Re: [ANN][DRK] DarkCoin | First Anonymous Coin | First X11 | First DGW

And a serious question to Evan.

Would it be possible to extend the # of participating MNs via a configurable user option to enhance anonymity past Ring Sig levels?

MN = 0 ; Normal Transaction
MN = 1 ; Current mode
MN = 2 ; Darksend+
MN = 3 ; Darksend++
MN = 4 ; Good luck NSA
MN = 5 ; OKTHXBAI

Are we concerned about bloat in this case? Too complicated for average Joe to use in GUI?

Yes it's possible. No, the way he would do it wouldn't cause a lot of bloat. Nor would it complicate the UI.

WOW! Sorry if this was supposed to come as an announcement later as we have not seen anonymity "levels" configurable option discussed before, but thanks for the reply. That changes everything as far as transaction obfuscation was compared to CN/Ring Sigs. I think I do remember however that Evan decided to stay away from a Ring Sig port, must have been due to bloating concerns.

Similar comment, but, with an addition that I think an additional fee should be due for super-deep anon. The added fee also helps obfuscate since it makes the input and output not match up even more. Pay this to the MNs explicitly? Since the miners aren't the ones making it happen?

Masternode concept is awesome. Beats the hell out of any PoSA notion for this reason alone.

Well, the only problem I have with this is that it makes it more expensive (in relative terms) for normal people to use the best security possible, which I think runs counter to the objectives of the project.

Even if we made it so that the sender's wallet balance triggers higher fees, it's simple enough to move DRK around.

This all assumes, of course, that it would be selectable or optional in the first place, which, like I said, may or may not be the best way to do it.

Since the suggested fee is a function of added bloat, I think that the option of being paid to host that chain already incentivizes enough.... Not a direct correlation, but since the MN is already (potentially/proxy) being paid for the bloat/chain hosting, maybe it doesn't matter and is merely splitting hairs...

Being a masternode already implies that you aren't much good if you don't have the whole chain and I suspect that hosting the full chain will someday be a requirement for being a masternode. Would be a nice low-hanging-fruit to tackle right now before the blockchain is 35GB... Why wait?

Deep mixing has brought the matter to light. Why not?

Good point, I suppose. It's basically a secondary revenue incentive for MN creation without hitting miners. Sort of like a sales tax, your rate is proportional to your spending. I still don't like the idea of charging more for it, for the reasons I mention above. Maybe something like a sliding scale based on send amount would be ok. I'm not going to be spending 10k DRK anytime soon, but some rich dude might.

I have DRK fat stacks and I'm fine with the idea. But there is the point that it is meant to be integral. Why should I get better anon just because I can afford it? Well, duh. That answers itself. BECAUSE I CAN AFFORD IT. Same reason I'm buying a Tesla Model S and you're not. Fairness has not a damn thing to do with it.

But your point is still valid. I guess it really depends on how this fattens the blockchain. Those adding fat should pay a little more. And they should pay it to the people who have to host it and mix it, the MNs. But, the bottom line question is really not there... We know there is a disparity, but is it enough to care?

Is it enough fat to warrant charging more? Do the MNs already get enough compensation for hosting the blockchain anyway? It's not so much about "buying more anon" but paying for the fact that it adds more fat. If the amount of fat added is inconsequential, then no reason to even have it be an option. It should be the default, and it should be the same for everyone if that is the case. This whole conversation is moot if the fat is not enough to care.

Agreed. I was using "network overhead" instead of "fat" Grin

I chose fat because it's not just pipe and CPU, but storage. It's fat in every direction, so called it fat...

Nobody is bitching about how much bandwidth the BTC blockchain is using... They're not hosting it because it doesn't fit and there is no incentive to make it fit.