Quote from: rethink-your-strategy on July 31, 2014, 12:59:53 PM

Quote from: stealth923 on July 31, 2014, 12:33:55 PM

1) Kristov Atlas is reviewing the code and design right now.
2) Wrong - this has been discussed in depth for over 6 months, why do you think its 2500 pages. People like anonymint have given the thumbs up even over Monero.
3) Software development to this scale and complexity is not a fool proof science, id like to see you try. At least he is full time and trying until he and the team succeeds.
4) & 5) Look here for things like collusion probability

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-updates-july-15th.1788/
https://darkcointalk.org/threads/development-update-july-30th.1924/

fernando on the darkcointalk.org forums created a chart outlining the probability of unmasking a Darksend by way of Masternode collusion at depths of both 2 and 8 Masternode hops:

2 hops: http://goo.gl/g1dQ3C
8 hops: http://goo.gl/TcWoF0

1. Peer-reviews consist of multiple eyes on things, not a single person. Either way, let's see what comes out of that. At this stage I have my doubts about him being unbiased.

2. I know you're talking bullshit. Do you know you're talking bullshit? Here is AnonyMint's overview of anonymous cryptocurrencies. He lists many common "cons" among the coins (many of which are not credible threats at this juncture, if you want my personal opinion). He does, however, make a point of noting that Monero (and Boolberry, by extension) are "cryptographically unlinkable & untraceable", whereas he notes that DarkCoin is not as anonymous, as it suffers from "unlinkability Sybil attack on masternodes". The only thing AnonyMint says about Cloakcoin is that, in respects to DarkCoin, "this is the best CloakCoin's anonymity could improve to as it is similar conceptually in design".

3. Nobody is expecting fool-proof. Everyone is expect, at least, that an incredibly simple block reward formula in the whitepaper works in the code. That is not the case, and incompetence in one area almost always indicates incompetence elsewhere.

4. and 5. (no clue how this relates to 5) - collusion on its own is irrelevant. Of course it will be ineffectual. It would always be coupled with the compromise or the DDoSing of additional "masternodes". In such an event, the number of available masternodes is massively reduced, which means the the little Google spreadsheet is incorrect. Many hosts will null-route a dedicated server (even more so a VPS) if it is experiencing a DDoS. Other attacks such as a DDoS group constantly requesting a stream of blocks from a masternode would lead to its traffic exceeding normal use and massive traffic bills. Similarly, a DDoS group could broadcast thousands of bad blocks a second to a masternode, leading to it chewing through CPU cycles doing very heavy X11 verifications, ultimately leading to it becoming inaccessible or being killed by the oomkiller. Those are just off the top of my head, of course, and the attack stands regardless of whether these specific scenarios can be mitigated against.

1. Yes, we need more than one person to give us feedback on the code. Hopefully more will step in to audit the code or as stated before open it up for any coders that want to look over for us.

2. AnonyMint may have found flaws, but how many of them are realistic? I do not fully understand those attack vectors... but soo many have said Bitcoin has exploits like a 51% attack, or dishonest mining pools, but all of those have been proven not to work without throwing massive amounts of resources at them.. the question is, are these attacks feasible?

3. Thats why they have to test and release new revisions, look how many times the bitcoin wallet has been changed.

4. Time will tell, lets just hope it dosnt turn into a Vericoin fiasco.. doing a "shutter" rollback "shutter".