Quote from: JamesBond009 on June 06, 2014, 05:22:58 AM

Quote from: Ozziecoin on June 06, 2014, 04:58:40 AM

I think gmaxwell is wrong on Darkcoin because the coinjoin model is centralised whereas Darkcoin has decentralised coinjoin. So, I can't see that it is pointless. His support for ring signatures is academic in the sense of "nice in theory but frankly not workable in real life". Those that have experience ring sigs know how buggy and alpha the software. Therefore, for those of us living in the real world - go the darkcoin. Gmaxwell and his bitcoin devs should realise that the IRS has already mapped out all significant bitcoin addresses to social security numbers, whilst they talk debate the alpha tech of ring sigs but yet are doing NOTHING to fix. The bitcoin dev team are looking more pathetic to me everyday.

so something wrong with bitcoin core dev?

gmaxwell implies that darkcoin can not achieve totally Anon features through coinjoin technology???

Huh

Quote from: gmaxwell on May 18, 2014, 10:26:24 PM

Quote from: TheGambler on May 15, 2014, 07:41:19 AM

extremely interesting thread...what struck my eye was the slow validations which can cause a major clog with transactions when Dark Coin (based off of CoinJoin) gets bigger, right? The more coins transacted the slower the confirmations am I right in saying that?

No, not in a meaningful sense. Validation is very cheap. You do run into block size limits if you're trying to transact too much at once, but any privacy system is limited in its privacy by transaction volume.

"Dark Coin" really strikes me as pointless. The whole idea in coinjoin is that coinjoin is already part of the design of Bitcoin. There is no advantage in having a new and different system. If you're going to do something incompatible, losing Bitcoin's network effect in the process, then you can do something much stronger.

It also depresses me somewhat to see people talking about darkcoin (or even zerocoin/zerocash) when bytecoin has a privacy system with much better properties than CoinJoin (it's similar to CJ except you safely join with offline coin holders, and all users are participants), something made possible by the fact that it doesn't have to fit within the existing Bitcoin network, and it's completely practical, reasonably performant and deployed for some time now. But strangely, it's virtually unheard of... Bytecoin's privacy properties are in some sense weaker than zerocoin's since its like a supercharged coinjoin but the cryptography is much stronger and much more efficient, so in practice I'd expect it to have better anonymity just due to it being much more practical (also as evidence to it existing as a deployed system). ... so yea, if you actually are interested in privacy technology in a non-bitcoin system, Bytecoin seems to have pretty much nailed it.

"Why CoinJoin, as Used in DarkCoin,does NOT bring Full Anonymity"

http://www.scribd.com/doc/227369807/Bitcoin-Coinjoin-Not-Anonymous-v01

Quote from: eduffield on May 31, 2014, 09:21:52 PM

Darksend isn't finished yet and was never promised to be 100% anonymous unless you use great care.

From Evan (of DRK) himself: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg7060893#msg7060893
So with DRK, we have an UNFINISHED product that will NEVER be 100% anonymous. #FAIL