pops to understand. Besides, I'm not sure if this currency is for moms and pops.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
Thanks, flare. So does it mean it can't be fixed somehow? Or it's just a minor thing and should be overlooked?
It could be optimized, but that optimization could also apply to the bitcoin's client as that's where DRK's qt platform is based from.

I get spikes in resources and a not responding whenever I try to send the whole balance to another wallet (in the case of going from 33 to 34). It sends after time but locks up for a few minutes in doing so.
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
It could be optimized, but that optimization could also apply to the bitcoin's client as that's where DRK's qt platform is based from.

I get spikes in resources and a not responding whenever I try to send the whole balance to another wallet (in the case of going from 33 to 34). It sends after time but locks up for a few minutes in doing so.
Ok. Thank you for answering my question. I get a spike too when I send a payment. I guess we have to live with it.
 

flare

Administrator
Dash Core Team
Moderator
May 18, 2014
2,287
2,406
1,183
Germany
Thanks, flare. So does it mean it can't be fixed somehow? Or it's just a minor thing and should be overlooked?
It can be fixed for sure. I just wanted to point out that this was not fixed in v4 (as you expected) - and that Darkcoin inherited this issue from Litecoin/Bitcoin :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: moli

BelStar

Member
Apr 17, 2014
76
86
58
Ok. Thank you for answering my question. I get a spike too when I send a payment. I guess we have to live with it.
Isn't the spike more perceptible with DRK as sending payments after anonymization would require grouping considerably more inputs that with a classical BTC transaction? Especially in oblox's example where he sent his whole balance at once to a new wallet?
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
It can be fixed for sure. I just wanted to point out that this was not fixed in v4 (as you expected) - and that Darkcoin inherited this issue from Litecoin/Bitcoin :)
OK. Good to know. Thanks, flare. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: flare

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
Isn't the spike more perceptible with DRK as sending payments after anonymization would require grouping considerably more inputs that with a classical BTC transaction? Especially in oblox's example where he sent his whole balance at once to a new wallet?
That's a good point with all the inputs from denominating the funds causing the lag from grouping for a send. If immediate optimization isn't on the table, perhaps a loading splash with a repeating progress bar (tipping hour glass, circle, looping dots) telling the end user not to be concerned that the client appears locked up. I wonder where the cutoff is in terms of input addresses that causes the slow down. If we could hone in on that number, I'm sure an if check could be implemented to show the loading splash for transfers that exceed the number of inputs causing slow down.
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
Isn't the spike more perceptible with DRK as sending payments after anonymization would require grouping considerably more inputs that with a classical BTC transaction? Especially in oblox's example where he sent his whole balance at once to a new wallet?
Hm... Now i'm not sure which. I'll pay more attention next time when it happens and will report.
 

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
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?

View attachment 429
I'm having the same problem with my wallet. I got a fresh wallet, got 1000 tdrk from the faucet. Set Options: 10 tdrk to keep anonymized, 8 rounds. The wallet started to get "Payment to yourself" fees. After a while I changed the amount and rounds but it still kept getting hit with PTY fees. My wallet currently has settings 15 tdrk to be anonymized, 4 rounds, but has 0 coins anonymized and a bunch of PTY fees. Evan said this problem was fixed in JIRA 61. Maybe flare can explain for us what's going on.

Flare, should I re-submit this to JIRA? thanks.
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,319
183
I'm having the same problem with my wallet. I got a fresh wallet, got 1000 tdrk from the faucet. Set Options: 10 tdrk to keep anonymized, 8 rounds. The wallet started to get "Payment to yourself" fees. After a while I changed the amount and rounds but it still kept getting hit with PTY fees. My wallet currently has settings 15 tdrk to be anonymized, 4 rounds, but has 0 coins anonymized and a bunch of PTY fees. Evan said this problem was fixed in JIRA 61. Maybe flare can explain for us what's going on.

Flare, should I re-submit this to JIRA? thanks.
I had this happen to my wallet this morning with v4 and I seem to have introduced it with the new splitting system. I seem to have fixed it, I'll release a V5 later today.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Minotaur and moli

moli

Grizzled Member
Aug 5, 2014
3,255
1,830
1,183
I had this happen to my wallet this morning with v4 and I seem to have introduced it with the new splitting system. I seem to have fixed it, I'll release a V5 later today.
Evan, thank you! :)
 

eduffield

Core Developer
Mar 9, 2014
1,084
5,319
183
Darksend Overview Proposal



To make the wallet less intrusive (starting when you boot up the wallet and asking for info) I've added a big "start anon" button, along with removing a lot of the more advanced functionality (you could still set rounds via commandline, but "Amount to anon" would be gone).

What's everyone think of this?
 

David

Well-known Member
Dash Support Group
Jun 21, 2014
618
628
163
Darksend Overview Proposal



To make the wallet less intrusive (starting when you boot up the wallet and asking for info) I've added a big "start anon" button, along with removing a lot of the more advanced functionality (you could still set rounds via commandline, but "Amount to anon" would be gone).

What's everyone think of this?
Brilliant! I love it =)
 

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
Darksend Overview Proposal


To make the wallet less intrusive (starting when you boot up the wallet and asking for info) I've added a big "start anon" button, along with removing a lot of the more advanced functionality (you could still set rounds via commandline, but "Amount to anon" would be gone).

What's everyone think of this?
So a more basic 2, 4, or 8 rounds for anon unless specified via command line? I think that would simplify things for users. What happens if someone stops anonimization mid round? How about those that leave it on? Will it know to just anon new coins keeping what coins are already mixed or will it remix those with the new coins?

Is there also a way for those with encrypted wallets when using the mixing feature to prevent other sends other than those sends that are happening do to mixing rounds? That way, you would still need to know the passphrase for sends to prevent someone hopping on your computer with the wallet mixing and sending what coins you have to one of their addresses.
 

Kai

Member
Apr 6, 2014
110
56
78
Darksend Overview Proposal



To make the wallet less intrusive (starting when you boot up the wallet and asking for info) I've added a big "start anon" button, along with removing a lot of the more advanced functionality (you could still set rounds via commandline, but "Amount to anon" would be gone).

What's everyone think of this?
The progress bar has a huge psychological effect.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=317459
 
  • Like
Reactions: Light and Minotaur

Minotaur

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Apr 7, 2014
452
1,079
263
The progress bar has a huge psychological effect.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=317459
I like the progress bar too, unless there is a technical reason to remove it I would like it to stay.

Edit:Thinking about it if there is no "Amount to be anonymized" then the percentage could be, percentage of total balance anonymized or something. Or some sort of progress indication with regards to the rounds of mixing, just something that you can see change and that indicates there is progress and everything is going well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Kai

droptable

Member
May 27, 2014
42
14
48
I love the idea, !!!! eduffield

btw, faucet is down for 1hour+
Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'Exception' with message 'Controller "test" Doesn't have "faucetAction" method' in /var/www/btcipn.com/system/app/app.php:69 Stack trace: #0 /var/www/btcipn.com/index.php(12): system_app->run() #1 {main} thrown in /var/www/btcipn.com/system/app/app.php on line 69
 

coingun

Active Member
Masternode Owner/Operator
Jul 8, 2014
489
402
133
masternode.io
I love the idea, !!!! eduffield

btw, faucet is down for 1hour+
Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'Exception' with message 'Controller "test" Doesn't have "faucetAction" method' in /var/www/btcipn.com/system/app/app.php:69 Stack trace: #0 /var/www/btcipn.com/index.php(12): system_app->run() #1 {main} thrown in /var/www/btcipn.com/system/app/app.php on line 69
If you need some tDRK post and address and I can help.
 

JGCMiner

Moderator
Moderator
Jun 8, 2014
360
211
113
I think the new wallet layout is great, but think the status bar should stay.

The reason is that Darksend prioritizes getting all your coins to the same round before starting on the next round. Therefore you are going to get a fair number of fees before you see any money show up as anonymized. Given that, most normal users will likely panic and hit stop because they are being charged and "nothing is happening".

If there is a status bar then they would at least know something was being done.

Edit: Also the user should be warned the first time they select "low/med/high" that higher "security" (maybe privacy is better) levels cost more and take longer to achieve. That is obvious to all of us, but not to many of the laymen users.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Kai

Member
Apr 6, 2014
110
56
78
I like the progress bar too, unless there is a technical reason to remove it I would like it to stay.

Edit:Thinking about it if there is no "Amount to be anonymized" then the percentage could be, percentage of total balance anonymized or something.
I would suggest to add in the progress bar indications like :
"Starting the anonymization of your funds", "Anonymization in progress x%" and "Anonymization completed !"
 

AjM

Well-known Member
Foundation Member
Jun 23, 2014
1,336
571
283
Finland
Darksend Overview Proposal



To make the wallet less intrusive (starting when you boot up the wallet and asking for info) I've added a big "start anon" button, along with removing a lot of the more advanced functionality (you could still set rounds via commandline, but "Amount to anon" would be gone).

What's everyone think of this?
I think it is good to know what is progress status.
If there is no any info for this, users are confused.

And maybe security (low/medium/high) option should be disabled IF anon progress is running.
 

Tulsene

New Member
Sep 7, 2014
5
2
3
there is some issues with the testnet faucet? :

Your connection is not private

It is possible that hackers are trying to steal your information drkipn.com site (for example, passwords, messages or information about your payment card).

Back to safety Hide details
You have attempted to access drkipn.com, but instead you actually reached a server identifying itself as api.btcipn.com. This may be due to a misconfiguration on the server or by something more serious. An attacker on your network could be trying to make you go to a spoofed version of drkipn.com, thus potentially malicious.

Continue to drkipn.com website (hazardous)
 

oblox

Well-known Member
Aug 6, 2014
1,032
537
183
I am also in favor of changing the naming of payment to self, darksend denominate, etc, to better reflect what is going on for the layperson.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.