Change Contracts using Atomic Transfers

Dropping it to 0.01 would be a 10x easier sell, but...

Miners and MN ops already have income, devs deserve pay too, send it to the Foundation... 1000 tx's a day @ 0.1 is $240... lets put some worms in Evan's beak (+flare, + UdjinM6, + others) for a change*... :tongue:



*hehe
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thelonecrouton said:
Dropping it to 0.01 would be a 10x easier sell, but...

Miners and MN ops already have income, devs deserve pay too, send it to the Foundation... 1000 tx's a day @ 0.1 is $240... lets put some worms in Evan's beak (+flare, + UdjinM6, + others) for a change*... :tongue:



*hehe
Click to expand...

I understand the sentiment, but I worry about going down the slippery slope of mandatory donations even if the cause is worthy.

I don't think most will mind the transaction fee idea as there is a way to get their coins back, but if we do go with mandatory donations it might be best to do a poll or something to really be sure there will not be a community "revolt" somewhere down the line.
 
JGCMiner said:
I understand the sentiment, but I worry about going down the slippery slope of mandatory donations even if the cause is worthy.

I don't think most will mind the transaction fee idea as there is a way to get their coins back, but if we do go with mandatory donations it might be best to do a poll or something to really be sure there will not be a community "revolt" somewhere down the line.
Click to expand...
Coins to the network, anything else will be spun in a negative light.
 
The fact mixing is free now means the anon tech is cheap. If we lowered the minimum denom amount to .01 and gave the leftover of anon transactions to the miners as tx fee, it would be like incurring a tx fee for darksent coins, the maximum of which would be .00999999~ drk (about $.023). We could test around to see how much bloat it would create and if it was manageable come back to the whole thing later.
 
g8F98FF3gjafogj4 said:
The fact mixing is free now means the anon tech is cheap. If we lowered the minimum denom amount to .01 and gave the leftover of anon transactions to the miners as tx fee, it would be like incurring a tx fee for darksent coins, the maximum of which would be .00999999~ drk (about $.023). We could test around to see how much bloat it would create and if it was manageable come back to the whole thing later.
Click to expand...

This. Most concisely stated. Temporary, but immediate solution. I support this idea!
 
JGCMiner said:
Allow merchants to price at ~1 cent granularity, i.e. add 0.1 AND 0.01 denominations, and then trucate any excess and send it to the miners/MNs as a transaction fee automatically. As the price increases, then the denomination levels can be adjusted to maintain ~1 cent granularity.
Click to expand...

I had (more or less) the same idea yesterday and created a new thread for this because it's not about change contracts anymore...

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/minimal-denomination-enforcement-proposal.3079/

Feel free to destroy the proposal...:smile:
 
oblox said:
As far as I'm concerned, this is more of an issue and pressing than testing instantx. The core drive of this coin is privacy and right now, change back under 1 and reused harms us. Make sure the core feature works first, then build on it. I realize instantx is done but we aren't just marketing a fast confirm coin... we are marketing a privacy-centric coin. Don't ever forget that. The 0.10 denomination cleans up a lot of this problem but it still leaves an issue with what amounts to being around 5c or less in value (sub 0.10). Do I dare say rid the random ds fee of 0.10 and use change 0.0999999999 and less as the "fee". It's still "cheap" for privacy.

The order should be (agree or disagree):

-Darksend
-Masternode obfuscation
-InstantX
Click to expand...


Strongly agree!
 
+1 on that too. But Evan never said it was a priority. Just in the roadmap. I propose a different scenario.

At first, MN were supposed to be the holy grail of DRK rise with the positive feedback loop philosophy. That ship has sailed. To gain momentum, I believe DRK must capitalise itself in the crypto markets ASAP. Darksend works well, and gets better with every iteration. IP obfuscation is good, but not entirely necessary as of this time. If a VPS has an issue, its too simple and fast to setup a server elsewhere. Legal implications? Too soon for that IMHO, but in any case, set it off-shore and done deal.

InstantTX to me far exceeds the anonymity part right now. Anonymity is niche, despite the humungous capital out there, be it micro or macro transactions. But InstantTX is on a different level. If it proves to be totally stable and reliable, it completely nukes every remittance/merchant platform out there, as well as fast paced financial instruments and all.

D+ will for long be associated with darknet markets and illegal activities (media FUD et al.). Gambling and the sex industry. Who would ever buy a product off Amazon, say, needing anonymity?
Widespread merchant adoption is in serious need. And recent polls favout BTC over Apple Pay. But the +/- 1h BTC confirmation time totally devastates the micro-payment cosmos. DRK could seriously make a dent here.

So I would say;

- InstantTX
- D+
- IP obfuscation
 
yidakee said:
+1 on that too. But Evan never said it was a priority. Just in the roadmap. I propose a different scenario.

At first, MN were supposed to be the holy grail of DRK rise with the positive feedback loop philosophy. That ship has sailed. To gain momentum, I believe DRK must capitalise itself in the crypto markets ASAP. Darksend works well, and gets better with every iteration. IP obfuscation is good, but not entirely necessary as of this time. If a VPS has an issue, its too simple and fast to setup a server elsewhere. Legal implications? Too soon for that IMHO, but in any case, set it off-shore and done deal.

InstantTX to me far exceeds the anonymity part right now. Anonymity is niche, despite the humungous capital out there, be it micro or macro transactions. But InstantTX is on a different level. If it proves to be totally stable and reliable, it completely nukes every remittance/merchant platform out there, as well as fast paced financial instruments and all.

D+ will for long be associated with darknet markets and illegal activities (media FUD et al.). Gambling and the sex industry. Who would ever buy a product off Amazon, say, needing anonymity?
Widespread merchant adoption is in serious need. And recent polls favout BTC over Apple Pay. But the +/- 1h BTC confirmation time totally devastates the micro-payment cosmos. DRK could seriously make a dent here.

So I would say;

- InstantTX
- D+
- IP obfuscation
Click to expand...

Why would you try to bring merchant adoption on a privacy-centric coin that currently is "broken" due to a flaw with change. Further, the road ahead for any sort of mainstream adoption is going to long and hard, simply due to the fact that the name has negative connotations to the average joe. Bitcoin's immediate success was built in the darknet markets for years before it really started getting exposure elsewhere. Even then, bitcoin's name was in a far better positioning than darkcoin's. What will most likely need to happen is a specialized, rebranded wallet that basically serves as a mask for the underlying darkcoin functionality.

You really want to bring future users into this coin due to instantx when they could do more research and see the underlying flaw in its privacy? Further, instantx functions due to the masternode network and quite frankly, I think all masternode operators would feel better if their ip addresses and locations weren't exposed to the world. That's why there is a building block order to what should take priority.

I know people want instantx and frankly, I'm just as excited for it as anyone else. But I'm also not foolish in thinking that it's the right path to go down when the core feature of what is and always will be, a privacy-centric coin, needs fixing.
 
I almost agree with yidakee because I'd love to see InstantX in action, too. But thinking more about it, right now Darkcoin is actually much faster than Bitcoin, but why are so many bitcoiners still loyal to bitcoin? Darkcoin has been advertised as the best anonymous coin... and then the flaws are discovered... We need to fix our problems ASAP... Plus Evan is going to appear on the online crypto Expo in a few days, he needs to get things in order before being quizzed by his adversaries... :smile:
 
moli said:
I almost agree with yidakee because I'd love to see InstantX in action, too. But thinking more about it, right now Darkcoin is actually much faster than Bitcoin, but why are so many bitcoiners still loyal to bitcoin? Darkcoin has been advertised as the best anonymous coin... and then the flaws are discovered... We need to fix our problems ASAP... Plus Evan is going to appear on the online crypto Expo in a few days, he needs to get things in order before being quizzed by his adversaries... :smile:
Click to expand...
Bingo, the push towards saying DRK is anonymous must live up to those expectations. It will fall flat on its face to still have problematic areas surrounding that feature. The official stance of the team should be against illegal activity but lets face it, everyone would like to see DRK being the standard currency on Agora or Evolution. It only further solidifies its utility. Quite frankly, the currency that becomes the new standard on those sites and any other large darkmarket website will ultimately be the one that wins the privacy-centric coin space. That is the real testing ground for utility. Show that it really can serve its first purpose and then push for further adoption.
 
The dead change issue seems easily fixable by denominating to 0.1 or preferably 0.01, putting some smarter logic in the wallet to select inputs as close to the send amount as possible, making coin control more obviously accessible, and calling the change a fee.

Oh and UdjinM6's select-your-preferred-anon-chunks upgrade. :smile:
 
oblox, I totally agree with you. When I mentioned merchant adoption, I wasnt referring to change contracts, but DRK in general. When in comes to money, no one gives a damn what its called as long as they hear *catching* in their wallets. Sure, Darkcoin will have a bad connotation for long, but names gain a new meaning with time, intent and use. Like Obama was thrashed as an infiltrated muslim terrorist that would NEVER win because of the name. There is a tobacco brand called Death, and people buy and smoke it (no joke). Money talks, bullshit walks they say..

There is no flaw in D+, it is totally anonymous. The process of anonymising them, that is a big buggy yes. The coin is not even 1 year old. I suspect InstantTX is a much simpler feature to implement that the complexity of denomination. We absolutely have nailed the spot as the nº1 anonymous coin already, why not nail the nº1 for instant TX?
 
yidakee said:
oblox, I totally agree with you. When I mentioned merchant adoption, I wasnt referring to change contracts, but DRK in general. When in comes to money, no one gives a damn what its called as long as they hear *catching* in their wallets. Sure, Darkcoin will have a bad connotation for long, but names gain a new meaning with time, intent and use. Like Obama was thrashed as an infiltrated muslim terrorist that would NEVER win because of the name. There is a tobacco brand called Death, and people buy and smoke it (no joke). Money talks, bullshit walks they say..

There is no flaw in D+, it is totally anonymous. The process of anonymising them, that is a big buggy yes. The coin is not even 1 year old. I suspect InstantTX is a much simpler feature to implement that the complexity of denomination. We absolutely have nailed the spot as the nº1 anonymous coin already, why not nail the nº1 for instant TX?
Click to expand...
Yidakee, you've been away from DRK too long. This is the current issue:

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/dead-change-an-anonymity-issue.3019/

and Evan also fixed another issue that Aswan pointed out, but there's still something to do with the large denoms.
 
yidakee said:
Oh my... yes I was away during that period. Wooops. I had no idea. Need to read that carefully. Thanks moli.
Click to expand...
LOL.. No problem.. As of now, if you blink and miss a few pages on DCT... you really have no idea what's being discussed, like what happened to me... I thought the change issue was if you use your change left from a previous DS transaction, the change would lead right back to your origin address.. So yesterday I did some testing and found that wasn't so... I posted here and people were like "what are you doing moli, what are you talking about, why did you do this..." hahahah.. Found out that wasn't exactly the issue, just because I didn't read everything that Aswan and everybody posted... tl,dr... lol
 
yidakee said:
There is no flaw in D+, it is totally anonymous. The process of anonymising them, that is a big buggy yes. The coin is not even 1 year old. I suspect InstantTX is a much simpler feature to implement that the complexity of denomination. We absolutely have nailed the spot as the nº1 anonymous coin already, why not nail the nº1 for instant TX?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The dead change issue removes anonymity linking future tx's to past tx's. IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. I see instantx testing is out now but this issue needs to be fixed immediately.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top