Yeah, would take about 600 Titans to double the LTC total hash and completely drive off everyone else, then the Titan owners would briefly rejoice and mine loads of coins, which they could try selling to each other, because nobody else will want them, while gibbering about how they have "secured the network!" the price will plummet to zero and there will be Titan owners jumping off bridges with their Titans around their necks to weigh them down when they hit the freezing water. Others will post Youtube videos of Titan vs 12ga slug , Titan vs sledgehammer, Titan vs starving honeybadger, we'll find out if Titans blend, and some lucky Titans will find their way to museums of useless technology to be preserved forever as a testament to the perils of food additives and slack parenting.

 

Well, I was wrong yesterday when I sold my DRK for 0.0028 about an hour after I (re-)acquired it at 0.0027
I found the low point again (spot on for the third time in a row) but I missed the high point this time. I almost withdraw it all (since I couldn't loose on DRK anymore after last week's trades) but I figured I want a fresh wallet and I was lazy to create one, so I went for a few percent instant profit instead and hoped to buy back a little bit lower before something happes. Well, it happened and it was too late when I noticed.
Now I need to wait another week to buy back or possibly loose a lot of BTC from the earlier DRK trading profits if it doesn't want to fall below 0.0028 again.

I don't trade short term because I don't want to profit and take money out of DRK and have others lose faith and get burned. I can't blame people for doing it though but I sure don't think it's a good topic to have around except when you lose and get burned cause you sold to low - I like that.

The reason DRK has been stable is cause everyone has been holding for a long time not easily giving up their coins. But as soon there's some honey in the pot you get all sweet toothed.

You deserve some cavities.

Thanks

Hi Evan,

I think it is a good solution, but it has a couple small drawbacks - I want to make a couple additional proposals to address these issues:

Here are the drawbacks:

1) If John wants to darksend his whole balance of 102 he is granted little anonymity unless addtitional people step up and volunteer inputs of 102 coins. A mechanism to solicit the nodes participating in the pool to submit additional 102 coin inputs might need to be added.  Alternatively (or in addition), nodes could be sent CHANGE of 102 coins to one of their change addresses.  (this idea of sending known receive amounts to various change addresses might be useful in other situtations as well - I will try to think about this a bit more)

I suppose it is possible (in theory) that John could be inputting 102 coins into the pool and sending less, while someone else is inputting say 104 coins, sending 102 and receiving 2 back as change. I still think this is a problem though because extremely strong inferences could be drawn pointing to John as the sender of 102 coins.

2) The problem of large spends exposing the sender is still an issue, denominated change will help create some fog, but VERY strong inferences of who sent what to whom could still be drawn if a "full change block" is spent in a single large spend, for example if Joe sends that 80DRK change block above to coinbase, it could be strongly inferred that he was the sender of 73 coins to mary, and now the feds have his personal info (coinbase).  Although this doesn't prove that Joe sent mary 73 coins, it might be enough evidence to grant a warrant to search Joe's residence.  So I would like to propose a strong countermeasure that will largely solve this problem.

First, in order to prevent "full change blocks" from giving away the sender, I think you should try to build in some logic that tries (if possible) to break these large change blocks up when making subsequent spends. The key here is that you would want to try to break up these denominated "change blocks" into smaller chunks that might match one of the other "change chunks" from that pool.

For example:

 - John adds 102DRK to the pool, sends 101DRK to Lisa and receives back 1DRK as change addresses E=1DRK
 - Joe adds 153DRK to the pool, sends 73DRK to Mary and receives back 80DRK as change addresses F=50DRK, G=10DRK,H=10DRK,I=5DRK,J=5DRK
  -Suzy adds 240DRK to the pool, sends 100DRK to Jane and receives back 140DRK on change addresses K=50DRK, L=50DRK, M=10DRK, N=10DRK, O=10DRK, P=5DRK, Q=5DRK

Later Suzy wants to darksend a different person "Jack" 104 coins

She sends Jack 80 coins (composed of addresses L=50DRK, M=10DRK, N=10DRK, P=5DRK, Q=5DRK) + 24 coins from her wallet that did NOT participate in the above pool.

This would give the appearance of outing Suzy as the person who sent 73DRK to Mary and received 80 back as change.  But as you can see it was actually JOE that made this tranasction! Mary is faking it!

Of course we wouldn't want to tell suzy's wallet to try to make a chunk of 80 because then suzy would know that Joe sent 73 coins to mary, we want suzy's wallet to figure out all of the possible combinations, then just send one random one.

So:  

Suzy's wallet would try to spoof "possible change blocks"of:

102-1 = 1 <- an actual change block!
102-73= 29
102-100 = 2
153-101= 52
153-73 = 80<- an actual change block!
153-100= 53
240-101=139
240-73=167
240-100=140<- an actual change block!

As you can see some of these combos actually match real change blocks, others do not. Suzy doesn't know which do and which do not, she tries to assemble whichever change block she can from the change that she has.

The beauty of this is that suzy is not privy to any information that is NOT already on the blockchain, but she DOES have enough info to spoof ALL of the possible "change blocks"

I think this does a lot to ablate the "dirty change blocks" problem.

In the end I think the "Dark Receive" address idea (addresses composed of many sub-addresses) is a superior solution, but the above does a hell of a lot to ablate the problems that we have been talking about.

Let me know what you think.  Hopefully I didn't mess up the logic in my head  

 I undserstand your point, but litecoin got to where it is ... why?

The promise of ASIC resistance, and 2.5mins tx time. Nothing else. As a coin, it has had zero development and marketing strategy, and nowadays, offers nothing. Nº of coins available is also subject to speculation for success.

In the meantime they did get market cap, as hoards of GPU's joined the network. So eventually, they did get merchant acceptance, as a natural progression.

In that sense, even Doge will outrank them, as soon as its NASCAR car hits the pavement.

DRK, as we all know, actually brings everything that LTC brought to the table, plus Darksend with true innovative features, and at least 1 to 2 years or ASIC free mining.

I'm sorry, I didn't follow the whole Darksend topic. My English is not so good, but...

What about if sending the amount will be of portions by 1000, 100, 10, 1, 0.1 etc... If I as A want to send someone as B as example 358DRK, my wallet will send to some masternode wallet addresses 3x100, 5x10 and 8x1DRK (or one 300, one 50 and one 8 to different masternode addresses). Of course other users will send to these addresses too and then the masternode can sum the all my amount and send it to B. So masternodes will use multiple addresses as some kind of a big dam and users will use only one address each. Sorry if this is too noob as idea )

Now THAT is true Utopia IMO!

If you look at blockchain in my case you'll see:

Address A: +10, -30... -300, -50, -80... -20, +400 > different masternode addresses

Another masternode address > Address B: +358

On that big rise we had, it started going up so fast, and I thought, oh, I'll sell and buy back low, and lost half my coins, 'cause I bought back high, ROFLMAO, never ever again!