Quote from: shtako on April 05, 2014, 07:32:04 AM

Quote from: goin2mars on April 05, 2014, 06:57:23 AM

Quote from: shtako on April 05, 2014, 06:48:36 AM

Quote from: flipme on April 04, 2014, 10:30:50 PM

Quote from: shtako on April 04, 2014, 10:26:32 PM

Quote from: flipme on April 04, 2014, 10:01:58 PM

For me it's a personal obligation to fight people like you,
who try to dumb down the general public with disinformation and cheap propaganda phrases.

You are at a disadvantage, because the average poster here is already quite informed and has a good perception of being Mickey Moused by agents like you.

Get lost.

This is absolutely not true. Most of the people posting here are without any tecnical or economical insight. They are attracted by fancy words and follows the herd bleating what they have read (but not understood) around the forum. Spending their money on obvious scams like earthcoin and darkcoin, coins in general that do extremly well at promoting and branding.

What does Earthcoin matter here now, please enlighten me.
Just a fuck of a crap coin.

Darkcoin is the bleeding edge of crypto currencies though.
Tell me what you mean with your statement.

I mention earthcoin because everyone can see that earthcoin are a scam now, and the same will be true for darkcoin in a few months. Erthcoin is similar to darkcoin, not technically, but from a community perspective. Both coins rallied the sheeps with a grand plan and fancy words.

Darkcoin claimes to be the first anonymous coin. That is not true and it will not happen. Darkcoin promote itself as a zero premined coin. That is true, but it is designed to be extremly instamined and if you look at the block explorer you will see that the instamine is around 14% of the total coins. More then 75% of the exicting coins is instamined by devs/early adopters. There have also been alot of posts about the x11 and "cool cards" that adds to the hype. Darksend, x11, dgw, zero premine, everything the community preach and believe to be facts are actually not as good as they seem or completely true.

Can you tell me why and how it won't happen? Please try to limit the discussion to just that, and lets remove ourselves from other things like the hashing function, amount of coins in circulation, distribution of coins in circulation, difficulty retargeting and mining capability.

Sorry but i am not competent to answer that. But I am confident enough to make that statement because I have read a lot of responses from and discussions between very competent members on this forum, and the concensus is that coinjoin is not, and will not be anonymous enough no matter what changes darksend might have.

Just to make it clear, I don't have any self interest when it comes to darkcoin, and if people want to invest they should do that based on their own judgment and not mine. I have previously warned about numerous scams and this is just one in the line. I dont hold any alt coins now. If i am wrong that would be very good for the community and specially the people buying in now.

I understand. I myself am not aware of the full ins and outs of the anonymity level behind CoinJoin, so it seems we're on the same level with that respect . . in that we're both repeating what we've heard or read for the most part.

On the other hand, I am very willing to keep myself very open to the possibility that even intelligent people are suspect to some form of bias, misunderstanding or lack of immersion.

Actually it was that same openness that led me toward reading up on CoinJoin so that I might find differences in how it was applied in DarkSend.

My initial wording was designed to see if you think anonymity in general is a wasted effort, or if you think the attempt at it in DarkSend was flawed.

Anyways, the label "CoinJoin", to me, just refers to any process that relies on mixing transactions through a trusted 3rd party in order to obscure the blockchain . . which I think severely limits most of the claims DarkSend makes due to pre-existing consensus . . but the developers want to give credit to them so it's mentioned anyways. It's their choice to give credit for original ideas.

The general consensus I've seen so far about DarkSend is that it's not 100% anonymous . . and the developers have been very transparent about that fact. Does this mean that it's useless to me? Absolutely not . . and I will try to provide details.

The major part where DarkSend differs is that it offers anonymity based on the cost that someone is willing to pay to remove it.

Every step in the original CoinJoin process now has a potential penalty that will be imposed for improper behavior by the anonymous, trustless third party doing the mixing. The third party is elected pseudo-randomly based on previous block data (We can assume this to be completely random pending someone being able to predict the outcome of the x11 algorithm).

What this means is that by electing a mixing node based on previous block data . . the chance that you are aware you are a mixing node is drastically reduced with every additional node on the network. In this sense, you are acquiring anonymity and removing the requirement to trust based on chance. This, along with penalties, serves very well in that you are effectively minimizing loss by theft of the master node. There are many more details and you are welcome to dig through them when the white paper is updated (unless you want to dig through the thread), or I can try to find them for you.

Now onto the anonymity part . . which still has some issues but is a damn good attempt and only getting better. By increasing the number of stages of mixing to ten, coupled with ip obfuscation granted by TOR . . higher and higher levels of anonymity are being achieved. What this means is that if I, being a business in this example, were to start conducting transactions with DarkSend . . then none of my competitors will be able to discover my wallet address, or my suppliers, or customers.

I can agree that the refinement is far off from business money entering the picture . . but it's a sure start in the right direction.

I guess what I'm getting at is that right now . . this is one of the best visible attempts at anonymity and taking all of this to the next level that I see. To not offer privacy limits the market caps to a small consumer base, one man shops and investors. The former two are not particularly concentrated sources of value to play on for investors.

This isn't an all or nothing attempt . . and it just can't be as simple as that. Privacy and anonymity can only be provided in stages until (or if at all) something better comes along. What I can say for certain is that if it can be achieved to an acceptable point . . then the other details will hardly matter.