DeepBlue
Active member
@Samurai33 I have read your posts regarding the Japanese report on crypto currencies specifically stating dash is "not as bad" as other anonymous coins. However, what I consistently see missing from these reports are the positive reasons why DASH has developed PrivateSend and why it should be a standard feature for all cryptocurrencies.
Unlike other privacy coins, DASH ensures the inputs and outputs, as well as the final balance, are all clearly visible on the blockchain (the Japanese paper acknowledges this). However, the paper does not acknowledge the reasons why DASH created PrivateSend in this way and the positive reasons for doing so. I feel the authorities and regulators are not correctly understanding the PrivateSend technology properly and are focused only on the perceived potential negatives. I feel the problem is that DASH is on the defensive when it comes to private send, when in fact, regulators should consider making it a feature that all cryptocurrencies should have to ensure safety of the cryptocurrency user.
The positive reasons that also need to be in these government reports are:
DASH has PrivateSend to protect the physical security of the cryptocurrency holder. Unlike a bank, in which a third party holds their money securely, with cryptocurrency the holder of the coins themselves is responsible for the physical security of that money. The crypto holders main defence from being targeted by criminals is therefore the privacy that PrivateSend gives. PrivateSend creates the perfect balance between customer privacy and blockchain transaction transparency. It is therefore essential that nobody knows how much DASH they have in their wallets, if they do they could be a target to extortion or forced theft. e.g. If someone pays a regular bill, e.g their rent, to a landlord with cryptocurrency and they do not use private send, then their landlord can easily look up on a public block explorer exactly how much money they are holding in their wallets. If we take the hypothetical example where the landlord also just happens to be a criminal they not only know how much money their tenant has but they also potentially have access to the cryptocurrency holder's accommodation. If a person could be holding several million USD equivalent in their wallet that person could become a target of crime. If however they pay their rent with PrivateSend the landlord would not have any idea how much they have in their private wallet and the person is considerably safer. This is a hypothetical situation however the authorities need to understand that sending a transaction to someone without PrivateSend is like advertising their full bank details every time someone makes a bank payment. That is not acceptable in the current banking system, so why should it be acceptable with crypto?
Businesses spying on competitors Businesses paying and receiving funds in crypto would be open to scrutiny from competitors who could trace their contacts and partners through their transactions.
The next argument for Private send is that the EU has the GDPR requirements which include the right to modify or rectify data held by a third party that holds that data. Since DASH is a decentralised organisation the 3rd party could be perceived as the network. Therefore if an individual's privacy is compromised, e.g. someone makes a payment and a payee was to see the amount of money held in a crypto account, the user has the right under GDPR requirements to request that data to be deleted or modified to ensure their privacy. Blockchain, with an immutable record, cannot do that. However privacy could be maintained by using PrivateSend.
Fungibility: There is a common law (which may not apply in Japanese law but perhaps there is a similar principal) which states that if money is stolen by a thief or criminal and that money is then spent by the thief on a product or service provided by an innocent person, then, provided the person who accepted the money did so in good faith, it cannot be returned to the original owner from whom the money was stolen from. The same could be applied to cryptocurrency when it is used in a country the defines its use as money and not property. However, the problem with cryptocurrency is that the history of the coin could be traced and known and therefore it would lose its fungibility if it had been used in some criminal activity in an earlier point of time. You can read about how this law came about here:
https://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2016/01/what-makes-money-special-lawyers.html
DASH is aiming to be digital cash and therefore if a coin becomes tainted in some way then it could lose its fungibility and therefore its function as money . Dash's transparent mixing prevents loss of fungibility.
I feel that Governments and regulators need to understand the positive reasons for private send rather than them only focusing on the perceived negatives. We need to be educating and encouraging governments to enforce PrivateSend technology on all cryptocoins to ensure the safety of their users. Governments can still use specialist services such as cointracking to identify if the coins are associated with crime but the average person does not have access to this type of technology.
I feel DASH needs to move from the defensive to the offensive position regarding PrivateSend. We need governments and regulators to understand the very positive reasons for maintaining privacy but not anonymity that Dash private send offers.
I also think that we should start using terms like "Transparent mixing" rather than just "mixing" and we should be referring to DASH as "pseudonymous", rather than "anonymous".
Unlike other privacy coins, DASH ensures the inputs and outputs, as well as the final balance, are all clearly visible on the blockchain (the Japanese paper acknowledges this). However, the paper does not acknowledge the reasons why DASH created PrivateSend in this way and the positive reasons for doing so. I feel the authorities and regulators are not correctly understanding the PrivateSend technology properly and are focused only on the perceived potential negatives. I feel the problem is that DASH is on the defensive when it comes to private send, when in fact, regulators should consider making it a feature that all cryptocurrencies should have to ensure safety of the cryptocurrency user.
The positive reasons that also need to be in these government reports are:
DASH has PrivateSend to protect the physical security of the cryptocurrency holder. Unlike a bank, in which a third party holds their money securely, with cryptocurrency the holder of the coins themselves is responsible for the physical security of that money. The crypto holders main defence from being targeted by criminals is therefore the privacy that PrivateSend gives. PrivateSend creates the perfect balance between customer privacy and blockchain transaction transparency. It is therefore essential that nobody knows how much DASH they have in their wallets, if they do they could be a target to extortion or forced theft. e.g. If someone pays a regular bill, e.g their rent, to a landlord with cryptocurrency and they do not use private send, then their landlord can easily look up on a public block explorer exactly how much money they are holding in their wallets. If we take the hypothetical example where the landlord also just happens to be a criminal they not only know how much money their tenant has but they also potentially have access to the cryptocurrency holder's accommodation. If a person could be holding several million USD equivalent in their wallet that person could become a target of crime. If however they pay their rent with PrivateSend the landlord would not have any idea how much they have in their private wallet and the person is considerably safer. This is a hypothetical situation however the authorities need to understand that sending a transaction to someone without PrivateSend is like advertising their full bank details every time someone makes a bank payment. That is not acceptable in the current banking system, so why should it be acceptable with crypto?
Businesses spying on competitors Businesses paying and receiving funds in crypto would be open to scrutiny from competitors who could trace their contacts and partners through their transactions.
The next argument for Private send is that the EU has the GDPR requirements which include the right to modify or rectify data held by a third party that holds that data. Since DASH is a decentralised organisation the 3rd party could be perceived as the network. Therefore if an individual's privacy is compromised, e.g. someone makes a payment and a payee was to see the amount of money held in a crypto account, the user has the right under GDPR requirements to request that data to be deleted or modified to ensure their privacy. Blockchain, with an immutable record, cannot do that. However privacy could be maintained by using PrivateSend.
Fungibility: There is a common law (which may not apply in Japanese law but perhaps there is a similar principal) which states that if money is stolen by a thief or criminal and that money is then spent by the thief on a product or service provided by an innocent person, then, provided the person who accepted the money did so in good faith, it cannot be returned to the original owner from whom the money was stolen from. The same could be applied to cryptocurrency when it is used in a country the defines its use as money and not property. However, the problem with cryptocurrency is that the history of the coin could be traced and known and therefore it would lose its fungibility if it had been used in some criminal activity in an earlier point of time. You can read about how this law came about here:
https://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2016/01/what-makes-money-special-lawyers.html
DASH is aiming to be digital cash and therefore if a coin becomes tainted in some way then it could lose its fungibility and therefore its function as money . Dash's transparent mixing prevents loss of fungibility.
I feel that Governments and regulators need to understand the positive reasons for private send rather than them only focusing on the perceived negatives. We need to be educating and encouraging governments to enforce PrivateSend technology on all cryptocoins to ensure the safety of their users. Governments can still use specialist services such as cointracking to identify if the coins are associated with crime but the average person does not have access to this type of technology.
I feel DASH needs to move from the defensive to the offensive position regarding PrivateSend. We need governments and regulators to understand the very positive reasons for maintaining privacy but not anonymity that Dash private send offers.
I also think that we should start using terms like "Transparent mixing" rather than just "mixing" and we should be referring to DASH as "pseudonymous", rather than "anonymous".
Last edited:
