Quote from: Joshuar on March 31, 2015, 01:03:27 AM

Quote from: illodin on March 31, 2015, 12:54:26 AM

Quote from: Joshuar on March 31, 2015, 12:46:00 AM

Quote from: illodin on March 31, 2015, 12:44:07 AM

Quote from: Joshuar on March 31, 2015, 12:40:56 AM

Quote from: illodin on March 31, 2015, 12:37:34 AM

Quote from: Joshuar on March 31, 2015, 12:32:43 AM

Quote from: illodin on March 31, 2015, 12:31:18 AM

Quote from: Joshuar on March 31, 2015, 12:19:52 AM

To add to that, there's still a chance to deanonymize Darksend transactions by controlling a large amount of nodes. I don't know how you're just incapable of accepting the fact that Masternodes by nature are centralized, since they are hosted on centralized software. What exactly do you not understand.

Again, talking about something different as if I had asked something about "centralized software", when I asked what is the most important data exactly that the attacker (realistically, only the NSA) would collect? If you can't answer that, how can you think any kind of "centralized software" has any difference to anything?

Did you read what I said earlier, or are you purposely skipping over things? There is still a chance to deanonymize Dash transactions that have been through Darksend just by owning a large # of masternodes. The centralization part comes from the fact that most masternodes are hosted online on centralized servers, making it that much easier for the NSA to take control of them. Regardless of that, the hosting providers can take control of the nodes since they are the ones hosting the nodes on their servers. Get it?

AKA

NSA takes over servers dash is hosted on online, NSA has a chance to deanonymize Dash transactions

Is that simple enough for you to understand? Wholly molly.

That's not what I asked. But by now it's clear you have no clue as you don't want to answer but to regurgitate your centralized software mantra without actually knowing what it means.

"What is the most important data exactly that the attacker (Realistically, only the NSA) would collect"? = Information on user's transactions(Sender/Receiver) through the possibility of deanonymizing darksend transactions by controlling a large portion of nodes.

I'm seriously doubting your learning skills. You again demonstrate that you can't piece 2+2 together. Ok.

"Information on user's transactions(Sender/Receiver)"

And why do you think masternodes would have that information? And if they do, in what form?

Do you know anything about Darksend at all?...

One of your fellow DRK supporters posted a little chart showing the % possibilities to deanonymize darksend transactions based upon how many nodes are owned. You should look at it.

Obviously I'm not talking about individual masternodes, as I said a "large portion of nodes", maybe if you stopped trolling and started reading better, you wouldn't be asking redundant questions.

Again, you're talking about something different as if I had asked "is there a chart showing %" or something.

The question was, what is the most important data exactly that the attacker (realistically, only the NSA) would collect?

If you say it's "Information on user's transactions(Sender/Receiver)", it's like answering "by spending double" when asked how do you perform a double spend in Bitcoin.

PS. It's funny watching what lengths one can go just to not have to say "I don't know".

Masternode blinding isn't implemented. Masternodes currently know the inputs and outputs that go through them(mixing). The NSA would be able to easily take advantage of that, coupled with the fact that most masternodes are hosted online, on centralized servers.

Again, redundant question and seems fairly obvious that you know, or should know that already. But as I've outed you as a troll and liar in my previous posts, I should know not to expect anything of substance from you. As I've answered all your questions, even those that were redundant/obvious trolling, along with outing you as a liar, I now say good day. If anyone looking on would like to see, simply go through my recent post history or look at the last few pages of this thread with the text I've quoted to see illodin's inaccurate, trollish, and deceitful posts.

Almost, but not quite good enough. If you really knew, you would've just answered without any ambiguity. Go and learn it, and you'll know what I mean.