Quote from: fluffypony on March 27, 2015, 02:33:22 PM

Quote from: majamina on March 27, 2015, 01:22:49 PM

OK...perhaps you can give us, say, the top-ten of those factors that can fingerprint the data.

Also could you please explain how it is trivial to extrapolate the data when you control 50% of the MNs in your example above.

OK, I'm still not sure this is a fair representation. Hopefully someone who knows more about Darksend can chime in. I'll do some more research in the meantime.

And no offence, but you got it wrong about Darksend yesterday so I'm not sure that your assessment can be considered reliable.

Quote from: BlockaFett on March 27, 2015, 02:15:02 PM

do you have a specific vulnerability you want to bring to DRK's attention? Sounds like more waffle and time wasting.

There seems to be a disconnect here. I know Darkcoin is build on a flaky foundation, I don't need to prove that. Proving the opposite is critical, and neither the Darkcoin leadership nor its proponents have done so (nor do I have any reason to believe they will do so).

When you make statements like the above I'm reminded that this thread is a landmine - if I spend the hours researching and extrapolating it will be pointless, as proponents will nitpick. The only way I could possibly win is to spend days and weeks creating a proof-of-concept to demonstrate validity, and even then there will just be some lipstick-on-a-pig move to patch one particular leak in the overflowing dam.

Majamina, your final comment and BlockaFett's comment is the real nail in the coffin here - I'm doing free analysis in my spare time (how much did Kristov Atlas get paid again?) based on virtually nonexistent technical documentation, so of course there are assumptions I have to make in the interest of expediency. An incorrect assumption in one area does not invalidate my analysis in another, unrelated area. Were this a formal analysis I would not have raised that point, as I would have gone through the code and done heaps of testing before asserting a fact.

At this stage there are a series of major flaws that remain untouched because of the obsession with "proving" that a single attack surface doesn't exist. There has not been a single iota of proof - stating something as if it is fact, or showing some graphs without a model showing its assumptions are not proof, not by any definition of the term. If you want further analysis and specifics I will gladly provide you with my hourly rate and expected engagement period, but beyond that I've reached the end of what I'm willing to do for free. That is not a cop-out, it is just the reality when every suggested attack has to get ground down to minutiae whilst ignoring large swathes of what attackers are capable of. The discussion in this thread has been like talking to someone who sticks their fingers in their ears and goes "na na na, you're wrong, na na na na".

Again, and for the record: you cannot discount an attack by claiming ignorance, simply stating it isn't possible, or turning everything into an accusation of trolling / FUD.

I have observed, in this thread and others, that the bulk of the Darkcoin proponents are like those in the anti-vaccination movement. It doesn't matter what I say, what Bitcoin core developers say, what cryptographers say, or what the creator of BitTorrent says about Darkcoin. It doesn't matter what anyone theorises, it won't even matter if a body of evidence is presented. Anti-vaccinators won't change their minds until their child dies, and Darkcoin proponents won't change their minds until people start suffering.

RationalWiki sums up what the parallel to what we're observing with Darkcoin:

I'd say this thread has been fun, but it hasn't.

[emphasis mine]

Well, people like me appreciate the analysis. True, you may not influence people who are heavily financially invested in DRK, but people who are legitimately interested in evaluating the technology will probably pay attention.