Privacy first vs transparency first

[demo]

Well then you're talking about a new type of blockchain which is not the one under discussion. Good luck in getting the Bitcoin mining community to adopt a hardfork that supports identity-stamped transactions.

Are you kidding me? This is already a feature of bitcoin blockchain!
https://medium.com/@inthebitcoin/ho...he-bitcoin-blockchain-8d5ac0a8ea88#.gtt89t8y1

So in the near future, they may force all transactions to be followed by a receipt mentioning the SSN or the VATIN, otherwise the transaction of the coins will be judged as invalid or suspicious.

See now why privacy is important?

<vote history>
Do you want a transparency-first block chain or a privacy-first block chain?
Yes, I would like to see dash switch to a privacy-first block chain (permissioned transparency) 2 vote(s) 18.2%
No, I want to keep dash's transparency-first block chain (privacy via mixing) 9 vote(s) 81.8%
</vote history>

 

[toknormal]

Are you kidding me? This is already a feature of bitcoin blockchain!...So in the near future, they may force all transactions to be followed by a receipt mentioning the SSN or the VATIN

What exactly do you mean by "force" ? Somebody will be standing behind me with a gun while I operate my wallet ?

 

[GrandMasterDash]

It is a default. All cryptocurrency is anonymous. No personal information is stored on the blockchain whatsoever and no personal information, knowledge of "ownership" or any other identify information can be gleaned from the blockchain because it does not, has never and will never live there.

I think sometimes people forget that - especially when I see them post nonsense about UK regulations covering internet service providers which bears no relation to the issues at hand since they DO hold information on people and are able to unambiguously identify an individual with a particular IP address at a given time.

You cannot acquire original identity information from the blockchain. You have to acquire it directly - from off chain sources - then you can possibly use patterns in the blockchain to augment that information on a speculative basis. The more fungible the addresses are, the less regular the pattern buildup will be and the less the blockchain will assist you in augmenting off-chain information you already have about people's identities.

As to whether active mixing should be a default or not, there is debate about that. I think it might be with Evolution but I'd be equally happy if it wasn't and continued to be optional.

Clearly you haven't read the links provided or dug any deeper. Companies like Coinfirm are ripping apart info from block chains, carriers, exchanges and more. The state of info gained now is far greater than it was, say, two years ago.

To suggest that net activity gained from ISP logs is unambiguous is a little misleading. Criminal law requires "beyond reasonable doubt".. meaning, for example, the prosecution would have to show that computers were not infected with malware and used as proxies... that's on a similar level as saying the movement of money from one address to another belongs to person X, Y or Z. So, while there is a plausible defence, it's not exactly a good default.

Transparency-first block chains is like saying all net traffic should be in cleartext except a little bit.. or all data on a hard drive should be in cleartext except a little bit. Why did a token transfer called dash get special exception to be in cleartext by default?

 

[demo]

What exactly do you mean by "force" ? Somebody will be standing behind me with a gun while I operate my wallet ?

Nowdays a transaction is already marked by Coinfirm if mixed coins are used. A merchant may refuse to accept mixed coins, especially in case a state says that mixed coins are illegal.

Tomorrow a state may also say that whatever transaction is not followed by a blockchain receipt is illegal. In that case the merchants will also refuse to accept coins not followed by a receipt, in the fear their store to be declared as illegal.

So no, there is not any gun behind you. But there is (or there will be) a gun behind the merchants from where you buy.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Nowdays a transaction is already marked by Coinfirm if mixing coins are used. A merchant may refuse to accept mixed coins, especially in case a state says that mixed coins are illegal.

Tomorrow a state may also say that whatever transaction is not followed by a blockchain receipt is illegal. In that case the merchants will also refuse to accept coins not followed by a receipt, in the fear their store to be declared as illegal.

So no, there is not any gun behind you. But there is (or there will be) a gun behind the merchants from where you buy.

...and this is exactly why dash's idea that it can get all cozy with government is flawed. Eventually governments will issue their own crypto with self-enforced tax on every transfer (including to self). It's a basic fact that reward programmes are regulated.. somehow dash think it's got an exception.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Not many people want their salaries and purchases publicly deducible by default.

When the UK enacted the Investigatory Powers Act, they made an exemption for members of parliament... it's the same with crypto.. privacy-first block chains might be outlawed yet perfectly legal to an elite few.. is that what everyone here wants?

 

[toknormal]

What you're alluding to is an encrypted messaging system. Sorry to inform you that those don't qualify as monetary assets because they're not worth anything.

Money is an inherently "non-private" medium. It reaches into every nook and cranny of economic life. Records of ownership are different and can be hidden from view. But for a monetary medium to worth anything it needs adoption and you can't cherry pick who adopts it. Its mechanics and audibility need to be accessible to all and sundry be that whoever it may. If you want to create an exclusive, closed ledger that's only accessible to those who happen to hold a private key then go ahead but you can kiss your adoption goodbye because all you've got then is an encrypted tunnelling system. Have a look at the existing content infrastructure on the internet to see where that fits in - this story has already been written. There are plenty of precedents as to how it gets played out.

Even if you did succeed in gaining widespread adoption for a cryptographically obscured blockchain, people are deluded if they think that's going to give them any "privacy". For it to be any use you need to exchange it for something that isn't another bunch of coins from the same blockchain and that's where it will be regulated.

So I don't agree with you that "privacy" can be prioritised over everything else. Adoption, value, ubiquity and confidence are far higher priorities because if people decide they want it because its valuable, they'll soon find ways to keep it private which is not the job of a monetary asset anyway.

Given that background though, Dash DOES put privacy as a far higher priority than anything else because it explicitly optimises fungibility without turning itself into a tech that's no more than a secure emailing service. Thats what you should be concerned with and thats why you've not had a single vote in support of this proposal other than the two of your own

 

[demo]

But for a monetary medium to worth anything it needs adoption and you can't cherry pick who adopts it.

You are wrong. A monetary medium does not need adoption. It is established by force and/or/xor violence.

 

[toknormal]

You are wrong. A monetary medium does not need adoption. It is established by force and/or violence.

LoL ! Well I suppose you could look at it that way. Maybe suggest to core that it's not software "tools" they should be using then but a different type altogether

 

[demo]

LoL ! Well I suppose you could look at it that way. Maybe suggest to core that it's not software "tools" they should be using then but a different type altogether

I am talking about real money. Cryptocoins are not real money yet. As long as cryptocoin developers cannot use violence, their money can be established only by force, whatever this force may be.On the other hand states can use violence, so it is easy for them to destroy any cryptocoin that cannot protect itself from potential violent state attacks.

A state may not attack the cryptocoins directly, it is easier for this state to use its violence against the merchants. Attacking the merchants who are trying to sell their products using cryptocoins is enough for the state in order to destroy any cryptocoin. So the real force of a cryptocoin is when it gives to its merchants the ability to avoid any potential or future violent state attack.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

What you're alluding to is an encrypted messaging system. Sorry to inform you that those don't qualify as monetary assets because they're not worth anything.

Money is an inherently "non-private" medium. It reaches into every nook and cranny of economic life. Records of ownership are different and can be hidden from view. But for a monetary medium to worth anything it needs adoption and you can't cherry pick who adopts it. Its mechanics and audibility need to be accessible to all and sundry be that whoever it may. If you want to create an exclusive, closed ledger that's only accessible to those who happen to hold a private key then go ahead but you can kiss your adoption goodbye because all you've got then is an encrypted tunnelling system. Have a look at the existing content infrastructure on the internet to see where that fits in - this story has already been written. There are plenty of precedents as to how it gets played out.

Even if you did succeed in gaining widespread adoption for a cryptographically obscured blockchain, people are deluded if they think that's going to give them any "privacy". For it to be any use you need to exchange it for something that isn't another bunch of coins from the same blockchain and that's where it will be regulated.

So I don't agree with you that "privacy" can be prioritised over everything else. Adoption, value, ubiquity and confidence are far higher priorities because if people decide they want it because its valuable, they'll soon find ways to keep it private which is not the job of a monetary asset anyway.

Given that background though, Dash DOES put privacy as a far higher priority than anything else because it explicitly optimises fungibility without turning itself into a tech that's no more than a secure emailing service. Thats what you should be concerned with and thats why you've not had a single vote in support of this proposal other than the two of your own

coinmarketcap.com

• Monero, $105M and rising
• Dash, $59M and falling

...yes, it's been moving that way for some time. Dash, once upon a time, fourth on the list, now seventh. 'nough said

 

[toknormal]

coinmarketcap.com

• Monero, $105M and rising
• Dash, $59M and falling

...yes, it's been moving that way for some time. Dash, once upon a time, fourth on the list, now seventh. 'nough said

Is that all this is about ? Marketcap panic ?

Dash has sustained its marketcap for a very long time. There have been about 10 or 15 coins that have surpassed it in the last year or two at one time or another. I don't know how long you've followed the markets but for the current value to be a "low" is pretty substantial growth over where w were 18 months ago. If you want the kind of growth Monero got then you're better going and finding a couple of deep pocketed sugar daddies than a worldwide monetary market.

There's nothing going on in Dash right now (other than behind the scenes). I'm surprised we're even at this level. Back last Autumn I was holding my nose ready for a much deeper dive than this. You know why that hasn't happened ? Because Dash is actually being used as a monetary asset. People are investing in it and gaining a return. If you don't see the success in that then you might be in the wrong type of asset altogether - try electric cars

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Is that all this is about ? Marketcap panic ?

Dash has sustained its marketcap for a very long time. There have been about 10 or 15 coins that have surpassed it in the last year or two at one time or another. I don't know how long you've followed the markets but for the current value to be a "low" is pretty substantial growth over where w were 18 months ago. If you want the kind of growth Monero got then you're better going and finding a couple of deep pocketed sugar daddies than a worldwide monetary market.

There's nothing going on in Dash right now (other than behind the scenes). I'm surprised we're even at this level. Back last Autumn I was holding my nose ready for a much deeper dive than this. You know why that hasn't happened ? Because Dash is actually being used as a monetary asset. People are investing in it and gaining a return. If you don't see the success in that then you might be in the wrong type of asset altogether - try electric cars

I had better success elsewhere thanks

 

[toknormal]

I had better success elsewhere thanks

Daytrading and monetary design may both be artforms, but I wouldn't confuse one with the other

 

[TroyDASH]

So during the many months when Monero was less than half of Dash's market cap, XMR was not a privacy-first chain? Look at the chart for XMR. Does that look like organic growth? A privacy first chain will have no path to mass adoption outside of dark markets. Dark markets do bring some value but DASH's goal is to reach way beyond that.

If you are concerned about coinfirm helping businesses do risk assessments based on coin history or mixed/unmixed coins, then is there something about a privacy-first coin that makes you think coinfirm 's risk assessments will be any better? No matter what model we have, mixed or private coins will have an associated risk, whether it's just a subset of the coins or whether it's the entire chain. With DASH's current model, it is each user's responsibility to anonymize their coins if they value privacy, and their privacy is not diminished if they opt to use it.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

Daytrading and monetary design may both be artforms, but I wouldn't confuse one with the other

Not a chance, imo, from a technical point of view, dash is rapidly losing ground.

 

[toknormal]

Not a chance, imo, from a technical point of view, dash is rapidly losing ground.

You might have had a point if the devs were sitting with their feet up drinking beer. As it is what's on the drawing board is a far more powerful and worthwhile objective than yet another encrypted blockchain (now free with cornflakes packets) added in a panic just because a pump-&-dump scamcoin blipped past us on marketcap

 

[GrandMasterDash]

So during the many months when Monero was less than half of Dash's market cap, XMR was not a privacy-first chain? Look at the chart for XMR. Does that look like organic growth? A privacy first chain will have no path to mass adoption outside of dark markets. Dark markets do bring some value but DASH's goal is to reach way beyond that.

If you are concerned about coinfirm helping businesses do risk assessments based on coin history or mixed/unmixed coins, then is there something about a privacy-first coin that makes you think coinfirm 's risk assessments will be any better? No matter what model we have, mixed or private coins will have an associated risk, whether it's just a subset of the coins or whether it's the entire chain. With DASH's current model, it is each user's responsibility to anonymize their coins if they value privacy, and their privacy is not diminished if they opt to use it.

Ah yes, you must be meaning this:
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/my-coins-disappear-after-darksend-mixing.5003/

or this
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/old-darkcoin-wallet-dat-lost-coins.9135/

forget the long mixing times and missing coins, how about disheartened users?
https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/...s-why-and-my-view-on-the-state-of-dash.11416/

"This is important because there is no market room for a transparent coin. The reason is because people who want public transactions can already use Fiat money. In fact, using a credit card they have protection in the case of not receiving goods, so there is negative incentive to use a crypto. For people who need to transact in a crypto and who also do not care about priivacy, they already have bitcoin. Bitcoin has far higher market acceptance, ecosystem, network size, and liquidity. So, there is really no need for Dash at all as long as it is a transparent coin."​

I'm sure someone will criticise me for someone else's words...

 

[GrandMasterDash]

You might have had a point if the devs were sitting with their feet up drinking beer. As it is what's on the drawing board is a far more powerful and worthwhile objective than yet another encrypted blockchain. (Now free with cornflakes packets )

there's more nutrition in he cardboard...

 

[demo]

No matter what model we have, mixed or private coins will have an associated risk, whether it's just a subset of the coins or whether it's the entire chain. With DASH's current model, it is each user's responsibility to anonymize their coins if they value privacy, and their privacy is not diminished if they opt to use it.

Unfortunately users will do whatever the merchants are asking them to do, because users need to buy things. And the merchants will do whatever the State is forcing them to do (as long as there are not any cryptocoins capable to protect the merchants from the State) . So a blockchain having a subset of its coins as anonymous, under the pressure of the State it will reject all the anonymous coins.

So it is either the cryptoway or the highway. Anything inbetween it will be crashed.