Quote from: illodin on October 17, 2015, 11:46:09 AM

Quote from: dEBRUYNE on October 17, 2015, 11:15:39 AM

Quote from: patrolman on October 17, 2015, 09:20:21 AM

Quote from: cryptonewb on October 17, 2015, 12:18:28 AM

question:

What % of the number of transactions are darksend transactions?

I want to know this, because fungibility depends on it... I learned that monero has mixing by default. What's more, mixing can be done client side (and even offline). So I want to know how DASH compares...

I mean, XMR tech seems to be solid, but DASh clearly has the first mover advantage and also offers other things like InstantX and a GUI. So for now I'll stick to DASh as long as the tech is usable and not flawed

I don't think the fungibility of Dash necessarily depends on which proportion of transactions are darksend transactions. The traceability of funds depends on the number of rounds of darksend mixing they go through. The more rounds of mixing, the more difficult it is to trace. If you receive funds which are then "blacklisted" you can always put the questionable funds through as many rounds of mixing as you want, then it will be impossible to say for sure that the funds that you hold are the blacklisted funds, as they will have passed through many different addresses in many different transactions.

One important difference between Dash and CryptoNote mixing is that with Dash it is done off chain by the Masternodes, as opposed to the on-chain mixing CryptoNote currencies use. I don't know enough about CryptoNote to go in to it in much detail, but I believe that while it may be impossible to trace transactions today, in the future the technology may exist to trace all mixing which has ever happened as it recorded in the blockchain.

All DASH transactions are engraved in the blockchain as well, so that doesn't really make a difference.

Transactions yes, but the mixing (linking inputs to outputs) is not. i.e. simplest example 3 people (A, B, and C) are involved in the mixing, the inputs to the mixing transaction are a, b, and c respectively. They are coins they got from a KYC source, i.e. they are not anonymous coins. A mixing transaction is constructed that will have outputs to fresh new addresses d, e, and f. Now when the money in d is spent, there is nothing in the blockchain from which could be determined to whom (A, B, or C) the d belongs to.

In reality it's more complicated than that as there are multiple mixing rounds, multiple inputs and outputs, and multiple different people mixing.

As for as I understand, with cryptonote mixing you also can't determine which input is the real one. It seems that every transaction is mixed by default without needing a masternode. It's another approach, but I think in the end, DASH should try to incentivise every node to mix. seems like a better approach because every input will be fungible.
Having non-fungible coins on a network makes it vulnerable to blacklisting: some service could refuse mixed coins...

Did someone already answer my question about the possibility of idle masternodes? I asked if it is theoretically possible to have a masternode online that doesn't do the required work (intantX confirmations and mixing) but still receiving masternode rewards. There was so much trolling I probably missed the answer...