dude, there is a darksend whitepaper which demonstrates how it works, the code was reviewed by K Atlas, plus people have been trying to break it (unsuccessfully) since it was launched.

citing my reply to icebreakers ridiculous signature as 'darkcoins proof' is equally ridiculous.

Also, I'd like to say that XMR has great anon, I'm not disputing that....

Sorry i don't have time to read this whole thread and respond to everything but i will say that no coin is NSA proof, let me say that again, no coin is NSA proof. That being said it's probably not a good idea to hitch your wagon to a coin that is a one trick bloated pony that only does anon and will eventually be replaced by zerocash or something else that does it better. You want a coin that can do things like instant transactions and NSA resistant anon transactions and a whole lot more.

In the near future i see Darkcoin/DASH and the 2-tier masternode architecture as being able to do almost everything maidsafe, bitshares, ripple etc can do but on steroids.

This is a post so that this thread shows up in Show replies to your posts.

So, IBTL.

Fair comment, I wasn't sure of the timing, as I pointed out in my earlier post.


I agree, on paper the monero/zerocoin approach is more solid for anon although not without other issues, e.g. bloat. I would say some future Zerocash implementation is the best theoretical anon coin.

Meanwhile, DRK's proposition is 'good enough' working anon and a host of other features based off masternodes, coupled with BTC compatibility for easy merchant adoption.


I still don't know what your point is. DRK has native instant TX today...I think the market is buying this feature. It's a good feature


Your point being?

Again it's a good feature - the devs can roll back new releases. It doesn't ultimately undermine the trustless nature of the coin, it just provides a level of control for new releases.

DRK has good features, but XMR people just want to attack them and never provide a balanced view. I support both coins and try to have a balanced view....more of that needed here I think if crypto is going to go mainstream.

This just baffles me.  Why on earth would a dev want that kind of vulnerability, centralization, power, and responsibility?

It seems like drawing a target on your back and making yourself a magnet for $5 wrenches, which should greatly concern anyone not protected by mobsters and/or TLAs.

That's probably why nobody else does it.

dude, your thinly-vieled 'neutral debate' BS is plainly exposed by such rhetoric...

It is called Spork https://www.darkcoin.io/about/what-is-darkcoin/spork/


Now here is something really worth discussing. I was starting to get bored with the Darkcoin instamine discussion. To say that this is dangerous is an understatement. This effectively turns a decentralized virtual currency into a centralized virtual currency and the holder(s) of the private keys that control the Spork(s) would very likely need to register as an MSB in the United States and the equivalent in many other countries.

Darkcoin has a ton of bloat. In fact, if you compare a set of DarkSend transactions with a Monero transaction at a high mixin of, say, 20 you will notice that Monero's reduced scripting size makes it quite a bit smaller. If Darkcoin users start using DarkSend all the time instead of just occasionally you will experience phenomenal bloat.


Just like GreenAddress it still requires trust, and it's still open to malleability attacks.


I don't think you understand what "trustless" means. Without "trustless"-ness a cryptocurrency is neither safe nor fungible. Bitcoin is being picked up by forward-thinking institutions and corporations because they understand this trustless nature. They would never trust something like this where someone else controls a kill switch, not when they have a trustless alternative.


It has reimplementations of features that are already available in Bitcoin, nothing innovative or unique. You can CoinJoin in Bitcoin, you can instantly transact using GreenAddress.it, all available right now. That is not an attack, that is a balanced view. Moreover, the lack of rigour in the implementation is disconcerting at best. Designing decentralised systems is hard (human instinct is to trust "voting" or some form of perceived supermajority, which is almost always easily exploitable). Designing robust decentralised systems from an "assumed malice" perspective is harder still (Darkcoin is designed from an "assumed trust" perspective). Designing anti-fragile systems is an art on its own. Monero is VERY far from being anti-fragile, but every day we work towards it.

lol, so you have proof the darkcoin/DASH dev owns 40% of the coins. and you wonder why no DASH people are wasting their time on this thread. bye bye