Re: [ANN][XC][OFFICIAL] >> Mandatory Wallet Update (01/06) - X11/PoS/Anon
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.40
Here is some words from a bitcoin core dev
http://img03.taobaocdn.com/imgextra/i3/888367355/TB2po2SXXXXXXbWXFXXXXXXXXXX_!!888367355.png
Ozziecoin, Your pump and dump dance would probably be more effective if you were less transparently dishonest in your approach. I'm normally happy to ignore the nonsense in the altcoin subform, but since you saw fit to go distrupt the coinjoin thread with some offtopic insult hurling I thought I'd bring the extensive response back here where its topical.
CoinJoin is trustless which is orthogonal with centralized or decentralized, it could be implemented several ways (though trustlessness is usually a prerequisite to a decenteralized implementation). Post 5 in the CoinJoin thread writes in depth about implementing it in a decenteralized way, none of which appears to have been implemented by the darkcoin developers as far as I can tell from what I've heard it seems that they're not even able to understand it. (This is a disappointment to me, since I was trying to describe these ideas clearly so others could understand them.)
More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess it's impossible to review due to it being closed though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.
As I've said before CoinJoin is interesting because it's inherently part of Bitcoin already it just needed better tools (and now there are some, e.g. darkwallet) to make it available to people. It's a privacy improvement over not having it, but it isn't perfect, but it also didn't require any changes to Bitcoin (much less a whole altcoin) to deploy it. In an incompatible system much better is possible as is proposed by ZeroCash and much better is actually _realized_ by Bytecoin (and its forks... Monero, Fantomcoin, etc.), the later are actually working (if immature, due reinventing many wheels) implementations of much stronger privacy, decenteralized in their implementation, all released under a good open source license.
From what I can tell the only purpose DarkCoin serves is to depress me about the state of humanity.
CoinJoin is trustless which is orthogonal with centralized or decentralized, it could be implemented several ways (though trustlessness is usually a prerequisite to a decenteralized implementation). Post 5 in the CoinJoin thread writes in depth about implementing it in a decenteralized way, none of which appears to have been implemented by the darkcoin developers as far as I can tell from what I've heard it seems that they're not even able to understand it. (This is a disappointment to me, since I was trying to describe these ideas clearly so others could understand them.)
More amusingly, what DarkCoin does is highly centralized because the software is closed you can't get more centralized than closed source. What the actual behavior is, is anyone's guess it's impossible to review due to it being closed though "masternodes" does not sound like something decenteralized, it sounds like something that creates a small chokepoint which could be used to deanonymize its users, like a server based CoinJoin but worse since you have to hold a huge pile of coins to run a server.
As I've said before CoinJoin is interesting because it's inherently part of Bitcoin already it just needed better tools (and now there are some, e.g. darkwallet) to make it available to people. It's a privacy improvement over not having it, but it isn't perfect, but it also didn't require any changes to Bitcoin (much less a whole altcoin) to deploy it. In an incompatible system much better is possible as is proposed by ZeroCash and much better is actually _realized_ by Bytecoin (and its forks... Monero, Fantomcoin, etc.), the later are actually working (if immature, due reinventing many wheels) implementations of much stronger privacy, decenteralized in their implementation, all released under a good open source license.
From what I can tell the only purpose DarkCoin serves is to depress me about the state of humanity.
Now who is doing the pumping for his coin?
I haven't promoted anything here, except arguably the Bytecoin/etc. ones which aren't mine by any means.Quote
As I see it coinjoin as it stands is highly centralised and subject to being co-opted.
You're asserting this but you haven't justified it. I can't counter an assertion because I don't even know what you're saying is centeralized or how you believe it could be co-opted.Quote
Why would you attack Darkcoin?
Because it's closed source stuff of dubious quality which appears to being deceptively marketed.Quote
Afterall, the devs themselves have said they will make the code available soon.
This isn't how cryptosystem development works. History supports taking the position that is closed should be automatically assumed to be snake-oil if not an outright trojan until proven otherwise. It's highly suspect. Systems which are good do not need to hide their operation, not if you're going to ask other people to use it.Quote
It seems to me you are prejudiced against Darkcoin. Why? I cannot fathom nor am I interested.
Why do you ask why and then claim disinterest? I am prejudiced against vaporware, closed source, and pump and dump nonsense. I am prejudice against things which exploit the technical work I've done, trade on it's name (as Darkcoin did at first, until I started blasting it it), to the apparent purpose of extracting funds from people who are less technically sophisticated. Beyond the basic immorality of it, I worry that this fundraising style will remove people's willingness to support real improvements that aren't scams, since its hard for them to tell them apart.Quote
than your 1 centralised coinmixing server.
What are you talking about here? Nothing I've ever described involved a singular "coinmixing" server.Quote
As for you saying that CoinJoin is inherently part of Bitcoin; how so? It is not part of the protocol. I do not see many people use it on a day to day basis. It is not part of computer wallets. Which part of it is actually "inherent". Why cannot Litecoin use it "inherently" tomorrow if they wanted to? I see nothing inherent about it at all.
I'm now suspecting that you've never read the CoinJoin post at all pointing out that it was part of the protocol was the point. It's also inherently a part of Litecoin or anything else that copied the bitcoin code slavishly. It's a result of how signatures work in Bitcoin. Getting wallet interfaces and such developed for it was the motivation for the CoinJoin post, and now there has been good movement on that front.Quote
Please, Zerocash is totally closed source right now so how would you know it is better?
Closed source? It's not actually implemented yet, but unlike "DarkCoin" they've extensively described their approach in their academic publications and subjected it to extensive peer review. I'm not a fan of the security assumptions it makes, but the privacy properties the system should achieve are basically perfect.Quote
And bytecoin and its various forks have problems with blockchain bloat.
All cryptographically strongly-private decenteralized cryptocurrencies are going to be unprunable to some degree, which is an unfortunate scalability tradeoff but considering that no Bitcoin implementation in production today implements pruning anyways, it's hardly a fatal one at least in the medium term. The tradeoff here is fundamental: if you don't know what coin has been spent, you can't forget any of them. Of course, a system could have less privacy and things forever out of the anonymity set could be forgotten but thats the tradeoff you get.
maybe you should read this article:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=641178.0
Here is a article:
http://cryptolife.net/darkcoin-the-next-big-thing-or-just-another-pump-and-dump/
DarkCoin The Next Big Thing, or Just Another Pump and Dump?
Released just shy of 5 months ago, darkcoin has quickly ascended the ranks of the cryptocurrency world, securing the #4 spot on coinmarketcap. Boasting what appears to be an impressive suite of anonymity features, darkcoin has successfully marketed itself as the rare breed of substantive altcoin. Is it, though? Peer beyond the surface, and youll quickly discover that darkcoin is not dark in name only.
Darksend Drama
Overhyped and misunderstood, darksend is touted as the killer feature thatll send darkcoins price to the moon. What is darksend? In short, a protocol that groups transactions in such a way that the source and destination of the coins are muddied. As previously mentioned http://cryptolife.net/breakdown-anonymizing-cryptocurrencies/, darksend is not a comprehensive anonymity solution. At best, it provides pseudonymity. In spite of that, the people promoting this coin still use misleading buzzwords like anonymous payments and hailing the feature as something totally unique and groundbreaking, and perhaps the greatest thing since bitcoin itself. The reality of it all couldnt be farther from that.
Darksend itself is not even a unique feature, nor was it created by Evan Duffield, Darkcoins lead developer. Darksend is merely an implementation of the CoinJoin specification https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0 originally created by Greg Maxwell, one of the bitcoin core developers. Still, Duffield does his best to avoid giving any credit to Maxwell. Take a look through his posts, youll not see a mention of CoinJoin or Maxwell.
To make matters worse, darksend is closed source. Take a moment to reflect upon how ridiculous it is to take open source software (bitcoin), layer an open source specification on top of it (coinjoin), and then keep the result (darksend) closed source. It goes against the fundamental principles of the cryptocurrency movement, and is reflective of the motives of the developer.
Amusingly enough, Maxwell himself is on the record https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg6804719#msg6804719 stating that CoinJoin is inferior to other anonymizing protocols that are already available. Put simply, Darksend does not live up to the hype that surrounds it. It can not ensure anonymization of payments.
Darkcoin makes use of so-called masternodes that assist with darksend transactions. Last week, a bug in the code unleashed havoc upon the network, causing it to continually fork and putting the coin into a nonfunctional state. A hardfork had to be issued to fix the issue.
Having said all that, Duffield is no idiot. He knows the limitations of darksend. But hes not concerned about it. Why, you ask? Darksend is very good at generating hype. Hype leads to price apprecation. And who benefits from price appreciation? Coin holders, of course. Which brings me to my next point
Huge instamine and subsidy reduction
Since Im writing about it, it should come as no surprise that this coin has an instamine associated with it. This one went unnoticed for quite some time, but by taking a quick look at blockchain data we can see what went on. During the first 15 hours, between block 1 http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?000007d91d1254d60e2dd1ae580383070a4ddffa4c64c2eeb4a2f9ecc0414343.htm and block 4000 http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?00000000fc0ee07e47609bae8d5fe5d774193c71d518c56dfe8faaf7d780a03f.htm , approximately 1.75m darkcoins were generated.
Immediately after this period, Duffield claimed that there was a bug in the block reward calculations, and issued a hardfork to address it. After this fork, the block reward quickly dwindled down to an insignificant amount. Right now, it sits at a pitiful 5 DRK. A farcry from the 500 that it used to be.
The result? Darkcoin is currently at 80,000 blocks, but theres only 4.3m DRK out there. Five months later, the 1.75m generated during those first 4200 blocks still represents 40% of all DRK in existence.
Dark beginnings
Darkcoin was initially released as XCoin, and didnt attract much fanfare. This is partially because it was released without a working windows client, one of the obvious marks of a scam, http://cryptolife.net/the-anatomy-of-a-scamcoin-7-things-to-know-before-investing-in-an-altcoin/ making mining it very difficult.
Who, then, was in the best position to mine the initial 4200 blocks? None other than Duffield and his buddies. The truth of the matter is that the aforementioned block reward bug was intentional and allowed him to mine a large number of coins for himself, in an attempt to avoid the negative stigma associated with obvious premining/instamining and it seems to have worked.
With a current market cap of just over $50m, Duffield has no doubt profited quite handsomely off of this scam. The real question is, how many of these coins have been dumped on the market? How many are in the process of being dumped? Hard to say without deep blockchain analysis, but its irrelevant either way. The price of altcoins are held up largely by peoples reluctance to sell. When one person, or a group of people, control a majority of coins, this creates a situation where the price of the coin is either artificially inflated, or gets pounded into the ground. A poor investment to be sure, made even poorer when you take a look at the 30 day price history. If you think growth like this is sustainable, history would like to have a word with you.
http://img01.taobaocdn.com/imgextra/i1/888367355/TB2uodDXpXXXXXFXFXXXXXXXXXX_!!888367355.png
Conclusion
All hype and no substance, darkcoin is far from a serious contender in the altcoin world. Its suite of anonymity features are falsely advertised, offering pseudonymity at best. At the end of the day, darkcoin offers nothing of true value over other coins. Couple this with shady release tactics, a sizable instamine, and unsustainable price increases, only a fool would dare invest in this coin right now.
http://cryptolife.net/darkcoin-the-next-big-thing-or-just-another-pump-and-dump/
DarkCoin The Next Big Thing, or Just Another Pump and Dump?
Released just shy of 5 months ago, darkcoin has quickly ascended the ranks of the cryptocurrency world, securing the #4 spot on coinmarketcap. Boasting what appears to be an impressive suite of anonymity features, darkcoin has successfully marketed itself as the rare breed of substantive altcoin. Is it, though? Peer beyond the surface, and youll quickly discover that darkcoin is not dark in name only.
Darksend Drama
Overhyped and misunderstood, darksend is touted as the killer feature thatll send darkcoins price to the moon. What is darksend? In short, a protocol that groups transactions in such a way that the source and destination of the coins are muddied. As previously mentioned http://cryptolife.net/breakdown-anonymizing-cryptocurrencies/, darksend is not a comprehensive anonymity solution. At best, it provides pseudonymity. In spite of that, the people promoting this coin still use misleading buzzwords like anonymous payments and hailing the feature as something totally unique and groundbreaking, and perhaps the greatest thing since bitcoin itself. The reality of it all couldnt be farther from that.
Darksend itself is not even a unique feature, nor was it created by Evan Duffield, Darkcoins lead developer. Darksend is merely an implementation of the CoinJoin specification https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0 originally created by Greg Maxwell, one of the bitcoin core developers. Still, Duffield does his best to avoid giving any credit to Maxwell. Take a look through his posts, youll not see a mention of CoinJoin or Maxwell.
To make matters worse, darksend is closed source. Take a moment to reflect upon how ridiculous it is to take open source software (bitcoin), layer an open source specification on top of it (coinjoin), and then keep the result (darksend) closed source. It goes against the fundamental principles of the cryptocurrency movement, and is reflective of the motives of the developer.
Amusingly enough, Maxwell himself is on the record https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.msg6804719#msg6804719 stating that CoinJoin is inferior to other anonymizing protocols that are already available. Put simply, Darksend does not live up to the hype that surrounds it. It can not ensure anonymization of payments.
Darkcoin makes use of so-called masternodes that assist with darksend transactions. Last week, a bug in the code unleashed havoc upon the network, causing it to continually fork and putting the coin into a nonfunctional state. A hardfork had to be issued to fix the issue.
Having said all that, Duffield is no idiot. He knows the limitations of darksend. But hes not concerned about it. Why, you ask? Darksend is very good at generating hype. Hype leads to price apprecation. And who benefits from price appreciation? Coin holders, of course. Which brings me to my next point
Huge instamine and subsidy reduction
Since Im writing about it, it should come as no surprise that this coin has an instamine associated with it. This one went unnoticed for quite some time, but by taking a quick look at blockchain data we can see what went on. During the first 15 hours, between block 1 http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?000007d91d1254d60e2dd1ae580383070a4ddffa4c64c2eeb4a2f9ecc0414343.htm and block 4000 http://chainz.cryptoid.info/drk/block.dws?00000000fc0ee07e47609bae8d5fe5d774193c71d518c56dfe8faaf7d780a03f.htm , approximately 1.75m darkcoins were generated.
Immediately after this period, Duffield claimed that there was a bug in the block reward calculations, and issued a hardfork to address it. After this fork, the block reward quickly dwindled down to an insignificant amount. Right now, it sits at a pitiful 5 DRK. A farcry from the 500 that it used to be.
The result? Darkcoin is currently at 80,000 blocks, but theres only 4.3m DRK out there. Five months later, the 1.75m generated during those first 4200 blocks still represents 40% of all DRK in existence.
Dark beginnings
Darkcoin was initially released as XCoin, and didnt attract much fanfare. This is partially because it was released without a working windows client, one of the obvious marks of a scam, http://cryptolife.net/the-anatomy-of-a-scamcoin-7-things-to-know-before-investing-in-an-altcoin/ making mining it very difficult.
Who, then, was in the best position to mine the initial 4200 blocks? None other than Duffield and his buddies. The truth of the matter is that the aforementioned block reward bug was intentional and allowed him to mine a large number of coins for himself, in an attempt to avoid the negative stigma associated with obvious premining/instamining and it seems to have worked.
With a current market cap of just over $50m, Duffield has no doubt profited quite handsomely off of this scam. The real question is, how many of these coins have been dumped on the market? How many are in the process of being dumped? Hard to say without deep blockchain analysis, but its irrelevant either way. The price of altcoins are held up largely by peoples reluctance to sell. When one person, or a group of people, control a majority of coins, this creates a situation where the price of the coin is either artificially inflated, or gets pounded into the ground. A poor investment to be sure, made even poorer when you take a look at the 30 day price history. If you think growth like this is sustainable, history would like to have a word with you.
http://img01.taobaocdn.com/imgextra/i1/888367355/TB2uodDXpXXXXXFXFXXXXXXXXXX_!!888367355.png
Conclusion
All hype and no substance, darkcoin is far from a serious contender in the altcoin world. Its suite of anonymity features are falsely advertised, offering pseudonymity at best. At the end of the day, darkcoin offers nothing of true value over other coins. Couple this with shady release tactics, a sizable instamine, and unsustainable price increases, only a fool would dare invest in this coin right now.