Renaming PrivateSend Discussion - In response to the 2020 Q4 Conference Call

[TaoOfSatoshi]

Please consider this a thread to discuss options when it comes to the renaming of PrivateSend.

I will reiterate my longstanding position on this. Since PS doesn't adequately represent the action of Dash Mixing, it only serves to confuse newcomers, IMO. This is my solution. The action of mixing should be aptly named, and sending becomes just sending from a mixed or non-mixed Dash balance.

Example: User receives 20 DASH. User would like to anonymize 10 DASH, and leave the other 10 DASH alone.

- User selects "MIX DASH" for the action of mixing.
- Resulting mixing session results in balances of 10 MIXED DASH and 10 DASH.
- No more PrivateSend tab, unify both sends into a SEND tab.
- Upon the action of sending, users simply select (using a checkbox) to send from their MIXED DASH or their DASH balance.
- If they don't select a checkbox, or both, the program will not continue until only one is selected.

This will take away the "in your face" promotion of the private send function as it will simply be referred to as "Mixing", and reduces it in the sending tab to a simple check box. The functionality would stay, but the problem that the regulator sees with the "PrivateSend" naming and promotion would disappear.

I welcome other viewpoints, feedback and thoughts. Let's start this conversation.

 

[qwizzie]

I prefer changing PrivateSend to ProtectSend and inform users that this will protect and secure privacy on Dash transactions, similar to how CoinJoin protect and secure privacy on Bitcoin transactions.

We will end up with InstandSend and ProtectSend.

It will prevent any confusion with regulators as the name is not directly referring to 'private' or 'anonymity' in any way and it goes well with InstantSend.
We just need to think about how we message it to the world and to our users.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

I prefer changing PrivateSend to ProtectSend and inform users that this will protect and secure privacy on Dash transactions, similar to how CoinJoin protect and secure privacy on Bitcoin transactions.

We will end up with InstandSend and ProtectSend.

It will prevent any confusion with regulators as the name is not directly referring to 'private' or 'anonymity' in any way and it goes well with InstantSend.
We just need to think about how we message it to the world and to our users.

We have to be careful with names like this. It has to differentiate from normal Dash sending. With ProtectSend, are we saying that normal Dash sending is in some way not protected and people's funds are in danger? This is the problem with other alternatives I've seen.

 

[qrpnxz]

I don't like ProtectSend, SecureSend, or variations because they imply that regular send is not secure. "But I meant protect privacy!" Okay, but that's not clear.

I also like the idea of just having an option in the regular send tab that says "use mixed coins only" or the like. Regular send should use mixed dash if that's all that's left, too. (It might already do this. I've never tried.)

Moving all mixing information including mixing transactions to their own tab would also be good. These shouldn't show in Transactions by default. I reckon it's almost never what you want to see there.

 

[qwizzie]

We have to be careful with names like this. It has to differentiate from normal Dash sending. With ProtectSend, are we saying that normal Dash sending is in some way not protected and people's funds are in danger? This is the problem with other alternatives I've seen.

No, we are saying with normal Dash sending that privacy is not protected or secured, while with ProtectSend it is.
That can be clarified through messaging and providing a definition. And doing marketing on that messaging and definition.

I rather keep the new name for PrivateSend generic instead of very specific, to not further attract attention of regulators.

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

No, we are saying with normal Dash sending that privacy is not protected or secured, while with ProtectSend it is.
That can be clarified through messaging and providing a definition. And doing marketing on that messaging and definition.

Sure, that's something that can be determined by marketing professionals if it's worth it for the hassle of education. Beyond my pay grade! I prefer to just Keep It Simple Stupid. Use basic terms that relate to what's actually happening behind the scenes.

 

[Magnus]

I think the idea of there being one sending function with two different balances is a good one. That would remove the issue of having to explain "private send" as if it were a separate concept. People already explain what coin-join is, and the ways in which Dash and Bitcoin are similar when discussing fungibility in Dash. I think this would focus the discussion more on the actual technology.

Perhaps label the balances as "mixed" and "unmixed", with a "total" balance shown too?

 

[TaoOfSatoshi]

I think the idea of there being one sending function with two different balances is a good one. That would remove the issue of having to explain "private send" as if it were a separate concept. People already explain what coin-join is, and the ways in which Dash and Bitcoin are similar when discussing fungibility in Dash. I think this would focus the discussion more on the actual technology.

Perhaps label the balances as "mixed" and "unmixed", with a "total" balance shown too?

One of the objections I've seen to this plan is that "mixing" would upset the regulators as well. If that's the case, then that whole plan would be moot. A rep from DCG would likely be able to comment on that.

 

[qwizzie]

I don't like ProtectSend, SecureSend, or variations because they imply that regular send is not secure. "But I meant protect privacy!" Okay, but that's not clear.

It could be clear by adding a definition to the ProtectSend name inside the wallet (very easy to do), so that users understand that this option protects their privacy.
For example hoovering a mouse pointer over the new name, shows the definition.

And yes : private, mixing, anonymity are most likely attracting the attention of regulators and should be avoided.
And it should be a name that we can use indefinetely.

 

[stan.distortion]

Simply calling it "Coinjoin" could work, makes it clear that it's no different to what's available for BTC. A while back someone here suggested removing it from the official client (@qwizzie iirc) and letting someone else keep going with it in a port of the official client source. Makes sense imho, that or removing it in favour of a dApp to do the same job as it's in need of a fairly major overhaul, getting a warning over using more than 10 inputs can't be avoided if a service is expecting a single transaction of 0.99 Dash for example.

That might seem like kowtowing to regulators, maybe it is and they're never going to stop in their demands but at least we'd be on an equal footing to other cryptos without losing fungibility. It would also generate some media attention, it might seem like it's for the wrong reason but there's no such thing as bad publicity, especially if prepared for it.

 

[Magnus]

One of the objections I've seen to this plan is that "mixing" would upset the regulators as well. If that's the case, then that whole plan would be moot. A rep from DCG would likely be able to comment on that.

If regulators do have a problem with the word "mixed", then we can simply discuss potentially better names for those two balances, but I feel that this should be the focus perhaps "joined balance", "unjoined balance", and "total balance"?

"Mixed" and "Unmixed"?
"Joined" and "Unjoined"?
"Fungible" and "Non-Fungible"?
"High Entropy" and "Low Entropy"?

 

[qwizzie]

Simply calling it "Coinjoin" could work, makes it clear that it's no different to what's available for BTC.

I thought about it, but there are differences between current CoinJoin implementation and our PrivateSend implementation. Differences that Dash Core Group made in PrivateSend, and differences and advancements over the years that Bitcoin privacy wallets made in their usage. We would constantly need to explain the differences as the two are not exactly the same these days. There are Bitcoin privacy wallets these days that offer better/additional/more advanced privacy then PrivateSend.

 

[-crypto]

I liked the suggestion on Reddit of making a personal account within the wallet. The act of moving coins to that account would mix them. Sending from the personal account would essentially be a "private send" without raising red flags. Not my idea, just a suggestion that I read and thought was good.

My hope is that we can incentivize the act of mixing to provide an alternative path to earning rewards in the form of interest on the unspent coins being mixed. The interest could be derived from a % of the MN and Mining rewards, or from unallocated proposal Dash instead of burning it.

 

[GrandMasterDash]

You just need to call it what it is, coin mixing. Words like "CoinJoin" means nothing to the outside world.

We have those machines here where you put in all your loose change and it gives you back notes. So maybe just call it "The change machine". Feed some coins in, get some coins out.

 

[AgnewPickens]

I using mixing for its fungibility, I don't want to have to account for each small transaction I make, so CashSend keeps
with the send theme.

 

[blockchaintech]

SecureSend is good description for the feature, coinjoin is very tech.

 

[Jmmon]

Mixing -> "Blend" : " Blends your coins with other users, preventing others from seeing your account balance when you transact."
"BlendSend" (kinda cheesy but has a ring to it) "Send from blended coins."

Yeah, I agree with blockchaintech, coinjoin is too crypto-y, not very grandma-friendly.

 

[Stealth923]

I think Foxtrot said it on discord and it sounded like the best solution to me.

Put privatesend in a separate tab in the core wallet, rename the tab to "Mixed Dash" and then you have the same "Send" button as the main screen. As its an optional feature I would also put a check box in the options to hide that tab for users that dont need it. Regulators when launching the wallet wouldnt even know it was there. We would probably get hardly any questions and be treated exactly like bitcoin.

It doesnt need to be anything other than "Mixed" as thats just what it is. Keep it simple. Doesnt sound nefarious and is the exact same standard as other mixing capabilities or BTC, BCH etc.

 

[Jmmon]

I using mixing for its fungibility, I don't want to have to account for each small transaction I make, so CashSend keeps
with the send theme.

Send and CashSend? Or DashSend and CashSend? Still need a name for "mixing" - or just make it "Mix" / "Mix Coins"?

 

[fuzzyduck]

On the first thought we could name it 'whatever' we want because the buttons appear only in the Core wallet and that thing is still old fashioned looking geek-only material. People using that piece of software know what they are doing anyway.

Only once these button are going to be more public in the future, like once they appear in the mobile wallets for instance in the future, I think they should be somewhat trendy to catch on to the public as well as being self-explanatory.

For the mixing of coins that can be for example DASHIFY as in the act of making it Digital Cash.

For private send that could be like DASH-IT / DASHED / DASHPAY / PAY WITH DASH / PAY IN DASH or sorts. they all contain the brand name for being Digital Cash. That's what you send.

For regular send I'm still scratching my head.