Quote from: stopsigningbitch on March 02, 2015, 01:33:20 AM

child_harold has also been on a trolling spree in the Darkcoin thread for days on end. Just some insight.

No no. Not trolling. More like asking questions

For example this exchange which boils down to why should a masternode "cost" 1000DRK?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg10624038#msg10624038

Quote from: child_harold on March 01, 2015, 08:34:20 PM

Quote from: Artoodeetoo on February 28, 2015, 10:13:51 PM

Quote from: child_harold on February 28, 2015, 09:25:20 PM

Quote from: Sub-Ether on February 28, 2015, 05:41:46 PM

Quote from: bigrcanada on February 28, 2015, 05:39:36 PM

Quote from: toknormal on February 28, 2015, 05:30:48 PM

Quote from: child_harold on February 28, 2015, 05:12:17 PM

Throwing it to the floor. Kiss

Your about a year too late.

+1

+2

Quote from: child_harold on February 28, 2015, 05:12:17 PM

Quote from: child_harold on February 28, 2015, 10:02:56 AM

Quote from: AizenSou on February 27, 2015, 10:37:50 PM

Quote from: oblox on February 27, 2015, 08:43:25 PM

Quote from: child_harold on February 27, 2015, 08:10:27 PM

LETS ASSUME A WORST CASE SCENARIO

50% of MN's are run by "bad actors" or have backdoors (thru VSP provider consent)

Question:Why did TOR get compromised??
Answer: NSA style traffic analysis

Just like TOR ur crypto (such as it is i.e. antiquated) is prob sound. But how do you combat NSA style traffic analysis for MN's?

Ignore me if you want
but this is another important question complements of yous truly.

Answers on a postcard Cool

I'll bite. Assuming there were 50% rogue nodes, each round would be an independent event, in this case 50/50 that a compromised node is selected processing the transaction. To be able to prove with reasonable doubt, you would need to have your rogue nodes selected every round, or 50%^# of rounds for probability. At 4 rounds, you're looking at a 6.25% chance of having your rogue nodes selected every round, at 8 rounds, 0.39%, at 16 rounds, .0015%. That's just as the system stands right now--with masternode blinding which is currently in development, no single node would have all the inputs so your probabilities essentially go to 0.

Good try.

Yeah I think he did try very hard, but his attempt discredits him even more.

@oblox

I suppose I was really making three points:

1) CRYPTO:What happens if 50% of MN's are run by "bad actors" or have backdoors (thru VSP provider consent)

Comment:
The answer of ~6% if 4 rounds chosen was the answer given. Interesting but not really to my point. BTW What is the avg no. of rounds usually selected? What is the default number?

2 ) FLOW: Since MN's have static IP's (at this time) and are obvious targets for traffic flow analysis how can u combat traffic flow analysis like "upstreaming" which were used to compromise TOR?"

As I said initially it is not so much the crypto that is the weakness (albeit slightly outdated imo), but rather the patterns derived from traffic analysis techniques like "upstreaming" which may reveal sensitive information.

Comment:
Certainly every crypto-currency network is also threatened by such analysis, but for DRK it is the limited number of MN's currently sitting on fixed IP's which make a juicy target. The crypto in TOR was by all accounts strong and it was these sorts of attacks which compromised TOR's security iirc. Interestingly there were similar numbers of TOR nodes that you have MN's. I'm thinking maybe 3-4k TOR nodes were being run worldwide.
Perhaps MN's will have to grow in number to help deal with this and maybe a 500DRK sum should be permitted to run an MN so as to create more. In fact why shouldn't every node be capable of serving as an MN? And if DRK adopts a ZK (Zero-Knowledge) solution like Shadow then why have MN's at all (InstantX I guess)

3) BLEND: A "blended attack" where a bad actor runs (or has access to) a number of MN's combined with traffic analysis is most likely the true threat model here. It is unclear to me at this point if "Masternode blinding' might help the bad actors as much as the good ones.

Comment:
?

Throwing it to the floor.

@bigrcanada
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=745352.msg10612920#msg10612920

I'm not spokesman for Shadow (definitely not) and without any action by the Shadow Team I voluntarily back down outta some sense of good. TBH Im more of a mad renegade

I gotta say that I dont really regard the above Q I posed as FUD.
It would be wise to have in place counter-measures against the sort of attacks that compromised TOR. As I also said it applies to all crypto-currencies, altho due to the MN infrastructure and the depth of ur Team it (maybe) behooves u to plan for such attacks.

At the very least I asked why cant you have MN's for 500DRK? Or 250? More MN's better, right?

Anyway bigrcanada, you were very polite. Thanks. I shall return the favor and politely go away - altho Id really be interested in some answers to my Q's and will keep reading
thanks

pax romanus

It is not just about having loads of masternodes, the 1000 DARK is about making it a meaningful investment / commitment to the project. 250 Dark would be too low especially at current prices, maybe in the future that would change.[/b]

OK
Almost outta here

Is this the answer ur sticking with?
Why should an MN cost 1000DRk when more MN's should be beneficial IMO?

Quote:
It is not just about having loads of masternodes, the 1000 DARK is about making it a meaningful investment / commitment to the project. 250 Dark would be too low especially at current prices, maybe in the future that would change.

Really? Does it boil down to this? I can think of other "organisations" that require a demonstration of commitment thusly

Huh