v0.10.12.x RC4 Testing

Status
Not open for further replies.
vertoe said:
eduffield There is an issue with the keypool that should be looked at.

The auto denomination uses the keypool to pick random unknown addresses from the wallet to denominate the funds.

Now when I go to recieve and hit "New Address" I also get a new address from the same key pool. This conflicts a little bit with the denominations addresses. I just hit that button and noticed that I got a new address which is already used by the denomination process. The result is, now when I use that address to recieve money, the whole denomination to this address is void as this address is suddenly known.

Shouldnt there be two different key pools for main addresses and denomination addresses?
Click to expand...
Good point. Maybe denomination addresses should even use different address version, so that's impossible to use them accidentically as normal addresses? ( If feasable we could use address version 30, so that denomination addresses start with a 'D' ;)
 
flare said:
Good point. Maybe denomination addresses should even use different address version, so that's impossible to use them accidentically as normal addresses? ( If feasable we could use address version 30, so that denomination addresses start with a 'D' ;)
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this break homogenaeity and make analysis easier?
 
flare said:
Yeah, this also came into my mind that this might weaken the process :) But then txn with 10.00000001, 100.00000001 amount are vulnerable to analysis, too.
Click to expand...
A check for outliers like this could be run first and additional funds added to compensate.
 
vertoe said:
eduffield There is an issue with the keypool that should be looked at.

The auto denomination uses the keypool to pick random unknown addresses from the wallet to denominate the funds.

Now when I go to recieve and hit "New Address" I also get a new address from the same key pool. This conflicts a little bit with the denominations addresses. I just hit that button and noticed that I got a new address which is already used by the denomination process. The result is, now when I use that address to recieve money, the whole denomination to this address is void as this address is suddenly known.

Shouldnt there be two different key pools for main addresses and denomination addresses?
Click to expand...

Tried to replicate it without success. This new wallet only had the custom address and "yidakee testnet1" ... note, denomination work much swifter now!

xJqvEYc.png


YE3rpW3.png


CHYWFvW.png


created a few addresses

aczZpFd.png


Barely slept, but I dont see any matches.
Is it this vertoe, did I get your post right?
 
yidakee said:
Tried to replicate it without success. This new wallet only had the custom address and "yidakee testnet1" ... note, denomination work much swifter now!

xJqvEYc.png


YE3rpW3.png


CHYWFvW.png


created a few addresses

aczZpFd.png


Barely slept, but I dont get any matches
Click to expand...
Well the keypool consists of around 100 addresses. I had to generate around 10 to get a new and really unused address... Could be coincidence, but should be looked into.
 
vertoe said:
Well the keypool consists of around 100 addresses. I had to generate around 10 to get a new and really unused address... Could be coincidence, but should be looked into.
Click to expand...

Here goes, first 30 keypool addresses

Label,"Address"
,"mrneaHHaMgdphS5QG3aTLktFSz13H9uA75"
denom check 1,"mn1mXfGdxeDehF87Jm82bod36yuDHA9fwb"
denom check 10,"moew4TSwf8FoS3Cyj5Y2RZ2S2TPqpThtZA"
denom check 11,"mjVvRtBqMJicxNvxtgGdqjEtt3cLJXyAei"
denom check 12,"n3akip2r3MvktZcci7CMFHAGZ8SeYuQiMB"
denom check 13,"mxr58vw7Q2xZMYkR2WHjU6dBgGwvMNAG5v"
denom check 14,"mvoC1jLXkeocjUrjKzt5HFjQiQxM9DWo82"
denom check 15,"mzcGoYnNXMtaNaFr7GFhLvtFUK49a1tQWn"
denom check 16,"mmA9iFmSVLNSfFn8h9iWRa4G4Xh5LnS587"
denom check 17,"mkeoGrgUFc4VTEDQYVWgUwj6FptEXcwr4S"
denom check 18,"moa7gMG1S1Cz9sV5m9toLfX61it8gMWuft"
denom check 19,"mrvSNkpNW9wYtEprDNJ2jpermTdQznimt6"
denom check 2,"my62WmtK6rpAnMQyWU7Km6w4juKsHexcUC"
denom check 20,"mkVhe3iX9YmXdoXCcntkB4d9LQ6UwA21Y2"
denom check 21,"mx971HFoKY85MkjnCawyfwLoiN1GHqNTK5"
denom check 22,"n2ToXMaVDDBCpWkQRnpUvxdKCDwh2B2Uco"
denom check 23,"mgW6qNyF8G6zTeeVGJW56tF8DNREaXTwFN"
denom check 24,"mnNpo2ja1fNivksCtR75XeQSkh7okMVEF7"
denom check 25,"mkXNsS8HJTnsf2zhB4xHkuNF4WthQtNc6p"
denom check 26,"n2bQ3UkeK9LCsii58Yf5SZQxA4KUom1y48"
denom check 27,"mhVwTYdCxzoPQJcNcX6AecA7JhpsBNCSrH"
denom check 28,"mk2Zy3PrxM7yrWXrPPQsJ4cjaNTRDvGGqp"
denom check 29,"mhypAGK1KY5oS7gWBrhiop8BBRbNzUWWVj"
denom check 3,"mi6a57MW3G9RDMVrsZv5oPmiJzNcsho94P"
denom check 30,"mkyv6beEDpa5p7GMmA9YDTHvQ6VfpWjLa5"
denom check 4,"mwW5FvYntksGFoL744oxWfK4ijtvXbbMpN"
denom check 5,"n3eSCUPdXH4kcTd7pQn3gV59QBdRBibYw6"
denom check 6,"mpekSo2B5epFdLsgiPLZqf3C3eH2ZRDFcv"
denom check 7,"mtczSPUdWqTkQpsobsC7wDdAUA2NoSSWCL"
denom check 8,"mg1jwVdc1oP8vyzQorrDsMJgzs9kMCEkk9"
denom check 9,"n1qKmCT6bkvb9NiwTKYEHX7KxN7bQ7MY7z"
yidakee testnet1,"msyfd8gBFQuNoKf2deUvTEGpQeDZzXz5uR"
Click to expand...


#1 matches = denom check 1 (makes sense, was already generated)
#2 no match
#3 no match
#4 no match

I'll do the rest later...

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
daemon already has 'keypoolrefill' - if dupe addresses are a problem it should be a straightforward fix?
 
vertoe said:
But what makes you certain that this input belongs to Raico and not any other account?
And mind taking a look at my example in "WHO AM I?" DarkSend+ testnet game?
Click to expand...
Definitely not sure, trying to see strength of a link though. Will DEFINITELY check out your game after work though. These kind of games are a lot of fun trying to track down addresses through the maze. Will post mine up also. It's like6 degrees to Kevin Bacon game :p.
 
****** Please Update To 10.12.10 or 9.12.10 *******

Another huge update to the RC client, most of these are stability fixes and anonymity improvements.

- Removed "darksend denominate", darksend now will figure out the most it can denominate. Use "darksend auto" instead.
- Fixed "Unknown State" display error
- Fixed 0.0025 collateral issues caused by issues in the state machine, you should only be charged this amount now if you shutdown your client during the Darksend process.
- Client will only submit 1 transaction into the pool fixing possible anonymity issues
- Masternodes will only merge compatible transactions using the same denominations. For example (500,500,100) would be able to merge with (500,100), (10,1) with (10,1,1), but not (500,1) with (10,1). This improves the anonmity by not allowing someone to follow transactions by the missing denominations.
- Transactions use unique change addresses for every output of each round.
- QT GUI will now ask to unlock the wallet when it detects Darksend wants to do something and lock it when it's done again.
- Darksend is turned off by default in the daemon now. In most cases daemons won't want to run with anonymity (pools, exchanges, etc), if a user does they can override the default setting with -enabledaemondarksend=true
- Fees per round of Darksend are 0.001DRK or $0.00538 at current prices. This means to anonymize 1000DRK with 3 rounds (an average use case) it would cost a user 1.5 cents.
- Protocol version is updated to kick old clients off testnet

This version should be pretty stable. Let me know if anything crops up or anyone sees any anonymity issues that still exist. I'm going to move on to testing the masternode voting system.

Here's an an example transaction from .10
http://test.explorer.darkcoin.fr/tx/1c51cb3090aaa24778b0781498080cb9fe50ba0560f31ca80e7432bf7ddd6b65

--------------

Stable Binaries
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/master-rc4/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/master-rc4/darkcoind

RC4 Binaries ( masternodes / auto-denom )
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc4/darkcoin-qt
http://www.darkcoin.io/downloads/rc4/darkcoind
 
eduffield said:
****** Please Update To 10.12.10 or 9.12.10 *******

- Transactions use unique change addresses for every output of each round.
Click to expand...

Yeehaw!

{
"version" : 101210,
"protocolversion" : 70023,
"walletversion" : 60000,
"balance" : 11962.07760000,
"blocks" : 7426,
...etc...

Started a fresh local qt wallet to see how it behaves itself.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
 
So it looks like when it works, darksend now actually works really well - http://test.explorer.darkcoin.fr/bl...4976985e555993e22c2b3909db34d4b35d93d08efb850 -> the first block with truly annonymous transactions in it

Also, holy shit, my wallet was struggling to get valid darksend transactions - I'm guessing as a result of not enough masternodes being online and updated - signed. Then all of a sudden I had 8 transactions pop in a total of maybe 1.5 minutes, pretty cool to see!
 
I know this was talked about a few pages back but people are asking and I simply want to clarify.
MN fee's from transactions are paid to miners in the same fashion as it is now?
Block reward + Transaction fee + MN fee = 80% Miner + 20% MN
This is correct? Y/N
 
eduffield said:
- Darksend is turned off by default in the daemon now. In most cases daemons won't want to run with anonymity (pools, exchanges, etc), if a user does they can override the default setting with -enabledaemondarksend=true
- Fees per round of Darksend are 0.001DRK or $0.00538 at current prices. This means to anonymize 1000DRK with 3 rounds (an average use case) it would cost a user 1.5 cents.
Click to expand...

Awesome work, amazing to see such big steps made each day!

With regards to Darksend being disabled by default, makes sense for pool, exchanges etc, but for most average joe users, no doubt Windows and Mac, reading this gave me an idea for the new wallet designers with the auto installer. It would be awesome to see a check / tick box when installing that asks the users if the want to enable it or not, for these users I think the default should be enabled. You don't want users downloading, and not reading, then bitching that it's not annon lol.

Fee amount sounds very reasonable. It would be great to have an estimated shown in the GUI also, kinda like a heads up.
 
mattmct said:
Awesome work, amazing to see such big steps made each day!

With regards to Darksend being disabled by default, makes sense for pool, exchanges etc, but for most average joe users, no doubt Windows and Mac, reading this gave me an idea for the new wallet designers with the auto installer. It would be awesome to see a check / tick box when installing that asks the users if the want to enable it or not, for these users I think the default should be enabled. You don't want users downloading, and not reading, then bitching that it's not annon lol.

Fee amount sounds very reasonable. It would be great to have an estimated shown in the GUI also, kinda like a heads up.
Click to expand...
I think it's disabled in darkcoind by default, not in the qt client.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top