v0.10.13.x RC5 Testing
- Thread starter eduffield
- Start date
- Status
Tesquenure
Member
Do i have to change the ip of the MN if i create a new wallet, cold wallet side ?
I have 3 wallet in 3 folders :
origine
mn1
mn2
I use darksend in origine for the test.
I just laucht mn1 wallet, he show me my total balance of mn1 wallet, but in darksend he show me the 311 drk/4 rounds from my wallet origine ...
Do i miss something ?
EDIT : Same in mn2 wallet
i use -datadir= in my shotcuts in windows
I have 3 wallet in 3 folders :
origine
mn1
mn2
I use darksend in origine for the test.
I just laucht mn1 wallet, he show me my total balance of mn1 wallet, but in darksend he show me the 311 drk/4 rounds from my wallet origine ...
Do i miss something ?
EDIT : Same in mn2 wallet
i use -datadir= in my shotcuts in windows
Last edited by a moderator:
vertoe
Three of Nine
Enforcement.
JGCMiner
Active member
Was it a fresh wallet?
flare
Well-known member
Simply delete the wallet.dat file (before moving the funds of course). After you restart the wallet software the wallet.dat file will be created from scratch --> fresh
flare
Well-known member
The encryption process of the wallet.dat was not part of the optimization. The freeze during encryption (of large keypools) is not specific to darkcoin, it applies to most Bitcoin clones as the process is not properly threaded.
Tesquenure
Member
Ok, i understand, than Amount and Rounds, was write in the qt.exe
Than we need to copy one qt.exe by wallet if we want different darksend setting by wallet.
What's it ?
TaoOfSatoshi
Well-known member
This is a copy of my submission to the dev team in jira this morning. Tell me what you think:
DarkMix: A New Road
When Darkcoin was first created, the term "Darksend" made sense because the funds were sitting in the wallets unanonymized, and when the user wanted to send the coins anonymously, he would have to engage the "Darksend" process at that time. This would be easy for the layman to understand.
Well, with RC4 came an entirely new idea by Evan (which was brilliant by the way) to pre-mix the funds before the user sends them sometime in the future. As such, I do not think the term "Darksend" accurately portrays what is technically happening with the coin after RC4.
A completely new way of anonymizing deserves a completely new term for it:
DarkMix:
This is a sexy term which really brings what is happening behind the scenes post-RC4 and explains it in a way that my mom could understand. It also could lead to easier UI explanations as follows:
"The DarkMix feature requires that you unlock your wallet so it can auto-transact with the network. Please enter your password." - Easy to understand. You need to enter your password to MIX your coins, you are not "Darksend"ing anything at this time.
"Payment to yourself" could become "DarkMix Initialization"
"Darksend Denominate" could become "DarkMix Denomination"
"N/A" could become "DarkMix Transaction, No Address"
All of the above would be easier for Mom and Pop to understand: not actually "sending" anything at the time, just mixing, anonymizing!
The above are only the technical benefits to DarkMix, from a marketing perspective it could be a potential gold mine:
"Darkcoin releases RC5, with open-source DarkMix technology"
This kind of attention-grabbing headline is just what we need right now to generate interest and curiosity in our drastically improved tech. We all know how cool Darkcoin is, but a terminology change would have a far-reaching effect amongst people (potential whales) who have written Darkcoin off as a pump and dump scheme, haven't been following us since, and may not even know that "Darksend"'s been flipped upside down, drastically improved, and is now kick-ass!
It would be a fresh start, furthering us from the "instamine" crap, the "closed source" argument and all the other growing pains of the first few months.
With the way this tech works, generating interest (and more users) right off the bat would be VERY beneficial.
I'm excited, we have a great coin here, let's show it off!!
"DarkMix" is submitted for your approval.
The term "Darksend" is very important to the history of the coin and could still be used at the time of sending, from the dropdown menu: Darksend (Use anonymous funds). In addition, it could be used in videos and promotional materials alongside DarkMix (Darkcoin featuring DarkMix/Darksend)
Thank you for reading,
Tao
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-68
DarkMix: A New Road
When Darkcoin was first created, the term "Darksend" made sense because the funds were sitting in the wallets unanonymized, and when the user wanted to send the coins anonymously, he would have to engage the "Darksend" process at that time. This would be easy for the layman to understand.
Well, with RC4 came an entirely new idea by Evan (which was brilliant by the way) to pre-mix the funds before the user sends them sometime in the future. As such, I do not think the term "Darksend" accurately portrays what is technically happening with the coin after RC4.
A completely new way of anonymizing deserves a completely new term for it:
DarkMix:
This is a sexy term which really brings what is happening behind the scenes post-RC4 and explains it in a way that my mom could understand. It also could lead to easier UI explanations as follows:
"The DarkMix feature requires that you unlock your wallet so it can auto-transact with the network. Please enter your password." - Easy to understand. You need to enter your password to MIX your coins, you are not "Darksend"ing anything at this time.
"Payment to yourself" could become "DarkMix Initialization"
"Darksend Denominate" could become "DarkMix Denomination"
"N/A" could become "DarkMix Transaction, No Address"
All of the above would be easier for Mom and Pop to understand: not actually "sending" anything at the time, just mixing, anonymizing!
The above are only the technical benefits to DarkMix, from a marketing perspective it could be a potential gold mine:
"Darkcoin releases RC5, with open-source DarkMix technology"
This kind of attention-grabbing headline is just what we need right now to generate interest and curiosity in our drastically improved tech. We all know how cool Darkcoin is, but a terminology change would have a far-reaching effect amongst people (potential whales) who have written Darkcoin off as a pump and dump scheme, haven't been following us since, and may not even know that "Darksend"'s been flipped upside down, drastically improved, and is now kick-ass!
It would be a fresh start, furthering us from the "instamine" crap, the "closed source" argument and all the other growing pains of the first few months.
With the way this tech works, generating interest (and more users) right off the bat would be VERY beneficial.
I'm excited, we have a great coin here, let's show it off!!
"DarkMix" is submitted for your approval.
The term "Darksend" is very important to the history of the coin and could still be used at the time of sending, from the dropdown menu: Darksend (Use anonymous funds). In addition, it could be used in videos and promotional materials alongside DarkMix (Darkcoin featuring DarkMix/Darksend)
Thank you for reading,
Tao
http://jira.darkcoin.qa/browse/DRK-68
kryptofoo
Active member
Upgraded to 101304 with new wallet. Am trying darksend 1000, 4 rounds. I have 3 different wallets running these settings (2x Linux64, 1x win64). All 3 are repeatedly sending "Payment to yourself" transactions costing .002 tDRK. All 3 wallets have exactly 16 of these transactions and no darksend transactions. All the transactions keep sending around various amounts of 0.0125 and 0.125 tDRK. Anybody else seeing this?
droptable
Member
win32 - v0.10.13.4-g71381bc-beta
50drk / 8 rounds
only payments to self.
no darksend-message
anon: 0.0 DRK
Rounds 0%
average 0/8
2 hours since start (i thought i wait a little longer, but since your post)
I personally dont like DarkMix it sounds juvenile to me, and it is not intuitive for the non-crypto folks. Mixing is not necessarily associated to privacy or anonymity if you are not already familiar with cryptocoins, while Darksend is already a brand and is pretty intuitive. Just my 2 duffs, I would of course support anything the team decides.
I have this same issue since the previous version, posted to Jira under DRK-61 for v3, resposted this morning under DRK-69 for v4 with screenshots, etc. So I am sure Evan will check it out soon. Maybe go to Jira and add your info to issue DRK-69 to give Evan more data.
Same issue here, see above.
droptable
Member
i completely agree. -> see my post on bitcointalk.
// thx for your replay, regarding darksend issue with the new version, i will check jira.
moli
Well-known member
Thanks, flare. So does it mean it can't be fixed somehow? Or it's just a minor thing and should be overlooked?
moli
Well-known member
"Darksend" is a brand. For us who have been with Darkcoin, Darksend is THE brand. If you play off anything else like "DarkMix" it will be too confusing and it will undermine Darksend. All other terminology like "Payment to yourself" can be changed to "Darksend splitting fee" or some such and it should be under the brand Darksend, and it's not that hard for moms and pops to understand. Besides, I'm not sure if this currency is for moms and pops.
Last edited by a moderator:
oblox
Well-known member
It could be optimized, but that optimization could also apply to the bitcoin's client as that's where DRK's qt platform is based from.
I get spikes in resources and a not responding whenever I try to send the whole balance to another wallet (in the case of going from 33 to 34). It sends after time but locks up for a few minutes in doing so.
moli
Well-known member
Ok. Thank you for answering my question. I get a spike too when I send a payment. I guess we have to live with it.
flare
Well-known member
It can be fixed for sure. I just wanted to point out that this was not fixed in v4 (as you expected) - and that Darkcoin inherited this issue from Litecoin/Bitcoin
- Status